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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
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
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
I wouldn't say so. I personally am not big on AGW simply because too many of the scientists we have seen for it have a serious "we don't have to show data to riff raff" attitude, and to me that is the opposite of science. Scientists, those that I consider "real" scientists anyway, like Einstein, were happy to show you their work. Hell I'm sure Hawking would probably bury you alive in data if asked. That to me is what made science great, in that it doesn't require faith or belief in an individual or individuals. A true scientist, and I hate to use a FLOSS analogy but that is all I can think of ATM, wants you to find the "bugs" because they are concerned with finding the answers not pushing an agenda one way or another.
So I would say, while being an atheist and VERY pro science, that I am an AGW skeptic, simply because way too many in the AGW camp have this "You are for us or you are a (insert truther, denier, other derogatory name)" which is to me the exact opposite of how true science is supposed to work. I shouldn't have to take their word for anything because the data should be out there for all. That's my feelings on the subject anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.