Bishop Hill Another Climategate investigation
Apr 30, 2010 Climate: Mann The headline today is the news that the Virginia attorney general has launched an investigation into Michael Mann's time at the University of Virginia.
In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.
How many investigations have now been started as a result of Climategate? Here's the list:
- Science & Technology Select Committee
- CCE Emails
- Scientific Appraisal Panel
- Norfolk Police
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts
- Penn State University (now two separate investigations)
- State of Virginia
And how many of them had any meaningful interactions with sceptics? Arguably none so far. Although the select committee accepted evidence from sceptics, most of it seems to have been ignored. Sir Muir has also taken submissions from critics of the CRU, but at the moment one rather gets the impression that CRU will get to justify themselves to his panel after which things will be brought to a close.
Bishop Hill
And of course there's the UN investigation of the IPCC too. (H/T Stephen in the comments)
Reader Comments (62)
This guy must know he going find something , otherwise he would not bother. He is new to the job so he's out to prove his worth. Therefore there will be no fudging.This is also being done from a legal stand point , not a PR perspective like alot of the others ( except the police Investigation)
And that's just the corruption on the science side, when (if) they follow the money, it seems to go much higher up the food chain...
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA
Personally I think this is a mistake if it's a fishing trip and he doesn't have prima facie evidence of malfeasance. Remember what we're dealing with here is a religion in action, believers will only believe good of their high priests, and those of a less fundamental bent will see this as persecution. If there is no financial malfeasance, proving scientific malfeasance will be extremely difficult and even if it is done it won't dent the belief in CAGW, that is too entrenched even amongst those who are willing to look at the science in a different light won't want to be seen to have been duped and will only give up their belief slowly.
I do not know if you checked the same thread on WUWT Bishop but it certainly brought the Trolls out to play in the comments! I have not seen so many new names in a thread since the original release of the emails.
The DA in Virginia has opened a hugh can of worms which might come back to bite him. I doubr it because the last thing Mann wants to do is appear in a court of law under oath.. This makes Mann's frivolous lawsuit aganist the Minnesotans for global warming to appear, well, frivolous.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a little more scrutiny on Michael Mann. I seem to recall a comment by Steve McIntyre about how Mann might have been better served by the Penn State investigations if those had addressed his exposure to legal action through his activities at both Penn State and UVA. That said, I'm not sure there is a whole lot to see here, other than a fresh, somewhat ideological DA trying to capitalize on events to make a splash about something. He is looking to try and recover millions of dollars in grant money, not find some small reason to put Mann in jail. Based on my view of events so far, I don't think he'll find much to pursue here, and the prior exonerations should support Mann in this regard.
Good...it all works toward discrediting Mann-made global warming. Hopefully somebody with some huevos will hold these AGW science fiction writers accountable.
Pete Hays writes:
My comment appears to have attracted a "troll" retort on the WUWT thread, too. I'm anything but a troll. Though I didn't say much, I stand by what I said. A witch hunt against the Mann by this DA is not progress towards resolution of the genuine issues.
Cuccinelli has already alienated university students since coming to office, with his proactive and regressive attempts at anti-gay campus literature legislation. The all-important detail has never been important to the CAGW crowd, and they've always been perfectly happy to indulge themselves in ad-hominem.
Details and intricacies won't be important to them when they hold up the "body" of Mann and his doctored scientific evidence, either. Cuccinelli will almost certainly create an anti-creationism martyr out of Mann. It won't matter if Mann is found to be guilty of malfeasance at Cuccinelli's hand, because he will always have been the victim of a political witch hunt.
None of this means that I don't want Mann's scientific endeavours properly and appropriately scrutinized. I want that as much as anyone else here. But if Mann is burned at the stake by the Teabaggers (for poor financial accounting or whatever), there'll be little impetus left to look at the important bits - the science he's performed and the tricks he's used to conceal the evidence and promote his own agenda.
