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."

Comments

Good

[mbone]

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.

Re:Good

[mangu]

the argument could be made, it just wasn't on the warrant, to investigate the use of the one grant.

Is the Virginia Attorney General qualified to do that investigation?

A public officer needs to have some basis for any investigation he starts. Unless he has the proper scientific qualifications, or has received reliable information from an expert in the field, anything he does is nothing but political pressure.

And you have no clue if it's politicians bloviating with public resources or not until something is found or nothing is found

Unless something is found, it's the Virginia Attorney General who must prove he had cause to start that investigation. If he didn't have anything concrete, then he's at least guilty of wasting the state's resources.

Re:Good

[TapeCutter]

"until something is found or nothing is found."

As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared. This is just another politically motivated fishing expedition amoungst the constant stream of FOI requests, death threats, and political investigations he and his team are subjected to on a daily basis.

We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.

Re:Good

[sumdumass]

We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.

Actually, I've pretty much ignored this situation until this story posted and I saw people who don't know the difference between an investigation and a prosecution makes claims that aren't substantiated by the currently known facts.

Your right, I probably would be objecting to this in any other venue except for the fact that court rejected the search because the reason wasn't on it warrant. If the AT doesn't provide another with a valid reason that stands against attempts to invalidate it, I will be be making the claims you suggest I would be. However, until that happens or that it becomes apparent that it isn't happening, I'm simply remaining neutral on this and that includes telling idiots that investigations does not equal prosecutions and they don't know any reasons because one wasn't given which is why the ruling was the way it was.

Way to ruin somebody's career.

[kenaaker]

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.

Re:Way to ruin somebody's career.

[garyisabusyguy]

Maybe he can sue reality for not conforming to his imagination

Politics And Science Don't Mix

[WrongSizeGlass]

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).

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 ... 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).

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[the gnat]

It is interesting (and very bigoted of you) to assume anyone who is a AGW skptic is anti-science and pro-intelligent design.

I realize that this isn't universally true, but I've noticed a large overlap - specifically, the vast majority of creationists appear to be "AGW skeptics", and they are certainly anti-science, and very militant about it. When I see the cretins from the Discovery Institute reading from the same script as the anti-AGW crowd, I'm naturally suspicious of the latter. This may seem unfair to you, but it's no more unfair than accusing climate scientists of wanting to force society back to a pre-industrial state.

Which brings up a more accurate point: while the "skeptics" may not all be anti-science, they definitely come across as anti-scientist.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[bunratty]

They're no more anti-scientist than the conservatives who are skeptical of the theory of relativity. Oh, I see. I guess you do have a point. I wonder what they'll be "skeptical" of next...

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[LordLimecat]

"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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[Kaenneth]

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[CheshireCatCO]

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[sumdumass]

Wow.. 99.99% of all research and 100% of all reputable research, that's amazing. Where can I find out more about these outrageously large or inflated values? Are you sure you aren't just suffering from selection bias or something? Perhaps the old saying that goes something like 80% of all percentages are made up on the spot?

So arguing about who put the hole in the boat while your sinking seems to be counter productive.

Ahh,, I get it now, you simply do not understand the argument. It's not about who put the hole in the boat, it's about where the whole is, how it was created which indicates a little about how can be plugged or if it even needs to be plugged, and if we are actually sinking or just taking on water. And no, just because you are standing in water doesn't mean you are taking on water in a boat. It could be water from the fresh water source or the piss running down you leg from being scared.

In my speed boat, there is a plug at the very back of it that allows water to completely drain from it. There is also a bilge pump installed in two separate locations. This means that yes, the boat is designed to take on water and deal with it. But as long as you deal with it, you are not sinking. So the question becomes do you turn on one pump? Which one? Both pumps? Or neither pump and just open the drain plug while going full throttle. Or do you do nothing until it gets worse and the answer to those questions become more obvious.

