Slashdot Mirror
Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli's AGW Witch Hunt Continues
eldavojohn writes "A letter from Representative Edward Markey outlines Ken Cuccinelli's latest civil investigative demand targeting 39 people instead of just Michael Mann. You may recall that the original investigation was quashed by a judge, but the latest request demands records from people seemingly unrelated to Mann, including an Indian glaciologist. The Bad Astronomer calls Cuccinelli out in a similar manner and lists Cuccinelli's doubts about Mann's papers, including, 'Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect.' The school that hosted the research announced the new investigation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists accuses him of harassing scientists."
The litigation has so far cost the university $352,874.76, Wood said, adding that the fees have been paid for from private funds.
And that's just legal fees from the university's side of things, the state itself has its own costs to look at for the first investigation and I'm sure many people are spending hours handling this. So you might be wondering what the original research that Mann did cost the university? Answer: under $500,000. So with this latest round of litigation, the Attorney General -- who is championing this effort under the guise of protecting tax payer dollars -- will force the state of Virginia to pay up again.
When I submitted this, I was hoping to find some news of this latest round from the more conservative press (Fox News, Washington Times) instead of the more liberal (New York Times, Washington Post) but there's nothing from that side of the spectrum. I think a local paper put it best in an editorial entitled Cuccinelli Needs to Cut Our Losses.
My work here is dung.
Link to M. Mann's blog
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...the Bad Astronomer is a complete badass and needs to have a bronze statue of himself placed in front of every educational institution across the country. Wearing a cape, and a bazooka, but loaded with knowledge instead of rockets.
Here's Rule 3.1 of Virginia's Rules of Professional Conduct:
ADVOCATE
RULE 3.1 Meritorious Claims And Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for
doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of
existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could
result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be
established.
(emphasis mine)
Let's hope the judge, knowing Cuccinelli's previous attempt was unfounded and this being a wild fishing expedition, would actually enforce the rules and sanction him with the State Bar association.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
STATS, 2007 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change )
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[98] [99]
Any questions?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I wasn't sure what the heck this article was talking about, so I had to read the start of TFA.
So, the Virginia Attorney General is trying to pull in records related to a climate researcher to demonstrate that he has "fraudulently" used his grant money to arrive at conclusions the AG doesn't like, but other scientists agree with his basic methodology?
WTF is an Attorney General doing investigating scientists. He's not qualified, and it's not within his mandate.
Am I missing something? The 50's called, they want their McCarthyism back.
This whole story reads like a witch hunt -- America, you are in decline, and about two elections from being ran by drooling idealogues with no interest in facts. Between the Tea Party and the Social Conservatives, you are being controlled by people who are too fucking stupid to do anything but shout louder than anybody they disagree with.
As much as I want to free the climate science from biases and dishonesty, this is not the way to do it.
Indeed. If you actually wanted to do that, you would be trying to get rid of the denialists.
Washington Post: "Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia":
What's particularly astonishing, though, is that Mr. Cuccinelli's legal case against Mr. Mann seems unrelated to any of the controversial research the attorney general spends so much time attacking. Mr. Cuccinelli is supposedly investigating whether Mr. Mann committed fraud when the scientist applied for and received a state-funded research grant -- to study what Mr. Mann describes as "the interaction of the land, atmosphere and vegetation in the African savannah." The topic "has nothing to do with climate change or paleoclimate," Mann says. The attorney general appears to argue that, since Mr. Mann listed his controversial papers on his curriculum vitae when he and two other scientists applied for the savannah research grant, he may have committed some kind of fraud.
The attorney general's logic is so tenuous as to leave only one plausible explanation: that he is on a fishing expedition designed to intimidate and suppress honest research and the free exchange of ideas upon which science and academia both depend -- all because he does not like what science says about climate change. "
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. In other words, climate change brought about by human activities.
The Virginia Attorney General is acting like a total douchebag because he can't give up his fight against AGW (could be because he *looks* like a total douchebag).
