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."
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.
They're not all bad...I know that the judges at our local courthouse (which is less than a mile away from our apartment...keeps crime down:-)) vary greatly.
Living With a Nerd
Judges are not stupid, unlike a lot of people who think the Courts are an extension of the Political machine. People may appoint Judges for political reasons but they should never bow to those reasons.
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.
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.
True. But most self-proclaimed climate change skeptics are simply denialists.
Well stereotypes have survival value and when you consider that 99.99% of research and 100% of reputable research supports the conclusion that mans efforts at living the good life have effected the climate in such a way that polar ice caps are melting, storms are getting stronger and weather patterns changing. It will be funny to see Cuccinelli trying to get votes from those portions of Virginia like Hampton and Norfolk are as under sea level as New Orleans. Speaking of which they had better build those leevies higher down there.
There is no dispute certainly that there is global warming. The only dispute might be what percentage is due to man's activity. So arguing about who put the hole in the boat while your sinking seems to be counter productive. In this case it effects business, like who needs to add the cost to the planet for their business practices, or who might get sued over their business practices. So he might not be anti science, just pro-"Take the money and run"
The term "AGW skeptic" is a misnomer. Skepticism in the typical scientific or philosophical sense is about asking for evidence for claims. The problem with "AGW skeptics" is that evidence for AGW is plentiful and evidence against it is scant. Someone who refuses to accept evidence presented, no matter how scientifically sound the evidence is, is not a skeptic. The more accurate term is "AGW denier".
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
"deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW (or how significant it is), which is just not true-- hence why it is a theory. I would reserve the term denier for actual factual historical events, not theories which can never be more than theories.
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall what the difference between historical fact and scientific theory is, and whether theories can ever be exhaustively proven.
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.
I'm not for or against global warming, I just don't care. It's just a change, which has happened any number of times in (pre)history. Some land will become less useful to humans, some will become more useful; some species which can't adapt will die off, others will thrive. If burning fossil fuels is a cause, well, we're almost out of those anyway. Methane from cow farts?, beef can't sustain a growing global population anyway.
I hate that some people have turned it into a virtually religious issue, and intentionally refuse to consider that the possibility that it might not be happening, it probably is occuring, but to attach labels like 'deniers' (I have to think this is an attept to emotionally link it to the jewish holocaust, but I might be wrong.) and to attack the speaker of the idea, instead of the idea itself is just wrong. That AG is wrong to use his position to attack the scientist; and it's also wrong to label someone who dosn't think global warming is happening as a troll, idiot, or worse.
Talking about the weather used to be 'safe', but now it's infused with conspiracy nuts, scientific cranks, and irrational believers, ON BOTH SIDES.
No, to deny merely means to refuse to accept the claim regardless of what evidence has been put forward. The word makes not assumptions as to whether the claim is true or untrue. It's possible to disagree with AGW without being a denier, but such a person would be open to the possibility of it being accurate.
These people are certainly deniers. Their counter-claims have little validity (most have none and many are outright fabrications) and most of their arguments lately have been ad hominem attacks on the researchers. So far, I have yet to see one of them acknowledge the strength of the data or admit to having made a mistake when they were shown to be wrong. They're deniers, pure and simple.
Perhaps take the safe route and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Which brings up a more accurate point: while the "skeptics" may not all be anti-science, they definitely come across as anti-scientist.
Which is worse, saying we should believe everything scientists say, or being anti-scientist? Maybe neither, but there's definitely blind faith on both sides in this debate.
Also, good that the judge knocked the AG down.
Qxe4
But even when considering specific domain (like climate science), I disagree in that there is equivalence between trusting scientific community's consensus and discrediting it completely: positions are rather asymmetric. Especially when latter is not done by specific argumentation against consensus by presenting credible alternative theories; or providing reasons as to why such expertise should be discarded. Mostly arguments are along lines of "but you can't prove any of it!" or "it ain't necessarily so". It is ok to be sceptical, but over time one should produce some actual counter-proposals. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is necessary for court of law because of significant losses that convicting innocent people causes; but it is not the level that is needed for engineering efforts and society-level planning of environmental issues.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Which is not the case here. There's ample, extraordinary, proof that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. It's an elementary physics lab experiment that any college student in physics, chemistry, or a number of related subjects has performed. There's absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
If you claim that an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause global warming, then the burden of proof is on you alone.
So why are so many people saying that the boat is not taking on any water, or saying that until it's proven that it's taking on water we should take no action about it, or even if the boat is taking on water there's nothing we can do about it anyway? Why not take the safe cource of action and turn on a pump, any one? If it's later determined that it wasn't sufficient or that it was more than necessary, at least we took action.
Can you come up with a rational argument for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
IANAL, but i strongly suspect that an "open records request" is very different from a subpoena as part of an accusation of fraud. I could certainly understand a professor being, er, open to one and hostile to the other. The attitude/method of the person asking can certainly make a difference in the response.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is necessary for court of law because of significant losses that convicting innocent people causes; but it is not the level that is needed for engineering efforts and society-level planning of environmental issues.
When you're talking about changing the basis for the global economy, it is needed.
The research is open for all to see. It has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny, and yet no one can find that the scientific conclusions are unwarranted. Quite the opposite -- no matter how much the IPCC report and the CLU climate researchers are studied, no one can find fault with the science. As far as I can tell, not one scientific paper has been published that concludes that AGW is not happening. Saying that a judge denying a subpoena on the basis that no fraud was involved means there's a "liberal agenda" is grasping at straws.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Basically, your argument boils down to:
About your "running out of fossil fuels" argument:
We're running out for certain values of running out. Wikipedia says this about the proven reserves:
There is more than enough fossil fuels left to continue polluting the atmosphere for decades.
Beef can't sustain a growing global population, however this statement completely sidesteps the issue that methane from current beef production significantly contributes to global warming. Sadly, an increase in global population wouldn't change social structure. If there isn't enough food to go around the top 1-10% of society won't say "ah, fuck beef, let's eat something else instead!", but we'll (if you live in a western country with internet access that pretty much puts you in the top 10%) let the remaining 90% starve until the "growth problem solves itself".
That's a true, but incomplete statement. There is a lot more irrationality and pseudoscience going on on the denialist side, just as a lot more irrationality exists on the side of creationists, anti-vaccine campaigners or among the people who claim you can cure AIDS with beetroot.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
And given what has been known for many decades about the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2, it would indeed be extraordinary if we could increase CO2 by so much and not experience substantial changes in climate.
When you're talking about changing the basis for the global economy, it is needed.
Especially when it is unclear if these changes would actually do anything about the alleged "problem" in the first place.
Even some AGW advocates oppose the whole "carbon trading" idea.
Because the Sceptics have diluted and changed the meaning of the word sceptic.
We've relabelled them Deniers because that's what they are. They aren't interested in evaluating evidence and will cling to the tiniest error and use that as evidence that the science is wrong. A typical conversation between a scientist, sceptic and denier:
Scientist: Here is my publication with my results.
Sceptic: I'll need more proof, I want to replicate your experiments and get my own results.
Denier: You didn't dot an "i" on page 158, this report is a sham and all your so called "science" is wrong. You need to be forced out of the scientific community.
This is pretty much what the Climategate and IPCC controversies boiled down to, typo's and misinterpretations. Fortunately the real sceptics won in the end but not before the deniers did enough damage.
Side note, The Climate Skeptics party in the 2010 Australian election misspelled "Sceptic" (Skeptic = En_US, Sceptic = En_UK/En_AU) so it's little wonder they got 607 votes in total.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.