And of course, I have used all 5 of those answers at some point in time. If AGW and Global warming was as simple as you attempt to make it, it would be obvious to everyone, not just the believers.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[jfengel]

to attack the speaker of the idea, instead of the idea itself is just wrong.

It's just turnabout. Every time you talk with a denier, sooner or later they will accuse scientists of either deliberate deception for personal gain, or abject stupidity. I have never, not once, met one whose argument did not fundamentally rest on one of those two options.

When faced with such an argument, no amount of rational persuasion is going to be effective. When faced with somebody prone to consider such an argument, showing them papers and math is never going to be effective. It has passed out of the bounds of science, and into rhetoric.

That's unfortunate. And for rational, coherent, genuinely skeptical people, you don't have to go there; it's a matter of science. For everybody else, it's a matter of politics, which scientists are well advised to stay away from, except that they too have to live with the results.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[Doomdark]

I don't think many claim people should believe everything scientists say. It would be silly, too, since unlike various movements, scientists as a group do not really have much of coherent message -- not more than a herd of cats.

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[phantomfive]

Then listen to this one. It isn't like the science is settled (of course, some of it is). As he says,

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

You don't have to present a false choice between the Discovery Institute and 'scientists.'

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[budgenator]

The Annals of Applied Statistics is publishing a paper, A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?(McShane and Wyner 2010) that says things like.
"On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. "
"Consequently, the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood to be a feature of regression and less a reflection of our knowledge of the truth."
"Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. "
"The real proxies are less predictive than our ”fake” data. "
which to me sounds about as close to call Mann a baldfaced liar as your going to hear in a professional journal. The gauntlet has slapped Mann in the face, his response will be interesting.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[bunratty]

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?

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[phantomfive]

Counter-proposals like what? That the receding sea ice is caused in large part by reduced cloud coverage? Or that the glacier retreats on Kilimanjaro are caused by deforestation? Or that a difference of a degree probably isn't enough to discern any trend from anyway? Just because you haven't looked for alternate explanations doesn't mean they aren't there.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[Raenex]

"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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[TapeCutter]

""deny" implies that there is no shadow of a question about the factuality AGW"

No, "deny" implies the denier is unwilling to participate in the normal scientific process. It's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I don't believe you". The denier often does not have a competing theory let alone a better one, does not comprehend the current theory, and refuses to apply his "skepticisim" to his own ideas.

The above applies honest deniers, however (as with high profile historical deniers) I find that most high profile AGW deniers are not that honest, they are expert propogandists motivated by politics and/or money. If you doubt this then look up any anti-AGW group in the US and determine their geographical distance from K street. Most, if not all, are within a one mile radius.

If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall that observations of natural phenomena are facts, the difference between those fact and historical facts is that the former are repeatable. One such fact is that CO2 converts IR radiation into atmospheric heat.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Basically, your argument boils down to:

Hey, I bumped my car into a wall once with 3mph. If I do that at mach 3, totally the same thing!.

About your "running out of fossil fuels" argument:

If burning fossil fuels is a cause, well, we're almost out of those anyway.

We're running out for certain values of running out. Wikipedia says this about the proven reserves:

* Coal: 148 years
* Oil: 43 years
* Natural gas: 61 years

There is more than enough fossil fuels left to continue polluting the atmosphere for decades.

Methane from cow farts?, beef can't sustain a growing global population anyway.

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".

Talking about the weather used to be 'safe', but now it's infused with conspiracy nuts, scientific cranks, and irrational believers, ON BOTH SIDES.

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[TapeCutter]

The term denier probably is a link to the holocaust. In all likelyhood it's because the main anti-AGW proponents are using similar propoganda methods. If we take their advise and continue to burn the known coal reserves over the next 100-200yrs then we will have a change similar to the prehistoric vulcanisim event that turned the oceans acidic and wiped out 90% of extant species. Such a significant change could be seen as a global gas chamber, it would take millions of years for the biosphere to recover and would have a much greater effect on humanity than the gas chambers of the second second world war.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[tgibbs]

The funny thing is that the paper ends up with a hockey stick that doesn't look that different from Mann's.