Fred Singer seems to think it's a good idea. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5637
The outcome of the Scopes trail was: legally guilty, scientifically correct. Will we now see a trial with the opposite verdict, yet with effectively (and completely ironically) the same players?
Didn`t Al Capone get brought to justice through bad accounting, go get him..
I have been expecting this and similar ever since the news of Climategate broke, and I expect more. Follow the money, it is not about science.
Americans are very touchy about public funds being used for intended purposes, and ONLY for intended purposes, a sentiment I endorse heartily.
Given a certain nonchalance and looseness regarding scientific data and data governance that was suggested by Climategate revelations, might they not think it wise to check whether this attitude extends to accounting data and methodologies?
All the checking being done under oath in a court of law if any impropriety is uncovered or alleged.
Some people might also want to reflect on Hadley and CRU funding over the years, and it's sources.
And on the possible outcome of November elections in the USA, and the implications thereof.
Pete Hayes:
I noted that too, and it's a good thing.
It means they are really scared and for a really good reason.
I think the VA AG will be more of an embarrassment than an ally. He is a political idealogue playing to the extreme right. Time is on our side as, year by year, both the physical evidence and the maturing science eat away at the absurdities of AGW. Let's stick to the science and not get soiled by the politics.
I'm extremely skeptical about global warming or climate change or whatever its called these days, but I also very much dislike powerful governmental officials starting fishing expeditions like this one.
Bishop Hill
Climategate investigations
You omit Dr Pachauri's investigation from your list of
Climategate investigations.
In February I did an update of the Pachauri investigation by way
of comments upon the following Climate Feedback thread:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2010/02/head_of_climategate_inquiry_de.html#comments
Namely the 'investigation', 'check' or 'enquiry' into possible
tampering with or modification of the CRU temperature data that
Dr Pachauri promised on 4 December 2009; denied on 8 December
2009; and failed to mention on 29 January 2010 did according to
what he said about 21 February 2010 take place.
Here's the relevant 21 February Pachauri quote. It comes from
an interview with him by journalist Nitin Sethi:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Value-PMs-support-the-most/articleshow/5597352.cms
''Value PM's support the most'
Nitin Sethi, TNN, Feb 21, 2010, 01.30am IST
...
In the Unviesrity [sic] of East Anglia case are you and IPCC
sure that there has been no tampering or modification to the
data used to make the temperature hocky [sic] stick?
We did a pretty thorough internal check and we have not found
any evidence of that. But we shall wait for the report of the
University of East Anglia. We shall await that report which is
due in April I think. And that is a detailed enquiry and how
these things came about and whether the things mentioned in the
email were carried out by the scientists. What we have done is
fairly detailed enquiry and found nothing was really done.'
Since 21 February 2010 Dr Pachauri has no doubt given many more
interviews.
Possibly he now again denies the existence any investigation by
him of the validity of the CRU data.
Ie like the Cheshire Cat, the Pachauri 'investigation' may have
melted away from view once more.
But in any list of Climategate investigations, the most
internationally prestigious yet elusive investigation of them
all should not be omitted and so risk in the public mind being
forgotten.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Friday 30 April 2010
[BH adds: You are right - I had a vague feeling there was another one]
PoC,
It would be a fishing expedition if the DA did this in a vacuum...for no reason at all. You speak as though nothing has happened. There is a stench in the air. Should we pretend we don't smell it?
Here is Fred Singers comment on the Hook article:
#
S Fred Singer April 29th, 2010 | 10:17 pm
There is a good chance that Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli will come up with the “smoking gun” — where other socalled investigations have only produced one whitewash after another.
We know from the leaked e-mails of Climategate that Prof.Michael Mann was involved in the international conspiracy to “hide the decline” [in global temperatures], using what chief conspirator Dr.Phil Jones refers to as “Mike [Mann]’s trick.” Now at last we may find out just how this was done.
A lot is at stake here. If the recent warming is based on faked data, then all attempts to influence the climate by controlling the emissions of the so-called “pollutant” carbon dioxide are useless –and very costly. This includes the UN Climate Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade (Tax) bill, the EPA “Endangerment Finding” based on the UN’s IPCC conclusion, and the upcoming Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill in the US Senate.
