Friday
May072010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Grilled Cuccinelli
May 7, 2010 Climate: Mann Washington radio station, WAMU, is going to be interviewing Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli later today. If Cuccinelli's case against Michael Mann is as thin as it looks, this should be quite interesting. The podcast link is here and should be available at approximately 13:30 EST, which is about 18:30 UK time.
Reader Comments (41)
Maybe I have not kept up with things. Has the A.G. actually charged Mann with anything? (in which case, I can understand it being stated that his case is thin.) Or has he just demanded a set of documents required for an investigation?
If the latter, who, outside the A.G.'s office, knows:
- what statements were made by Mann in grant applications?
- what was contained in payment claims submitted against grants from the state of Virginia?
- what information has been communicated by whistle blowers within the University?
If the A.G. has not yet made his case, how can it yet be said that it is thin (or fat, for that matter)?
There seems to be a widespread assumption that the A.G. is conducting a witchhunt. Maybe it would be better to reserve judgment? I imagine that, if information is put before him that indicates possible lawbreaking, he has a duty to investigate.
Or have I missed a point?
Regarding the evidence, it is worth noting that the ten-year limitation might not be much of a constraint. For example, suppose (hypothetically) that Mann committed some fraud in 1998. If Mann submitted a grant application in 2002 that cited the fraudulent work from 1998, then it might still be possible to charge Mann: via his making misleading statements on a grant application.
Eric Poehlman was convicted like that.
Martin A,
No, there is an extremely tiresome chant going on about such lacks of evidence, when all the man has done is request a look at some documents so he can decide whether there is any evidence of any wrongdoing. As he is required to do by law it seems.
It has been suggested that if people are uncomfortable with this, that they move to Virginia and get the law changed.
The website says 12:06 pm live broadcast online.
"Friday, May. 7, 2010 at 12:06 p.m. in Politics, The Politics Hour
The Politics Hour gang sits down with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and D.C. Council Member Tommy Wells."
It seems a natural progression considering Cuccinelli’s challenging the Environmental Protection Agency he wants as much information as possible to perhaps strengthen his case.
Are you one of the skeptical bloggers who have decided that you can earn the respect of AGW believers by condemning any review of Mann?
hunter - yes it does seem a bit of an uncalled for and premature chorus given what has gone before.
I'm very much in two minds about this investigation, which is why I haven't posted anything much about it. Unless Cuccinelli knows something we don't it does look like a fishing trip, something I don't approve of - libertarian principles coming through there. If Cuccinelli is going to go after MM on grounds that he cited what Cuccinelli believes to be fraudulent work in his grant applications, it seems to be a bit of a stretch, although as Doug Keenan points out above, successful prosecutions have been launched on this basis before. It's rather like Al Capone being had up for mail fraud - it just seems to miss the point.
An investigation of Mann is an investigation of Science! (gasp!) Such questioning of Climate Celebrity is offensive to the Modern Scientist. Know your place, peasant.
Andrew
Cuccinelli is an AG, that makes him a politician looking for higher office. There are many, many exmples of AG's, particularly in NY state, doing that. I agree with Martyn, let's sit back and watch. He might come up with a red herring, or he may come up with something really good.
We know that Michael 'Piltdown Mann' is a dishonest scientist. The quest now is to find out for how long he has been dishonest, whose money he has used in pursuance of his dishonest science, and what should be done about it. Is it surprising that politicians should be in the vanguard of the pushback against bad science? Why yes and no; science itself should have been able to clean up this act, and it hasn't. So it's going to be left to the politicians. Better them than the revenge of fooled investors in this AGW bandwagon, seen on Mulberry Street. At least this Cuccinelli investigation will be constrained by law. Scapegoats should welcome the safety of the law, because payback otherwise is going to be a bitch.
=============
As a matter of principle it is dangerous for politicians to "go after" scientists. If Cuccinelli has prima facie evidence then he should tell us, if he doesn't then he's fishing. This is pushing open a door I don't like at all, what are we going to say when the GA of Ma asks Lindzen for his emails and papers? Make no mistake about it, there will be retalitory actions from Greenie politicians.
Mann has committed a crime in my view, but it's a scientific crime, if he is hauled before the GA on trumped up charges to give Cuccinelli his fifteen minutes of fame I'll have no compunction in contributing towards his defence.
"a scientific crime"
A 'scientific' crime is different from a 'regular' crime only in the imagination.
Andrew
geronimo
I believe Lindzen has stated in a Q&A session that he would be happy to produce his mails. I could be wrong, but I believe it was a debate at MIT?
I do agree with you that if he is just fishing then it's not useful.
