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."
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!
Great...
Definitely the beginning of the end when science is evaluated by non-scientists (or bought/paid for court "expert witnesses").
*insert pithy sig here*
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
Maybe someone should sue Cuccinelli for fraud. After all, this sounds like a waste of taxpayer money if I've ever heard of one.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
This is but one of many shenanigans the new Virginia AG is involved in.
sPh
Even if the investigation comes up empty, as I expect it will, it could have a very damaging effect upon Mann's career. 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.
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.
it is a great day for economic development in DC and Maryland, who is going to locate a scientific research institution or bio-technology business in Virginia with this going on?
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.
The scientists and academics allowed themselves to become political;
What does that even mean? All science has political implications. That doesn't mean the researchers are doing it for politics, and it certainly doesn't warrant government harassment of scientists. There had better be a damn good reason and some solid evidence of malfeasance before such "probing" is initiated.
... and then they built the supercollider.
"Because if he's not, and Mann DID commit some sort of fraud, any and all AGW claims will be blown to smithereens."
Even if we assume that Mann bribed all scientists reviewing his work, killed Kennedy and in fact is a reincarnation of Hitler (pre-emptive Godwining) - it won't change ANYTHING.
Mann's papers are just several of many thousands, written by different teams from various parts of the world with different methodologies and data sources used.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
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.
'Global warming' -- sorry, I forgot, it became 'climate change' when the planet stopped warming
I guess the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing because we don't allow enough logging to keep the trees in check, and a northwest passage is opening up because we tolerate too many whales.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well, for what it's worth, Michael Mann and a few others contribute regularly to the arguably political website known as Real Climate, a website which isn't exactly known to allow dissenting views.
By their own words, the site was organized to provide immediate spin/response (you pick) to media stories on the subject of AGW... much like any other environmental organization does for topics that relate to their own specific causes... organizations that most folks do not hesitate to label as political in nature.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Its better to test these claims in front of a court than to listen to the defamation of sciene much longer. Much easier to defend yourself there.
Probably because it is politicizing science regardless of the merits. The way science operates is not generally by having attorneys general investigating the merits of scientific papers. If something was wrong or fraudulent, that's a job for journal editorial staff and university misconduct boards to sort out.
Similarly, it'd be correctly considered "politicizing science" if democrats launched a fraud investigation of a libertarian economist, regardless of whether that economist did or didn't fabricate evidence. The attorney general is just not the right person to do it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I thought it failed because the poorest third were angry that they weren't going to be guilt-tripping the developed third into propping them up through international welfare.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened.
Not a matter of "YOU BROWN FOLK STAY POOR". We drove our car through standing water and it flooded, killed our car, we've got a mess on our hands. We're waving our arms shouting "Look if you go this way, global warming. Bad shit. Go around the long way. It's harder, but if we had known about this shit we'd be going that way too".. meanwhile the third world refuses to understand what we're saying, and instead are just preoccupied with the fact that we went right through the high water and now they have to go around. ... but more than that, what they REALLY want is just reparations from the industrialized world. Nothing like a big fat annual check for never managing to get a working competitive economy in order.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Excuse me, but why would it? There's information that has scientific credibility and there's stuff that isn't. I would expect a site like Real Climate to post what is generally thought by real scientists to be accurate, not publish "dissenting positions" for the sake of "balance".
Balance can mean a lot of things, but when balance is advocated for balances sake, to the point that for every truthful statement, a lie must be told as well, then it serves nobody, and is utterly unethical to engage in.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually, Cuccinelli wasn't "appointed" as attorney general—he was elected. He defeated Democrat Steve Shannon by a huge margin. We chose to have this guy as AG, and it wasn't even close. Any informed voter should have known what they were getting into with Cuccinelli. He's really, really far right, and he's never hid it. It doesn't speak well of Virginia.
Have you actually read the opinion? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/Cuccinelli.pdf
He's telling the public universities that, in his opinion, they don't have the authority to have those sorts of policies unless specifically authorized by the General Assembly. Previous AGs have said the same thing. Part of his job is to provide legal advice, which is exactly what he did.
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.
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.
Another tidbit is also likely explains why I get moderated to hell is that many mental illnesses also show up on MRIs. Which suggests diseases such as sociopaths and psychopaths, among many others, are not actually diseases. You can't have it both ways. If you follow the logical conclusion, either these are not diseases or they are
How do you figure that? The root cause of something does not determine whether it is or is not a disease. For example, a bacterial infection and gut flora both have the same root cause, but one is a disease and the other is normal, as the former is harmful and the latter is typically beneficial or at least neutral.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Just to add a little to your response. At best - yes I've read the actual studies myself - genetics and biology account for about 20% of the variance in homosexuality (and about 50% of studies find that genetics is a significant factor in homosexuality and 50% do not). In other words, even assuming that studies that show a significant biological contributor to homosexuality (that also assumes that biology predated the attitudes/feelings/behaviors) that either biological factors that we do not understand yet or, more likely, psychosocial factors are responsible for one being homosexual.
This means that things in people's lives - choices they made or things that happened to them and how they reacted to those things - are mainly responsible for homosexuality. Biology plays a role, just as it does in just about everything, but it is not the main "cause" (if we want to use that word) of homosexuality.
If anyone wants citations, I can look them up. Just respond to this post and I'll get back to you.
The opinion is remarkably poor legal advice, as it fails to account for the relevant differences between local governments and universities and does not speak to the general grants of authority given to Virginia universities to craft their own rules.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
I'd rather correct you:
The AG's job regarding legal advice is to provide it in response to requests from state institutions. In this case, I believe, nobody asked him - he just decided that it was in his political interest to create the opinion from his reading of the laws.