There go all the windfarms, both onshore and offshore, the wasteful ethanol projects, and the hydrogen economy. Maybe Al Gore will cough up some of his ill-gotten $500 million, gained from scaring the public, from carbon trading, carbon footprints, and all the other scams.
So – good luck, Ken Cuccinelli. We are with you all the way.
S. Fred Singer, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Chairman, Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment
John Silver, you should spend some time at ClimateAudit. Mike Mann's trick has been explained there, even establishing that it is Mike Mann's GRL trick not his Nature trick.
MikeN:
What have John Silvers spending time at Steve McIntyres site to do with Fred Singers comment on Ken Cuccinellis legal action on Mike Mann?
Hmmm. I don’t know anything about US laws but supposedly this guy doesn’t just have to prove that Mann’s findings are wrong but that Mann knew it for a measurable length of time? Difficult.
The best thing about this investigation is that it’s the only one that isn’t made up of dyed in the wool AGWers.
I’d be happy if he manages to prove that there’s a lot going wrong in Mann’s work and AGW science in general. If he doesn’t, it will be more damaging to scepticism than the carefully choreographed shows put on by the Science & Technology Select Committee etc.
While I agree with many who believe that Cuccinelli might merely be on a fishing trip, let him. He's a big boy and if he falls in and gets all wet, that's his problem. On the other hand, maybe he will catch a couple big fish. Would be nice to fry them, wouldn't it? Mann may well be guilty of fraudulently obtaining grant money.
Part of this is right wing motivation with the so-called Climate Bill coming up in the US Senate. There will be a big fight over that, with the Republicans claim -- correctly -- that is is just a new tax on the people
TinyCO2,
He is conducting an investigation to confirm that State of Virginia public funds were used for the purpose for which they were advanced. This is normal and could apply to any use of public money in the USA.
Any science involved may indeed be relevant if it was a stated deliverable of the contract or other State or Federal law, or it may simply be the equivalent of an accounting audit.
This action should make Cuccinelli popular in southwest Virginia, a coal mining area that produces circa 30 million short tons of coal annually. Coal is one of the major targets of the AGW environmental groups, yet it is the largest energy reserve of fossil fuels we have in the US (estimated to have a 250 year supply). Maybe Peabody Coal will submit an amicus curiae in support of Cuccinelli -- Peabody submitted written testimony to the UK Science and Technology Committee EAU Inquiry and has also filed suit against the EPA over its CO2 endangerment ruling.
"He is conducting an investigation to confirm that State of Virginia public funds were used for the purpose for which they were advanced."
Which they may have been, even if the findings are wrong.
Would he be able to make an issue of bad science if he can't prove an intent to deceive? Is hiding the decline a punishable fault if the rest of climate science follows that procedure?
While the money is being followed it would be interesting to know the details of Pachauri's various TERI donors and grants:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Questions-over-awards-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Questions-over-awards-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html
Interestingly Coca-Cola, major TERI sponsor, employ the services of the "UK Gov't Chief Advisor on Climate Change" (aka. Prof. Geoffrey Boulton).
http://www.coca-colahellenic.com/sustainability/flagshipprogrammes/Reductionofcarbonemi/
'Which they may have been, even if the findings are wrong.'
Yes, I'd imagine the UK has similar laws regarding the use of public funds, just not necessarily enforced.
The USA can be quite vigorous in it's application of oversight legislation, whether State or Federal. As to scientific error or wrongdoing, the funds would be subject to a contract stipulating why they were being advanced, and what was expected in return.
e.g. Assume I have a contract that says I will supply daily traffic volumes on the highway on-ramp opposite my house, for vast sums of money.
If I dutifully count and record the traffic, I am in compliance. If however I write down a random number I am severely at risk.
Probably wise to remember that the money would be advanced to the University rather than an individual, as well. And one could reflect on some of the CRU research as well....
