Slashdot Mirror
Judge Quashes Subpoena of UVA Research Records
esocid writes "An Albemarle County Circuit Court judge has set aside a subpoena issued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the University of Virginia seeking documents related to the work of climate scientist and former university professor Michael Mann. Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli can investigate whether fraud has occurred in university grants, as the attorney general had contended, but ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena failed to state a 'reason to believe' that Mann had committed fraud. He also set aside the subpoena without prejudice, meaning Cuccinelli can rewrite it to better explain why he wants to investigate, but seemed skeptical about the underlying claim of fraud. The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic who had maintained he was investigating whether Mann committed fraud in seeking government money for research that showed the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann, now at Penn State University, worked at U-Va. until 2005. 'The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann's work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,' Peatross wrote. The ruling also limited Cuccinelli to asking about only one of the five grants issued, which was the only one using state funds."
Interesting.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
If this is not a political prosecution, I don't know what is. As a Virginia taxpayer, I don't mind politicians bloviating, but I don't like them chewing up public resources to do so.
OH NO, what shall he do now.
Attacking climate change was his stepping stone to national prominence...
His life is ruined, ruined I tell you.
Cuccinelli is trying to use professor Mann as a political piñata to further his career. I'd shit in my hat if I thought for one second Cuccinelli gave a rat's ass about science (except for how science affects the teaching of evolution in schools).
... just that trying to silence a scientist just because he doesn't agree with his findings shouldn't be a top priority for politicians (such as those in Cuccinelli's position).
If a climatologist is the biggest fish on Cuccinelli's radar then he needs to take a closer look at local problems that directly affect his constituents. I'm not saying global warming wouldn't directly affect his constituents
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501582.html
Seriously, Cuccinelli is a total asshole.
Naturally, I expect this to be modded to oblivion by people with the same affiliation.
Naturally. Just as you mod people down that don't agree with you. In this very thread!
It appears that Ken Cuccinelli is a partisan hack who's using his position as Attorney-General primarily to advance right-wing interests, and thus further his own political ambitions.
Last week he was going after abortion clinics.
This week it's Michael Mann.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If the word "skeptic" is supposed to be pejorative, the subject must be religion and not science.
Why should a public funded university not have to respond to such requests? Why, if I were to file a FOIA request for the same data would it be denied? My tax money has paid for it, I have every right as I do to FOIA the video tapes of a traffic stop.
As such a website that so often cries for "free information" - it is amusing to see "zomg good!" due to the motivations behind the request and why it was denied.
I don't care for politicians on political witch hunts. The resources of the state are virtually infinite and it is easy to get to the wrong answer by brute forcing a case. But I also don't like the fact that every time there is the slightest bit of good news on the warmist side it appears instantly on every forum and news site on the planet. But if I post any thing contrary I get modded down to -5 in seconds. That kind of abuse of the system is just as bad. This was a far bigger story today and not a peep about it. Link
Well, an argument often seen here on Slashdot is that "correlation does not imply causation".
However, correlation is a good argument for further studies on causation. And there's a very strong correlation between being a global warming skeptic and having a strong anti-science and pro-creationist stance.
He's abusing taxpayer money to fuel this religious right-wing witch hunt.
True. But most self-proclaimed climate change skeptics are simply denialists.
If you deny an alternate explanation for climate fluctuations in the 20th century is possible, what does that make you?
The judge ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena didn't include sufficient reason to suspect fraud. Cuccinelli is allowed to rewrite his subpoena if he wants to. Quit seeing liberal conspiracy where there is only conservative stupidity.
It comes down to suing researchers out of existance if their results conflict with a political stance
This is beyond scary, it is a sign of America moving from a world leader in research to a has-been backwater
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Dude, that stuff you've been smoking is AWESOME!
Which linear transformation was that?
If it was put through a PCA then it has undergone a dimensionality reduction, which means the irrelevant parameters were sorted out and the true cause of global warming was found. I think that's pretty good.
Huh? You mean any data set that has 6 dB/octave noise will prove global warming? I don't think so. I have never seen any global warming in the inter-channel noise in my FM radio.
Excuse me, but if you check my /. ID you'll notice I've been here since the last century. I hope I'm seasoned enough for you. Also, having been an Electronics Engineer since 1979 (both seasoned and educated), I fail to see any way to recreate warming trends by adding brownian noise to any data set.
What I know from my technical education is that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation, therefore atmospheric warming is an expected effect of burning fossil fuels. The burden of proof definitely falls on anyone who claims the contrary.
Before asking for the raw data that proves global warming, I ask for both the raw data and analysis of those who are skeptic about AGW. As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
A skeptic. At least until your alternate explanation is even remotely plausible.
I don't see anyone denying that an alternative explanation is possible. Climatologists make the statement that the observed warming is most likely due to increased concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In that statement is the very admission of an alternative explanation, otherwise they would say that they are 100% sure that the warming is due mostly to increased greenhouse gasses. If you have some evidence that something else is causing most of the warming, please don't keep it a secret!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Let's see what does "skeptic" mean:
- someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
- someone who demands physical evidence in order to be convinced (especially when this demand is out of place)
Okay, "skeptic" shouldn't be pejorative.
Now let's see who are the true skeptics. It's a well known fact (accepted even by skeptics who took the effort to do the experiments) that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Therefore, physical evidence is there.
