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.
Although M. Mann's RC bio does not specifically state it, Mann was one of the nine founding members of realclimate.org
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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. "
There is some suggestion that this is test case to see what he can get away with. The last time around, the judge bitch-slapped him so hard, it nearly broke his neck, so now he is trying to see what the judge will tolerate by going after something less directly connected with Mann.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
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.
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.
Of course if you read TFS you'd have an example of a much more qualified person than you, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. of the Albemarle County Circuit Court, saying, "No, that's obviously not what the law you just quoted means" about this specific case!
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
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
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.