Here's some discussion about what that paper does and does not show

"The real proxies are less predictive than our ”fake” data. "
which to me sounds about as close to call Mann a baldfaced liar as your going to hear in a professional journal.

Actually, Mann was trying to do something that had never been done before, pulling together indirect data from a wide variety of sources to get an idea global climate history. Very rarely is the groundbreaking work on a scientific problem absolutely perfect--usually there are errors and omissions that are corrected in subsequent work. But that doesn't make the pioneer a liar. Both Mann and others have improved upon Mann's original methods, but his general conclusions have held up pretty well over the years. For example, a 2006 peer-review by the National Research Council of the US National Academies concluded,

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[tgibbs]

The result was that if you put any red noise through Mann's filters you get identical data. Basically it is all a con

Actually, you don't. You can get it to turn up a bit at the end, but nobody has managed to reproduce the magnitude of Mann's hockey stick blade with red noise. So if you think that, you have yourself been the victim of a con. Reanalysis using other methods still yields a hockey stick. That's why the 2006 NRC peer review ended up concluding

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[cbeaudry]

Come across as anti-scientists?

WTF for, because they dont agree with fuzzy conclusions, based on faulty computer models.
Or because the dont agree with the tampered data?

What is anti-science about ASKING FOR THE RESEARCH AND NOT THE RESULTS.

Get your head out of your behind and smell the arrogance.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[sumdumass]

It could also be that despite all observations, measurements and calculations, earth could still be flat, and no more than 5000 years old.

It could be, but somehow I doubt it. Of course starting your comment off like this, I'm left wondering if your just another troll from the church of global warming.

But it still makes more sense to base one's actions on more commonly held estimates for shape and age of said planet. And specifically regarding global warming, actions taken to reduce human co2 output are also good more generally since other local and global pollutants are reduced nicely by most actions. Burning non-renewable fossil fuels is also beneficial outside context of co2 emissions.

Sure, if you want to do that, go right ahead. The problem people have which is also why they want more answers then what is being provided is when you take your initiative and not only force it onto them, but onto the manufacturers and suppliers they rely on to live their lives, which end up causing inflation of the prices of their products. In other words, we want more then a hippy saying It's the right thing to do man, just after taking another bong hit. You seriously can't even answer the question of if eliminating all man made Co2 production tomorrow would change anything. The best you can do is say you think it might or it sounds like a good idea.

This is why we need to know what type of hole is in the boat, where it's located, and is killing ourselves the best way to fix it. And yes, if we ended all man made production of Co2 right now, people would die. Thankfully, no one is even remotely being serious about stopping all man made Co2 immediately which is something else to consider. If they aren't, then why not? I mean Kyoto wanted to freeze human causes of Co2 production in wealthy countries to 1990 levels but allow it to increase unregulated in poorer countries. This is why there has been a boom in China and India and certain South American countries- regulated countries sought to outsource their industries in order to meet their guidelines.

Still, the most important thing that is missing from "non-believers" (quotes, because I don't consider this a matter of faith or beliefs as much as many others do) is just that there is lack of credible alternate theories. This is suspiciously similar to stances of creationists: the main focus is no denying the main credible scientific theory, pointing at found or alleged holes, instead of trying to come up with better explanation for observations. This is done at multiple levels, from arguing against existence of observe trends to arguing about whose fault is it anyway. And it also aligns with current conservative political views, which are focused likewise on "just say no" way of argumentation. This is why it is very tempting to lump all said groups into one basket.