"Assume I have a contract that says I will supply daily traffic volumes on the highway on-ramp opposite my house, for vast sums of money.
If I dutifully count and record the traffic, I am in compliance. If however I write down a random number I am severely at risk."
That example is a clear cut abuse of the funds but isn't Mann's work more about selection and interpretation than failure to carry out the task.
I suppose, if you could prove that the science was wrong, even if you couldn't prove intent to deceive, you might at least be able to say that the money was wasted on poor research/ers.
One avenue Cuccinelli may pursue would be the justifications for which selections he made. It would be very interesting to see what answers Mann comes up with for that question.
In the US system, this amounts to a 'preliminary investigation'. The AG has determined that there insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. After evidence is collected and reviewed, the AG can then bring evidence to a 'Grand Jury' who will determine if there is sufficient reason to indict Mann or UVA (to bring formal charges). If an indictment is handed down, then the AG can proceed with the case. So there are a lot of checks and balances and the process is deliberate. This will clearly result in a more comprehensive, fair and just review of the issues and controversies than any of the farce investigations that we've seen so far.
As a retired lawyer I am always cynical about DA investigations. Also, as a one-time chemical engineer, I would prefer that these investigations be conducted by people with technical expertise and, preferably, some experience in experimental science. Maybe Cuccinelli will have this kind of expertise on the investigative staff...I hope so. But it still looks like a politically inspired move, and the results will be questioned on that basis.
Since Mann abused science to advance his political objectives (among other things), it should not be surprising when politicians on the other side of the issue strike back with the blunt tools at their disposal. One might even see a kind of justice in it.
Mann will get no whitewash in VA. He get screwed royally.
I don't think he gives a darn about charging Mann; he would have to prove Mann was knowingly being dishonest, which I think would be tough to do. I believe he is after the EPA endangerment finding: he wants to prove that the un-released Mann computer code produces bogus results, and use that against the EPA finding. This investigation is his way to get Mann's code to a less friendly 'peer review'.
Guys,
This investigation will ONLY cover the money, not rule on any of Mann's scientific findings.
.
As long as his books balance with what his grants said he could spend money on, he's good.
.
That said, discovery may find some email's to hang him out to dry on other issues, such as FOI requirements.
.
But again, this is contract requirements, not science requirements. There will be no review of the HS.
Mann will get no whitewash in VA. He get screwed royally.
A certain amount of "justice" in that. I believe the expression is actually "Tarred and Feathered." He could then get a job as Chicken Little, I suppose.
I believe he is after the EPA endangerment finding: he wants to prove that the un-released Mann computer code produces bogus results, and use that against the EPA finding.
I believe you have nailed it squarely, Steve. King Coal is at the heart of this.
The quotes below are from
Sovacool B.K. (2005), “Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct”, American Journal of Bioethics, 5: W1–W7 (doi:10.1080/15265160500313242).
There is also a report that the IG for the NSF will be looking at Dr. Mann's work.
Kevin points out "It would be a fishing expedition if the DA did this in a vacuum...for no reason at all. You speak as though nothing has happened. There is a stench in the air. Should we pretend we don't smell it?"
There is indeed a stench in the air. I just hope that the DA has something specific to follow up on and nails down a good case. Nothing would please me more than to see Dr. Mann vacate his post at Penn State and take up residence at State Pen for a good long while.
It would be a pity if all the work for a return to sanity in climate research were to be damaged by a bogus prosecution that would make Mann into a victim instead of exposing him as the crook that he could very well be. I hope the DA pays strict attention "innocent until proven guilty" concept.
Do I see an expert witness job coming Patrick Michael's way?
'The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know.'- PM
Here's his WSJ piece again,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
SimonH -
why would you use the term 'teabagger' on this website? unfortunate.
the investigation is welcome. every little bit helps to caution the CAGW team.
Hmm.. seems I've missed the broader definition of "teabagger". I quick perusal of an urban dictionary reveals some rather unfortunate definitions as well as the one I understood.
