Slashdot Mirror


Virginia AG Probing Michael Mann For Fraud

eldavojohn writes "Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has requested receipts and research documents relating to nearly half a million dollars in state taxpayer money used to conduct climate change research at the University of Virginia while under direction of Michael Mann, originator of the famous 2001 IPCC Hockey Stick graph depicting rapid climate change. Mann appears to be a prime target for Cuccinelli — who has also requested hearings with the EPA to contest the grounds of their carbon dioxide studies. Mann's expenditures of taxpayer money may become problematic if Cuccinelli finds violations of Virginia's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Cuccinelli has been active in pushing conservative views in the past, including an effort to remove the titillating mammary from the beloved Great Seal of Virginia. No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change."

11 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. Woo, witchhunts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After the whole Climategate thing fizzled, I was wondering when some enterprising Republican in the US would take it upon himself to try to drum up some more bullshit. I guess after the guy was done making sure you can discriminate against the gays the way the good lord intended, Cuccinelli thought he'd move on to something that's a better use of the taxpayer's dollars.

    Yay Virginia!

    1. Re:Woo, witchhunts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll play your game.

      Let's set aside all rational thought for a moment and accept, just for the sake of argument, your ridiculous premise that homosexuality is a "behavioral decision".

      Now, explain to me why a person should be fired from their job at a university for something they may (or may not) do in the privacy of their own home, with a consensual partner. Explain the rational basis for firing someone for something that is completely unrelated to their job performance in any way, shape, or form.

      Let's put it in terms of other "behavioral decisions. Explain to me why it's okay to fire someone for being a smoker. Let's say that the person in question never smokes during work hours, or anywhere near the place of work. Let's say no one has ever smelled smoke on the person's breath or clothing. Basically, there is no way for anyone to know that this person is a smoker, except that one day you happen to stumble upon this fact. Maybe you saw him smoking outside of the workplace on the weekend. Maybe he just mentioned it to you in passing one day. Explain to me how it's okay to fire the person for that reason, and that reason alone.

      I eagerly anticipate your response.

  2. Pure trolling by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's pure trolling from Cuccinelli, he has not asked for the data (which is open) related to the papers in question, but ALL of Mann's e-mail with about 20 people.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/cuccinelli_is_using_the_law_to.php

  3. Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed by Barrinmw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Religion is a behavior, it's not something should be regulated like race and other innate attributes. I mean we don't want special legislation protecting people who are homo- or xenophobic.

  4. Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed by dangitman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being gay is a behavior,

    No it's not. One could "be gay" buy never have sex with another person of the same sex. Just as slashdotters can "be straight" and remain virgins.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  5. Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't let facts get in the way of your partisan hatred. All he did was point out that only the state legislature has the authority to mandate such policies.

  6. Re:It is very serious by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It also could have a chilling effect not only on other climate scientists, but even discouraging science students in even choosing a career in climate science.

    I suspect that's the plan, according to the article he's wanting documents from the period of 1999 - 2005, and it goes on to describe what's he's demanded be produced as:

    Among the documents Cuccinelli demands are any and all emailed or written correspondence between or relating to Mann and more than 40 climate scientists, documents supporting any of five applications for the $484,875 in grants, and evidence of any documents that no longer exist along with proof of why, when, and how they were destroyed or disappeared.

    I seriously, seriously doubt all the E-mail correspondence will still exist, we're talking about stuff that goes back 11 years. And when it does, and they can't prove "why, when and how" those E-mails were lost exactly, this asshole will claim it's all some giant cover-up. No matter what Mann and the UVA does they're going to lose here, because this isn't a legit investigation, it's a political witch-hunt pure and simple. McCarthy would be proud.

    This disgusts me greatly, I'm torn between being glad I'm not living in Virginia and wishing I was so I could raise holy hell at the waste of my tax dollars on political witch-hunts by this jerk. Maybe Virginia voters will wake up and demand an investigation into Cuccinelli's waste of their tax dollars under the same law he's abusing here.

  7. Re:Ken Cuccinelli by Goldsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accused and exonerated. Don't forget that little bit.

    IF the NSF review (it was their money) had shown that he had even simply violated ethical principles, then I could see a justification for a criminal investigation. This research has been through several reviews (and the reviews are now under review), and he's not been found guilty of anything.

    If AGs are out there bringing charges against scientists when scientific review boards claim nothing has been done wrong, then the system is broken. There's no purpose to having scientific review boards if politicians bring criminal charges against scientists doing research they don't like. In retrospect, it was nice that Bush just forbid funding for stem cell research. That was the correct way to use political tools to prevent research the politicians didn't want done. This current action is setting a precedent which is absolutely terrifying for a scientist. How do we know whether the research the government is paying us to do will piss someone off, or make the wrong person look bad and get us in court?

    Oh, and if you want a specific political reason for why he's doing this:
    He wants press.

  8. Re:His Official Policy on Homosexuality Is No Secr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to disprove Cuccinelli's belief that "homosexuality is wrong" and his apparent reinforcement that it moves him up the voting chain so the populace agrees.

    There are large portions of the population which (for whatever reason) don't want to support "gay rights".

    The goal then, should be to re-frame the argument in a way as to remove the government from areas which it doesn't belong (like defining marriage).
    Think of it this way, if the government had no concern for marriage and only "cared" about civil unions, what issue would it be what the sexes of the two parties are?

    You want to "marry" a man or woman or child or goat or rock (or a mix), that's between you and the church.
    Everything else is a contract, let the lawyers fight over it.

  9. Re:Non-peer Review by niiler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is everybody's job to get involved in politics in a democracy, whether they be scientists or no. And whereas we are all qualified to evaluate the merits of our politicians, there are very few of us who can evaluate the merits of science. In fact, it is often quite difficult to evaluate the merits of science outside of one's discipline.

  10. Re:His Official Policy on Homosexuality Is No Secr by Vintermann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The arguments for hate crime laws are not hard to understand.

    If a white man beats up another white man after he has been to the polling booth, that's bad for a lot of reasons. If a white man beats up a black man after he has been to the polling booth, that's bad for all the aforementioned reasons, but it could also be an attempt to scare other black people from voting. It's not just an attack on that man, it's an attack on his class/category. A person motivated by hate may take the normal punishment for such a crime, and still consider it a success if it worked as intended.

    Similar things would be attacks on gays in order to keep them in the closet, and from publicly defending their interests, attacks on muslim women who refuse to wear a veil, etc. Such attacks are already illegal for obvious reasons, but society believes (correctly, in my opinion) that commiting crimes in order to suppress minorities is especially bad, and deserving of extra sanction.

    The only issue I have with hate crime laws is if they are directed against particular groups only. It's not what kind of group it is that matters, but the intent of the suppressing act.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.