Creditable alternative theories to what? When most of the so called non-believers think there are problems with the records indicating the warming, some of which had been proven to be true, what is the alternative that is supposed to be presented other then the records aren't accurate? And to that note, they lost most of the early manipulations so verifying them is almost impossible without repeating every other study again based around new data. But then there are people who say it might be happening, but humans are insignificant or that the amount of increased Co2 is insignificant enough to cause the supposed warming. I mean after all, the Co2 claim is that less then .001% of the total GHG in the atmosphere shifting is going to end the world. I can see where an alternate theory might be possible there, but it seems that whenever someone attempts to toss one out, they are shouted down because of some oil job 20 years ago or because they are friends of someone else or whatever. Do you remember the weather channel babe who was suggesting

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

Precisely. Aside from a few minor quibbles (though these quibbles often turn into long, pointless debates on /.), I have no real issues with AGW, though people try to paint me as one, because of various issues I have.

My main problem is that the 'solutions' to AGW are almost universally bad. Either ridiculously overpriced, overintrusive, undereffective, unfair... and most often some mixture of all of these.

Solutions tend to come from scientists who have never heard of Amdahl's Law, and focus ridiculously expensive solutions on rather thin slices of the CO2 pie, instead of cheaper solutions on larger slices of the pie. For example, we spend 10-20 cents more per gallon at the pump here in California for a special blend of gas that might shave a fraction of a percent of the total CO2 produced in America.

By contrast, if we were to switch to all CO2-free power plants in our country (mainly nuclear) if we amortized cost over 10 years, we could break even on the costs without paying much more for electricity - and reduce our total CO2 emitted in our country by ~40%.

This would meet every CO2 target for our country, and allow people to keep driving whatever CO2-emitting SUVs they want without impacting their daily life in the slightest. (This might sound unfair to the Nazi-greens that WANT to control what other people do, but tough shit.)

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[mpe]

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.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[tgibbs]

Actually, Mann's original "hockey stick" went back only to 1400, and a subsequent paper extended it to 1000.

From the NRC report

Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

This is basically in agreement with Mann's published reports, which acknowledge greater uncertainty as the reconstruction is pushed back further in time, with error bars expanding greatly for dates before about 1600.

Nevertheless, the NRC report found it

plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[david_thornley]

And this is something I don't understand. Why do people harp on a supposed financial advantage for showing that GW is happening? Most of the money in this fight is on the side of fossil fuel companies. Certainly if a scientist wanted to get more money, there would be some way of getting it from the anti-AGW interests. I'm tempted to get biblical myself - something about beams and motes in people's eyes.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[tgibbs]

Mann's hockey stick has recently been completely falsified, even assuming all of his data and methods are sound, by professional statisticians.

This is simply untrue. While the original statistical approach that Mann chose was not ideal, and is subject to certain types of error, multiple subsequent studies have shown that his approach did not invalidate his conclusions.

The paper that you cite comes up with larger error bars using a different method of analysis which has not previously been tested or validated for this kind of data, so it logically cannot falsify the hockey stick. The authors do not compare their method to that used Mann or by others who have carried out reproduced his conclusions, and provide no evidence that their approach is in any way superior.

In short, the error bars are so large that we _cannot_ say that we're currently warmer than during the MWP.

We also cannot say that the MWP was as warm as today, or even that the MWP was a global phenomenon rather than a regional one. It has been known all along that the error bars get large when you try to extend the analysis that far back, and this was acknowledged in Mann's work.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[SETIGuy]

1998 was the hottest year despite the rising population and therefore, the increase of the greenhouse gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - that's proven scientifically, but that does not mean it is the sole factor in the climate systems.

Have you been asleep for a decade? 2009 was the second hottest year in the hottest decade on record. 2010 has, thus far been the hottest year on record. I think you took a few years of relatively stable temperatures in the early parts of the 2000-2009 decade as a trend, and haven't looked since. AGW does not predict continuous monotonic temperature increase. That's because one or two years temperature isn't climate.

Of course these points (1998 being warmest, hockey stick being "falsified") have been refuted again and again, but AGW skeptics seem to think that saying them again like they are true "unrefutes" them. But what can you expect from an AC.

Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix

[mjwx]

but to attach labels like 'deniers'

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.