If you doubt it, you can do the experiment in your kitchen table: get two clear plastic bottles and two calibrated thermometers. Use some vinegar and baking soda to generate CO2 in one of the bottles, let the other be filled only by pure air. Seal the bottles, put them in sunshine, watch the temperatures in both.
Now, if a group of people accept the belief that an increased CO2 content in the atmosphere does not cause global warming, the true skeptic will doubt that. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
I knew a guy in college who was a gravity skeptic. We were discussing the repeatable nature of science, and he said, "No, just because it's repeatable doesn't mean it's predictable." I slapped the giant pile of books and notebooks out of his hand. "See? Gravity works."
He shot back, "Just because you're pointing to one instance..."
Skepticism ends at some point. Skepticism ends when you get answers like, "The reason why WTC7 went down was because of damage from a large chunk of another building hitting it" or "All the evidence points to global warming" or "Obama was born in Hawaii and is currently a Christian." Skepticism doesn't continue after getting answers you don't like. That's paranoia and delusional thinking.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
As a professor who has supplied documents on many open records request. If you've done nothing wrong, why fight it? I have never quibbled over giving documents or emails. I've given CD's with years of emails to fulfill requests. If y0u work for a state institution or on a government grant, they are public documents. The only thing I would fight would be FERPA protected data.
So transpanency rules except when it has to deal with global warming. Wikileaks is to be honored, yet research records concerning global warming should be protected from the public eye at all costs. Makes perfect sense. I can't stand right wingers, but the blatant liberal agenda is just as nausiating.
So "natural variation", explaining as it does all climate fluctuations for the entire history of the planet, is not in your view remotely plausible? I find that view quite astounding.
No.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless there's a reasonable cause to suspect a law has been broken, and unless that cause is proved by oath (meaning that if the oath is false whoever made it is guilty of perjury) no investigation at all can be initiated by any government agent.
This is the God of the Gaps argument in scientific terms. Is there a satisfactory explanation for the medieval warm period, or the Roman Optimum? If not, does that mean it was AGW? It seems to me that for you any explanation, no-matter how implausible, is better than saying "we don't know".
Random variation as an explanation is currently outside of the 95% confidence interval, and quickly approaching the 99% confidence interval. In layman terms, this particular variation seems very extreme. Even so, if we had no other reasonable explanations I would think random variation was probable. But we do have other persuasive explanations.
Add that in with the fact that climate change was predicted before the data pointed to current warming and you have to start wondering why anyone is doubting man-made global warming at all, besides for scientific rigor of course.
tl;dr If your blackjack dealer gets 21 ten hands in a row, and keeps shuffling under the table, it is time to call security.
This is the only post on here that is relevant to the subject and not just repetion of the skeptics are lolz line.
There's a mountain of evidence that increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses are causing the warming. The warming was predicted nearly 100 years before it happened. Now you're saying that because there's no other explanation for the warming it means we've all just been guessing all along, and there really isn't any evidence at all?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Wow, a blast from the past--a rerun of the classic creationist objection to evolution: "It's only a theory."
Of course it's true. The only facts are direct observations. All scientific generalizations and explanations are "only" theory. So don't worry about driving off that cliff--gravity is only a theory.
How can the University of Virginia have standing to sue? They are government supported therefore they have nothing to hide and no right to privacy. They should comply with all subpoenas.
He is right, you can never prove that gravity will work 100%. All you can do is assert that fact with a level of certainty. In the case of gravity, we can say somewhere in the 99.9999999999999999% confidence level that it will continue to function. And that's good enough for most applications.
Qxe4
Repeal the second law of thermodynamics you bastards!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
No mod points, or I'd do it.
Depends on the reason. If the alternate explanation is evident bullshit, which it is in most cases, then I suppose it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the one who denies the possibility of it.
Of course, to make a pronouncement on the probability that a scientific proposition is true you need to use Bayesian probability. In Bayesian probability the result is subjective and depends on the prior probability distribution. As a matter of fact, if your prior before going through the evidence assigns 100 % probability to the idea that gravity is caused by fluffy bunnies, then your posterior probability after properly accounting for all evidence is the same as the prior. Thus we can conclude that all propositions are equally valid conclusions, subject to your prior probability distribution, which can be nothing else than subjective.
The question isn't whether some warming has occurred, the question is whether that warming is outside of the range of natural variation, and whether the warming will be accelerated at some point in the future by positive feedback. There is evidence that the feedback must be negative (the first of it from intuition, the second from recent papers by people like Spencer). There is evidence that the current warming is not outside of the range of natural variation (I mentioned the Roman Optimum and the MWP previously). In the face of these doubts, the confidence intervals on graphs of those who promote catastrophe are somewhat meaningless.
In order for a body of knowledge to count as a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. Wherever I write about AGW, nobody is prepared to propose a fact that would falsify AGW. This should be somewhat concerning for anyone who's interested in the integrity of the scientific method, as it implies a lack of rigour.
If I smacked his books and it went up, instead of down, sure. Tracking the specific course it took into the mud would've been a difficult and uncertain gesture, but, but I know the general vector it was going to take.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
All you know is there have been billions of tests with the same result. That is fairly conclusive, but it is not 100% proof still.
Qxe4
I initially read that as "As a Vagina Taxpayer" and thought, so you're married and what does that have to do with the topic at hand.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Northern Virginia has some of the worst traffic in this country. He is wasting my tax dollars with this witch hunt. Good bye.