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
I just don't understand how a movie (which I haven't seen, I guess, so I can't really judge) can be thousands of times worse than what Cuccinelli's doing. One is a bit of free speech that people are capable of ignoring if they desire. The other cannot be ignored, since it's couched in the auspices of the courts and the Office of the Attorney General - ignoring it may mean fines, contempt citations, obstruction of justice charges, etc.
What Cuccinelli's doing is thousands of times worse than the 10:10 movie.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
You're right in that the research of MMann didn't cost the university more than $500k but if you do a google search you'll find a WSJ article stating that he recived $541k dollars in stimulus funds in june 2009, so his drain on taxpayers money directly is still greater than the litigation costs, and of course the implementation cost of the policy he advocates and do research to support would have a pricetag several magnitudes higher.
I believe this is the article you're talking about. And I believe it's referring to 'last June' when Michael Mann was teaching at Penn State. Mann only taught at UVA from 1999 to 2005. Here's the paragraph:
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
Emphasis mine. So he received another half a million to continue his research this year? And that's wrong because? Also, Ken Cuccinelli holds no domain over Pennsylvania State University. See, when a university is given the authority to decide where its funds go, you usually don't spend twice that much money investigating whether or not the research done meets your statistical muster or political goals -- especially when you're not an expert in that field!
... so his drain on taxpayers money directly is still greater than the litigation costs ...
Yeah, you could look at Mann's whole life and his health insurance and everything but we're not. We're focusing on one particular study done by Mann for half a million dollars carried out at UVA.
Have fun tracking down every climate scientist gathering funds for any kind of climate research and charging them with wasting taxpayers dollars. By the time you're done, it will be impossible to draw any scientific conclusion about climate change because any indication that you construe to be economically painful will be met with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
My work here is dung.
I just don't understand how a movie (which I haven't seen, I guess, so I can't really judge) can be thousands of times worse than what Cuccinelli's doing. One is a bit of free speech that people are capable of ignoring if they desire. The other cannot be ignored, since it's couched in the auspices of the courts and the Office of the Attorney General - ignoring it may mean fines, contempt citations, obstruction of justice charges, etc.
What Cuccinelli's doing is thousands of times worse than the 10:10 movie.
If it is the "movie"(it was actually a commercial for a new "no pressure" campaign) I saw on youtube, then the 10:10 spots were advocating killing those who fail to conform to the forced reductions of greenhouse gases. Now if incitement to violence(actual, not couched in slang or idioms) isn't worse than a lawyer asking some questions, I'd love to know what planet you live on. But hey, only crazy right wingers are violent
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
The man's a brilliant lawyer. I've read a number of opinions he offered as AG. They are uniformly well argued, even when I wish the conclusions were otherwise. Worse, from the perspective of those who support Mann, Cuccinelli thoroughly analyzes the relevant law and doesn't misinterpret it to fit his preconceptions. Unlike former Virginia AG's, I didn't find a single example where I said, "No, that's obviously not what the law you just quoted means."
If Mann cut any corners, Cuccinelli will crucify him.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Having looked at it, it seems to advocate killing people who don't conform to reduction of greenhouse gasses in the same way Monty Python advocate killing people who fail at hide and seek in their "How Not To Be Seen" sketch.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
This situation is becoming increasingly dire as we see prosecutors and AGs abuse their position by using the weight of their office against their political opponents. As most are elected positions, it is expected to see their personal motivations in which cases they pursue more vigoursly. However the 'fair' amount you would expect would be measured in slight percentage shifts in caseloads (10% more of this type of case prosecuted under so and so vs the previous AG).