Re:Judge Does Something Smart?

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Judge Does Something Smart?

[QuantumLeaper]

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.

Cuccinelli is a partisan hack

[Goonie]

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.

Re:Cuccinelli is a partisan hack

[Anonymous Coward]

The really scary part? In Virginia, the Attorney General usually has the inside track for his party's nomination for governor in the next election.

Politics aside

[hsmith]

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.

Re:Politics aside

[Ironhandx]

RTFA, it was not a FOIA request. That may have in fact been much more successful. It was a subpoena request for information based on trumped up(invalid) fraud charges. However a FOIA request would have been much less politically advantageous if it went through, which is all that this whole thing was really about, he wasn't looking for evidence he was looking to be able to smear the guys name with the fact that there may have been enough evidence against him to even start a full scale legally backed investigation.

You should be thanking this judge for setting this idiot in his place and not allowing him to abuse the legal system and your tax dollars purely for his own political gain.

It is also still left open for the guy to back up his trumped up fraud charges a little better and resubmit the subpoena request.

Sorry if I'm less than sympathetic towards the guy but his entire career reeks of abuse of power to push nonsensical politically advantageous policies while largely ignoring bigger problems. Global warming and its existence isn't even on my top TEN list of things for politicians to be worrying about.

Re:Politics aside

[canajin56]

State Freedom of Information Acts tend to be a lot less broad than the federal one (which only applies to the federal executive branch). Using Michigan as an example, you cannot request all documents relating to a given subject. You have to identify what documents you want, and be specific. In that regard, I highly doubt that you could say "I want all of the email sent by this professor to any of these 40 other people, for the last 5 years". That's absurdly broad. You probably could request all of the documents used to support a research grant application. But, that was to the state. I would think that therefore, the state would already have those documents, so requesting then seems more like harassment. (Unless you can get away with citing but not submitting papers with your grant? That would be weird to allow in the first place...) They also request a list of all documents that have been destroyed, and documents verifying the legitimate reason for their destruction. That one is almost insulting. It's like asking somebody to please list the times they have beaten their wife, and their reasoning for those beatings. Sounds pretty accusatory.

Re:Politics aside

[Improv]

Our long term survival and health as a species is far more important than your petty complaints over taxes. To whatever extent we can steer this, we must.

Re:Politics aside

[riverat1]

and as we all know, Mr. Mann refused to provide any actual climate data and advised some to destroy data.

You're talking about Phil Jones in the UK, not Michael Mann. Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" data and methods can be found here. Please tell me what part of that is falsified. But Mann's work is a small, not terribly important in itself piece of a large body of data and theory. Even if you threw it out completely it wouldn't change a thing.

Re:Judge Does Something Smart?

[memyselfandeye]

I tend to agree. I'm a political junkie by nature, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that Judges do a good job of holding true to law. The big news going around about stem-cells has a lot of my peers -I work in a University- roiled, but let's face facts, if it's true that he ruled based on a 90s law that forbids stem cell research, then maybe it's time to change the law and not bend it? Same goes for this case, as it was for the big evolution case in PA where a conservative appointed judge ruled that evolution is a real scientific theory and intelligent design was a ploy to rename creationism and thus illigal to teach in public schools.

2.5 cents.

Causation and Correlation

[mangu]

It is interesting (and very bigoted of you) to assume anyone who is a AGW skeptic is anti-science and pro-intelligent design

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.

Re:Causation and Correlation

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:Causation and Correlation

[mpe]

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.

IIRC Darwin was well aware that his theory of evolution was incomplete and indicated in his published works where he though further research was needed.

That to me is what made science great, in that it doesn't require faith or belief in an individual or individuals.

Or for that matter organisations.

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.

Sometimes an "outsider" can easily find bugs that have been overlooked. It also appears daft not to run computer models past computer experts, statistics past statistics experts and in attempting to work out what conditions existed in the past to not ask historians & archaeologists.