He's - if I can borrow the term - legislating from the AG's office. I'd rather he go back to prosecuting people who harm society by breaking the law. (We'll, I'd rather he leave office. Steve Shannon is no great shakes, but I voted for him as a way to vote against this kind of activism).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The same AG who changed the Virginia state seal to cover up a breast. The same state seal designed by George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/cuccinelli-opts-more-modest-state-seal
Well, yes, that is flamebait. Global warming was politicized long before Al Gore came along - however his success pushed it into the area of public conversation, and then it because more recognizable to a lot of people.
While I don't claim this piece is unbiased, it is _very_ informative on the politics behind global warming campaigning. It's also quite a few years old and possibly out of date, but certainly enlightening nonetheless. I recommend you have a look.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
Now back to our regular topic, which has nothing at all to do with any of this post...
.
Survival of the fittest family or tribe. It can be beneficial to have some members of the group who do not have children but instead help raise others children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Another tidbit is also likely explains why I get moderated to hell is that many mental illnesses also show up on MRIs. Which suggests diseases such as sociopaths and psychopaths, among many others, are not actually diseases. You can't have it both ways.
Hmmm...no. IANANS but I would say that sociopathy and psycopathy are referred to as "illnesses" or "diseases" because there are direct links between these conditions and extremely negative behaviour, i.e. violence. Homosexuality, on the other hand, results in a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, with extremely few, if any negative effects to society. You cannot compare them. I don't think you get modded down because your views are morally objectionable, or because of a politically correct under-current. I think you are modded down because you don't make sense.
You seem to be saying that the only two possible conclusions are that either everything that is detectable by MRI is a disease or that nothing detectable by MRI is a disease. This. Makes. No. Sense. You say "If you follow the logical conclusion..." and then abandon logic. The preference for banana milkshake over chocolate milkshake will likely one day be discernible on an MRI scan, if not already. Should we then say that because expression of a preference for a kind of milkshake over another is detectable by MRI and is clearly not a disease, that sociopathy is also not a disease?
tl;dr My point of view: Without too deep an inquiry into the definition of "disease", a variation in "brain chemistry" is not necessarily a "disease" however the effects of brain chemistry *may* be called a disease.
No matter, by framing your arguments as science, criticising sociopathic CEOs and alluding to down-moderation in the past, you've stolen some "Insightful" mod-points. Well played.
A very large percentage of the population around the world happens to agree with him. (I dont, personally, but they are clearly the majority around the world.)
However you do NOT have to convince them otherwise in order to convince them that gays should not be legally persecuted. You just have to convince them that the entire subject is outside of the proper purvue of the government to begin with, generally a much easier argument.
Of course, if what you want is not to simply put gay people on an even playing field legally, but you really want to give them special privileges instead, no argument is going to work with these people. Or with me either, for that matter. "Hate crime" legislation is dangerous nonsense. If violent crimes are not being dealt with properly, that is an issue to be dealt with across the board, but we should never have a law that imposes a heavier penalty for assaulting a member of a 'protected class' differently than an assault on any other citizen, and we also should insofar as at all possible avoid defining crimes by ultimately unknowable mental states of the aggressors, rather than simply by their actions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
No. If it is scientific fraud, then normaly the colleagues would complain (as it happened with those high profile frauds like Jan Hendrik Schön or Hwang Woo-Suk). If it is financial fraud, normally the finance departement of the university would complain. If someone from outside calls it fraud and starts an investigation, it always sounds like politics.
The problem is the politicization of science.
Consulting the electorate can be an effective way of arriving at some consensus on issues that cannot be easily answered scientifically. For example, should we spend more money on roads and infrastructure, or defense, or health care, or something else? Should we allow abortions, or file sharing? Analyses based on good information can provide some insight into how effective a particular idea might be, what problems are most urgent. Scientific studies are not perfect (what is?), but much better to base decisions on that than blind guessing or gut instinct. Technological advances provide more options. But none of this can make our decisions for us. We have to do that. And we should decide such matters ourselves, not demand that science provide all the answers.
Some politicians just don't understand that. These dim witted ones are wont to treat scientific studies as if they are political opponents or allies. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. They cast aspersions on the data, which is so pointless. Check the data, don't try to beat it up with innuendo! That's like doubting that there were ever baseball players with .400 batting averages, just because. Compare to other data, don't just indulge in baseless speculation. If necessary, have new data collected. That's all that need be done. Such a waste of time and effort and money to invoke politics on issues that can be settled with information. Politics should be reserved for larger issues, for the hard questions.
But instead, they run away from facts. They persist in thinking we don't really know much. when we actually do know a great deal more than they imagine. They indulge in the sin of denial. They want things that are demonstrably not true to be true, act as if they are true, and act as if everyone, including good scientists, does the same thing. Even as they use the fruits of scientific and technological advancements that are all around us, things such as cars, planes, plastics, medicines, phones, computers, TVs, and much, much more, they manage, incredibly, to convince themselves science is just bull. And that scientists are nothing more than high grade fakers. These idiot politicians turned armchair scientists are worse, much worse, than the people second guessing the decisions of coaches of professional sport teams.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.
"It's been interesting to hear the narrative pushed at you from the wingnuts, you mean? Because the first notable paper on global warming, by Plass in 1956, was called “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change”."
Personally, in these cases I refer them to Svante Arrhenius, who had calculated that doubling CO2 level raises temperature by 4-5C. In 1908.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm