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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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: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.

Cucinelli should be charged

[Arancaytar]

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

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

[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:Way to ruin somebody's career.

[garyisabusyguy]

Maybe he can sue reality for not conforming to his imagination

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: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: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?

[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: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: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.