I apologise. My understanding was that this was a term for vocal and (IMO) rather hypocritical extreme right-wing Americans - a source of much amusement for some of my (probably fairly left-wing) Facebook friends. I think the term I was aiming for is "tea party".
SimonH
Now you have stepped out of the frying pan into the fire.
"Hypocritical extreme right-wing Americans" = tea party members
Thank you very much! You deserve another retort.
Simon H:
The 'hypocritical extreme right' has nothing on the hypocritical extreme left, which is long overdue for the same rough treatment that it doles out on the right. In my experience, the left are far more consummate hypocrites than the right, as evidenced by the cynicism with which the left uses AGW for its political, and devious ends, by its intolerance of differing opinions (while constantly praising its own tolerance), and by its sanctimonious political correctness. There's no contest.
Simon H "My comment appears to have attracted a "troll" retort on the WUWT thread, too. I'm anything but a troll."..."A witch hunt against the Mann by this DA is not progress towards resolution of the genuine issues. "
I take your points Simon but the problem, as I see it, is that we have had whitewash investigations that were blatantly biased, not only the people selected but in what information they actually looked at. That can be said of both the Jones and Mann cases.
I really do not think myself and many others are looking for revenge, we simply want to see an honest,knowledgeable investigation that allows the real experts on the sceptical side to give evidence in public. If it takes Cuccinelli v Mann, then so be it. At some point reputations are going to be broken but remember, its bad science that has built both the reputations and egos.
By the way, Its Hayes not Hays. ;-)
SimonH:
If you had an ounce of integrity you would examine for yourself just who these "teabaggers" are and what the issues are rather than chuckle along with your "fairly left wing" Facebook friends who demonstrate their progressive sensivity and tolerance by applying a vile sexual innuendo to their opponents.
Let's draw a line under this conversation shall we?
@ April 30, 2010 | Pete Hayes
There seems to be a problem since the rehash of the WUWT site. I have been posting there from time to time for at least two years and all of a sudden I can't get my posts on there.
Lol...methinks that most of the upset with the AG, Ken Cuccinelli, stems from the fact that he is, horror of horrors, a Republican.
Bishop Hill
Climategate investigations (2)
I sent in an update of the Pachauri investigation on Friday
30 April.
I have now completed a further trawl of the web, and at last
dug out that, behind the contradictions of Dr Pachauri's public
statements, there was indeed an IPCC 'investigation'.
The procedure and finding of the investigation were described
by journalist Eli Kintisch in Science Insider on 15 January 2010
as follows:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/ipcc-facing-com.html
'In December, the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, said that
the discussions in the e-mails raised "a serious issue and we
will look into it in detail." Atmospheric chemist Pauline
Midgley, a support scientist on staff for the 2013 IPCC report,
says that officials asked themselves three questions: Were there
problems with the IPCC's procedures for 2007? Were those
procedures sufficient? Are changes needed in preparing the 2013
version?
IPCC never conducted a formal investigation of the issue, but
the scientists who run the organization and their support staff
members have looked over the messages, and found no evidence
that the authors were lax in their review of the papers.'
Eli Kintisch's report unhelpfully refers back to 'papers' even
though he does not anywhere in the report mention or describe
what the papers in question were.
The reference to papers is nevertheless the only hint that
the IPCC considered the implications of the contents of the
CRU E-mails for the validity of the CRU's analysis of the
temperature data, and so in turn the validity of the
IPCC 2007 recommendations.
By contrast the Pauline Midgley questions suggest that,
right from the outset, the IPCC preferred to treat tranquilly
only the 'procedural'--namely administrative--issues arising out
of the CRU E-mails and as far as possible avoid explosively the
'substantive'--namely scientific--issues.
Or more shortly the IPCC seems to have already decided to 'move on'
before its investigators had even looked at the CRU E-mails -- ie the
IPCC had decided to move on regardless of what the investigators'
perusal of the contents of the E-mails might reveal to it.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Saturday 1 May 2010