However, this is a serious problem as we now have people with the weight of the state at their disposal (and therefore effectively unlimited time and money). I've long had issue with the fact that the state can weild disproportionate power in our legal system. My issue stems from the fact that our system is an adversarial system. It works well when both opponents are equally matched in capability and means, but when you allow the state side to fund their case in volumes orders of magnitude greater than what their opponent could expect to literally earn in their lifetime, it breaks and it doesn't fail gracefully like a pair of shoes wearing out, it fails like shattering a plate glass window with your bare hand.
Back on the main topic of prosecutors using the state as their personal weapons, these sorts of actions need to be stopped NOW and with sufficient force because this is only going to undermine our legal system and eventually put innocent people's lives in danger.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Have you actually seen the 10:10 mini movie? It's typical UK style black humour, written by the same guy who wrote Blackadder, it's style is reminicent of Monty Python's "Holy Grail". It was withdrawn due to complaints about violence from people like you who didn't get the joke.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes, this little "joke" is easily the least intellectual thing any group could have possibly done. The message is clear - comply or die. How they thought it was funny is beyond me. There's no 'whoosh' factor here. This is the sickest, lowest form of a joke that is easily spotted, and disgustingly insulting.
See, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. When you feel that everyone should cut consumption by 10%, you apparently think it is hilarious to cause those who disagree to explode. When you're not inclined to do so, and feel that this sort of pressure - especially in your workplace - is wholly inappropriate, well it becomes a bit shocking.
Never mind how blatantly idiotic it is to tell everyone to reduce spending by 10% during a global recession. But we're going to take it a step further and laugh at the prospect of murdering the dissidents. HURRAY!
McIntyre & McIntrick objections to Mann have been fully documented and responded to in the academic discourse. However, McIntyre & McIntrick have been unable to respond to the objections. Their argument as been reduced to vapor.
So... how do you know what is real?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The Attorney General's investigation is pursuant to the work of Michael Mann on the "hockey stick" graph (of temperatures over the last millennium). For a detailed presentation of the evidence that the work was probably bogus, see the book Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford. There is more than enough evidence to justify investigation of Mann's work. And the attempt by Mann's colleagues to cover up for one of their own is shameful.
Why the appeal to consensus? This is something I see all the time when it comes to global warming, and it is something that sets off a warning bell. The reasons is that, as Feynman noted, consensus is what salesmen and charlatans use. "4 out of 5 dentists agree that using toothpaste X results in less cavities." Well that is marketing, not science, and in fact doesn't mean much. While it might mean that 20% of dentists are dumb, it might mean to opposite: It might mean 80% of dentists are basing their opinion on something other than the pure facts, while the top 20%, those around a standard deviation or more above the mean, evaluated the facts and found that type of toothpaste was irrelevant.
Good science arguments are not what percentage of people think something they are, well, science. They are the theories, and the facts that back up those theories. In particular they are all the things you've done to try and prove the theory wrong that have failed. A strong theory is strong when you've tried to find alternative explanations and they fail. You have a theory that says X causes Y, and there's evidence that X and Y are found in close proximity. Good start. Then you say "Well Z is found a lot too, what if it is actually Z that causes Y?" So you tests and you find evidence that no, Z doesn't cause Y. You also say "Well maybe there is another factor A, that we haven't seen yet, that actually causes both X and Y," so you search for that, but no evidence of A is found. Each time you do this, each time you come up with an alternate theory (a sane, logical theory) that would fit the evidence, and you test it and it turns out to be wrong, you are more sure you are right with your theory.
Basically you keep trying to falsify your theory, keep trying to prove it wrong. The more times you fail to prove it wrong, the more likely it is right. You try alternate explanations, and when yours is the only one that fits, well that means good chance it is the right one.
So I am given to wonder why so often this theory is sold in terms of percentage of believers. It really does seem like it is being sold like a product, or a political process. "Well enough people have voted this is right, so that's the situation. Can't argue, we have a consensus." While that doesn't make it wrong, it sure does set off a warning bell. So why is it done that way?
Please note before you go off on me, I am deliberately not stating my views on the matter of global warming. Don't think you can correctly infer them.