Cucinelli should be charged

[Arancaytar]

He's abusing taxpayer money to fuel this religious right-wing witch hunt.

Re:If you're bothered by skepticism, it ain't scie

[MrHanky]

True. But most self-proclaimed climate change skeptics are simply denialists.

Re:it's politicized, what did you expect?

[DamienRBlack]

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.

Yes, very disturbing

[garyisabusyguy]

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

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[Score Whore]

Eh? It seems to me that it comes down to needing a subpoena in order to get access to a public employee's work product.

If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[AK Marc]

That's as sensible as going up to a road worker and asking to borrow his hammer to do some work back at your house. Sure, the hammer was bought with public funds, but that doesn't mean that the worker must give up his tools or that you have any right to them.

The results of the work should be public. The ownership of the copyright/patent of the results should be public. That's the work product. And that's not what they are after. They have the work product. And they don't like it, so they want the notes and such leading up to the work product so they can invalidate it. And not because it's actually invalid, but because you can take incomplete anything and spin it to be invalid.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[Hellsbells]

Why?

Can you access your local mayor's email account?
Can you download the full schematics for the space shuttle?
Why isn't your local police department's incident reporting system completely open source?

I'm all for increased transparency, but there is no reason that all information from publicly funded work should be publicly available.

Because:
- Overheads. The costs of doing this would be huge.
- A lot of publicly funded work is done by private companies, who might not want to release their work to their competitors.
- Most people don't want every piece of work, every correspondance that they've ever done accessible by everyone for the rest of time.

It is fair to see the final reports/papers/etc... produced by most government departments, and some information on how those results were obtained, which is pretty much what happens for most government funded scientific agencies.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[dachshund]

If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"

Asking to see his work would have amounted to asking for a dump of his published, peer reviewed research papers. They're available without a subpoena. Just because someone works for the public does not mean that they're subject to arbitrary, unjustified investigation at any time, especially when that investigation is expensive and has to be paid for by the public.

And that's all this judge has said: present evidence that this expensive, time consuming investigation is justified, you get your information. Fail to present it, the public will be spared the cost both of the investigation, and the cost of lost research time that the public will have to bear while this individual is investigated for no reason. It's a valuable function, and our government wouldn't survive without it. In a hypothetical world where investigations have no cost, maybe it would be reasonable to allow this to go forward with no justification. We don't live in that world.

I guess that's "scary".

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[TapeCutter]

Considering the number of political investigations and FOI requests that Mann has been subjected to and complied with, what makes you think there is anything that is not already on the public record?

Just because the AG tried to issue a supoena without probable cause does not mean the information is not already available. The same is true for many of the FOI requests Mann gets from the likes of McIntryre, etc. Much of the requested information is already available either in his published work or in previous replies to FOI requests. The intent with these tatics not to shead light on the subject rather it is to create the impression that Mann is hiding something while at the same time bogging down his reseach with a mountain of legal paperwork.

Anti-AGW proponents like to paint themselves as modern day Galileo's but none of them are subjected to anywhere near the level of offical harrasment directed towards Mann and his team. Instead these unpublished, unqualified political hacks are invited to offer thier discredited opinions in the halls of power with depressing monotony. Lord Monckton is just one obvious example in this morally and ethically bankrupt abuse of political power.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[AK Marc]

When you hire an architect to design your house, you will get a copy of the plans. He will file the plans on your behalf (or give them to the builder to file on your behalf). They are suing the architect for the designs (and all designs he's ever done, completed or not, but that was struck down) when they already have the finished plans. The results include the results, the methodology to get it, the data, and such. If there's a problem, a peer review will find problems with the methodology, and the data should be replicable by others. Filing suit against him when there's no actual evidence of wrongdoing in the hopes they will find something that at least justifies the harassment, even if not enough for a conviction, is unlike anything they'll do to an architect. You don't sue the architect after he delivers the plans and the civil engineer signs off on the plans and claim, without any evidence at all, that the building will never stand and the architect should be prosecuted for manslaughter because someone could die in the unsafe building.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[TapeCutter]

"The climategate scandal was really about climatologists hiding their data and methods from critical review."

