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
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?)
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.
He's abusing taxpayer money to fuel this religious right-wing witch hunt.
True. But most self-proclaimed climate change skeptics are simply denialists.
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
A far bigger story? How? A review panel finds that the UN's climate panel could be doing a better job but "...the way the United Nations panel goes about its work has 'been successful overall.'" That's big news?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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.
As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Yes. And when neither side has any, then what?
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.
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.
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.
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 "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".
Ok, but then you have to propose things that actually will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Banning nuclear power, and even LNG terminals really doesn't accomplish that goal.
Hint, natural gas comes off the top of oil wells. If the oil companies don't capture it and sell it, then they burn it off, and the extra reliance on coal burning because of it doesn't help things any, either.
Neither does Ethanol fuel help anyone but corn farmers.
Similarly "Carbon Offsets" mostly don't.
There is a raft of schemes and scams and wishful dreams out there that people are screaming, "We have to do something, and this is something, therefore we have to do this," that will ruin us if we fall for them.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation
LOL. Yeah, that's extraordinary in elementary school.
If we were dealing with a jar in a lab you would have my vote.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps take the safe route and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
Nice, but it's probably too late already.
The following is based on current estimates, subject to revision etc etc. A 2C average global temperature increase will lead to runaway warming due to permafrost melt and warmer oceans that absorb less CO2. Current emissions will lead to that value occurring around 2030.
To avoid that we would need to start cutting current global emissions by about 2%/year starting next year, down from +3% recent growth. That would make the warming curve top out at less than 2C.
There is no chance a US plan for such reduction will be put in place this year. Maybe by 2015 or so at which time the cuts would have to be more like 5 or 6%/year, down from 3% growth.
No economy can change it's mix of energy use by 9% net a year. So we are going to blow right by the runaway threshold, it's already done.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
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.
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.
Still no reason not to look at the problem and try to do our best. Who knows, perhaps the threshold is a little more flexible than thought, or we can come up with solutions that would make it more easy to reduce the carbon dioxide (and other gases) output. I, for one, will be reducing my share by eating 70% less meat per week, as indicated by http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat.html
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
No one has disallowed publication of papers inconsistent with AGW. O'm not stick my fingers in my ears. I have asked several times in this very thread for evidence that AGW is not happening or why we should not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and no one can seem to come up with anything. Where on Earth do you get this nonsense about the sun having no effect on Earth's climate? It's bunk!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"The review panel suggested that the climate panel make predictions only when solid scientific evidence was in place."
Read this over and over until you get it ... it says that up till now, the IPCC has NOT made predictions solely based on Scientific Method, but also based on the whims and alterior motives of politicians, journalists, and anyone willing to swear "it was the warmest day this year".
If that is your definition of "successful", then I'd rather they failed.
Perhaps you dont do anything unless you have actual proof?
Those are fantasy guestimates, NOT estimates.
Trumped up numbers with no basis in imperial data whatsoever.
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.
Where on Earth do you get this nonsense about the sun having no effect on Earth's climate? It's bunk!
No it's not bunk, not any more. I can't believe anybody reading slashdot doesn't know that oracle bought sun.
To be fair, there must be some residual effect still on earth's climate, but I'm sure that's negligible.
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.
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.
I did not use the term "successful", it was the review panel. Perhaps you should read that "over and over until you get it".
Besides, the article you linked to does not contain the quote you cite.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
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.