So you value "evidence that the work was probably bogus" from an Accountant who majored in Chemistry over every professional climate science association on the planet? That the UN IPCC is defrauding the world for the sake of "covering up for one of their own"?
> There is more than enough evidence to justify investigation of Mann's work
So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for. The criminal justice system is for murderers and robbers, not scientists with unpopular conclusions.
Unless ...
nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
> Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument.
No, it is an "appeal to authority" argument. If I maligned the author's character while avoiding the actual issue, that would be an ad hominem argument.
>> So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for.
> peer review is not intended to catch fraud
But it often does. And you ignored half the sentence - competing scientists are definitely out to disprove each other. That's the whole point of being a scientist, discovering things nobody else understood.
Sure, this movie had a message, but the message isn't "Let's kill some of those guys who disagree with us!"
No, the message was “Let’s make jokes about how funny it is to kill those guys who disagree with us! But it’s okay, because we’re just joking. What’s the matter, people? Can’t you take a joke?”
Of course, I can take a joke. I can also play a joke on them in return... I went around and turned on all the lights in my whole house for a couple of hours. Ha ha. It’s a funny joke. Really!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Good lord you missed the point.
If you do not cut back your consumption by 10%, people will die. They will not be people in your country, or even people in your continent - they will be anonymous Chinese rice farmers, or Indian fishermen, or Nigerian scam artists. But you don't give a shit, because those people are brown and don't even speak English, right?
The 10:10 commercial wasn't saying "comply or die" - it was saying "if you don't comply, people will die". They just tried to bring the point home by exploding the people who didn't comply, I guess because in the normal course of things it's other people so who cares about them huh?
Get you facts straight. Christine O'Donnell is running in Delaware, not Virginia.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
What matters is what the public sees, and most of those FOX News zombies will look at all of this and see the Noble Attorney General defending them from the vast international conspiracy consisting of 90% of the planet's scientists and being run from Al Gore's house (oops, I mean run from an obscure school in the UK, I forgot about the emails), which is of course in turn part of a much larger 4 decade old conspiracy by Kenyan goat herders to install a secret Muslim terrorist agent in the White House, who would destroy America by creating Death Panels that execute all the elderly white people so that undeserving black people can buy Rolls Royces with food stamps.
Did I mention that millions of stupid people are allowed to vote in my country?
Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare to give its money to Wall Street, which is the Republican platform as it always has been. The witch hunts of course are just distraction so that real story isn't reported to the people, and to weaken Democrats who would try to stop the heist.
Joe Miller is the Republican. He says Social Security is unconstitutional, clearly his pretext for handing it over to Wall Street. He wants to take away Americans' voting for our senators directly, and says the minimum wage is unconstitutional, despite longstanding Supreme Court decisions supporting them, so his idea of what the Constitution is and is worth is an open question.
McAdams' ad wearing Stevens' tie is obviously a message about bringing Alaska Federal pork just like Stevens was beloved to do, and without which handouts Alaska would shrivel and die. He's not going to witch hunt anyone, because those handouts have been protected by Democrats as well as Republicans.
So yes, your mileage may vary. There are many roads to an Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. But both Miller and Murkowski are active climate change deniers, even as climate change hits Alaska harder than any other state, as the Arctic is the most sensitive to the changes. Which is why either of them in the Senate will be voting for exactly the kind of witch hunt this story in Virginia is about. The witch hunts where they help impeach the Democratic president for some imaginary nonsense are just the price of admission to the modern Republican caucus they're spending all their time and money fighting to be counted among.
--
make install -not war
Look at the data, and avoid people who have an agenda. If they choose, they can show you only the data that supports their position, like Fox News. And realclimate.org does exactly that.
Qxe4
In the editorial Mann says even if you ignore his work and the whole field of paleoclimate it doesn't change the climatologists conclusions on global warming.
So Mann doesn't really matter that much, he's just a convenient boogy man that people have heard about.