I suppose you're going to tell me that the three independent inquries that exonerated Jones and the CRU (including the CRU investigation headed by the ex-chairman of Shell) were a whitewash. Look closely at the third one where it describes how the investigators were able to obtain the "hiden data" from public sources within two days. If you still belive the CRU was hiding anything after the thourough debunking of those claims then you haven't been paying attention.

Re:Yes, very disturbing

[dachshund]

Peer reviewed papers are one thing. But science also requires the ability of anyone to replicate the experiment and validate the results. This requires the original models (code), data, and procedure used. Without this, the science is invalid.

This subpoena was not looking to get Mann's code or find data that could reproduce his experiments. Mann doesn't even work for that university anymore, and it's doubtful they have his notes. Rather it was an attempt to find evidence of fraud and misuse of funds. That might be noble if there was any particular reason to believe that funds had been misused. But in this case the judge rightly pointed out that AG Cuccinelli had presented no such reason, not even the slightest hint.

Now what the judge did not say is that Cuccinelli's subpoena was obviously politically motivated, and clearly an attempt to increase his standing within the Republican party by persecuting the hell out of a scientist who took a position that the GOP (and its backers) don't like. But anyone with an ounce of sense can see that's what it was. If anti-AGW advocates have an ounce of scientific credibility, I'd expect that they'd be as upset by this as anyone else.

Re:Don't like either side

[hondo77]

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?

Re:If you're bothered by skepticism, it ain't scie

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Re:Who's your crack dealer?

[bunratty]

Perhaps take the safe route and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Re:Why fight it if you're innocent?

[SETIGuy]

There are a couple reasons not to. This wasn't an open records request. This was a subpoena. When that happens the University lawyers get involved and their first instinct is to not comply. It's usually a good instinct, because someone serving a subpoena has an agenda which is probably against the interests of the University. Second, the professor in question is no longer at the University that was subpoenaed. It's likely, if not certain that he took is research records with him. The University of Virginia probably only has accounting records for the grant in question, and (probably) backups of emails. Penn State, on the other hand, doesn't have much to fear from a Virginia prosecutor with delusions of grandeur.

I don't have a problem with providing any information requested about my research, provided what is requested actually exists. But when it comes to my emails... show me the subpoena.

Re:Why fight it if you're innocent?

[Daetrin]

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.

Re:Judge Does Something Smart?

[Obfuscant]

Similarly, most city-council politicians I know tend to work very hard to keep in touch with their voter base and to enact seemingly sane policies.

In my experience, it's the city council politicians who run based on personal agenda and then push that agenda as much as they can while in office. They also know that they can pass all kinds of stupid "pronouncements" with little to no real meaning other than making themselves look great to the loudest nutcases, so they don't have to worry about what they pass.

They can also schedule all their meetings so that no sane person could possibly attend them all, thus creating a lack of competition for the next election. Ours meets on the first and third Monday at noon AND at 7PM, and has commissions they are part of that meet on various weekdays at 7:30AM or 8PM. If you are in any way employed you are almost certain not to be able to attend all the meetings, so even if you did get elected you'd get kicked off the council for failing to attend meetings. Except for one council favorite who keeps taking time off to make illegal trips to Cuba and displays a Cuban flag pasted to the top of his city-funded laptop, he gets excused whenever he asks.

Re:Transparency rules for thee but not for me

[bunratty]

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.

Re:Judge Does Something Smart?

[Timothy Brownawell]

People may appoint Judges for political reasons but they should never bow to those reasons.

Yeah, that's why Judges should be appointed. But local ones tend to be elected, so they need to run for office every so often etc.

Re:Who's your crack dealer?

[tgibbs]

As Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof

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.

Re:Transparency rules for thee but not for me

[bunratty]

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!