I've just called Steve a canary in a salted mine. Let's see if Cuccinelli can earn his salary sleuthing out a salter.
==================
Geronimo,
There is no question in my mind that MM is very guilty of a "scientific crime," but when it leads to me paying higher taxes to save the world from whatever MM says is about to destroy us all, he is now an economic criminal. He is another Lysenko.
OT, but on the subject of sexing up grant applications: the "2035" claim was used in two successful cases (both involving Pachuari's TERI).
Mann must be steaming now that
"the University of Virginia does not plan to resist a subpoena (..) despite requests from some advocacy groups that it does so."
Some Mannisms from the link below:
Michael Mann says Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is trying to "smear" him and his science
Mann insisted his work has been repeatedly investigated and his methods and conclusions exonerated numerous times. He said the previous attacks against his work have elicited charges of McCarthyism from various sources and put Cuccinelli's request in the same category.
"I do know that a number of individuals have expressed outrage that the attorney general of the state would engage in what seems to be a transparent witch hunt against science," Mann said in an interview. "I would hope that he would reconsider these abusive demands that he's made."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/climate_scientist_says_cuccine.html
Best thing Mann could do if he wants to nip these "abusive demands" in the bud is just get everything that Cuccinelli has requested over to him ASAP. Once he's done that he'll be able to relax and get back to his science.
Once he's done that he'll be able to relax and get back to his science.
And that is? I know what he does and I know science, and I cannot reconcile the two.
I'm not sure "fishing trip" is an apt metaphor. Cuccinelli comes off as a pretty level headed guy. If someone made a complaint it would be irresponsible for an Attorney General not to look into the matter in some way. I assume we all understand that scientists receiving grant money aren't on the honor system and that occasionally their expenditures need to be audited.
Actually, Al Capone was convicted of income tax evasion and some violations of the Volstead Act, aka Prohibition, not mail fraud. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
HankHenry,
Did you listen to the interview? I'd be interested to read opinions of other people who did.
In the past many have put forwards the opinion that science done on the public purse should be open. I agree with this, as long as there is no conflict with national security/interest. This means emails, data, method, documents etc. After all, the argument went, not only will this keep them honest, the public owns the data in the first place.
Now, when the AG asks Mann for some documents, some are concerned that this is fishing, and cite libertarian reasons. It seems to me that asking for some documents is a subset of asking for all documents, which is a subset of asking for all documents to be public, which is a subset of asking for everything to be open. I think there is an inconsistency here.
"An investigation of Mann is an investigation of Science! "
. . . actually in Mann's case that would be an investigation of Climate Scientology.
Listened to the interview, only 5 minutes on Virginia University/Mann, not much wiser. Here are 2 crucial quotes
Some information .... maybe problems .... Hmm I'll wat and see.
.
The interview is 2 minutes and 23 seconds. Nothing earth shattering. My impression is that it's a high profile attention getter for someone gearing up for a run for governor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO9U8gJQiE8&feature=player_embedded
Hi agw, Mann was asked nothing. The 'Civil Investigative Demand' was delivered to ' The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia'.( and don't forget that Mann left in 2005). Here is a link to the CID.
http://fwix.com/tysons_corner/share/14382633e4/u-va_plans_to_comply_with_cuccinelli_subpoena
( You know, on the one hand I found Cuccinelli reasonable and principled. But on the other .. I thought he was a total nutter. There had recently been a murder on the campus and because of this he wanted to change the rules, psychiatric records of the students had to be made available to the university (after they had been admitted). I think the lawyer/politician is more scary than the AGW zealot.)
Nope there was not much at all regarding the Mann inquiry however I did find the Virginia filing on the EPA interesting. The Virginia attorney general seems well grounded.
May 8, 2010 | harold says:
( You know, on the one hand I found Cuccinelli reasonable and principled. But on the other .. I thought he was a total nutter. There had recently been a murder on the campus and because of this he wanted to change the rules, psychiatric records of the students had to be made available to the university (after they had been admitted). I think the lawyer/politician is more scary than the AGW zealot.)
Cuccinelli stated during the interview that the shooting sparked conversations between the President of the University and the Governor of Virginia which led to a request of his office to investigate modification of current state laws which prohibit the transfer of High School records to Universities which indicate a student's criminal activity and psychiatric disturbances observed and recorded at the school.
Not for nothin' but if a student has a three inch file in the High School dean's office that indicates the kid has been arrested at the school for selling drugs and setting fires to classrooms I personally have no problem saying that file should be permitted to be transfered to the University after the student has been accepted to the University as Cuccinelli indicated(so that it would not be an impact on the student's acceptance to the University).
I remember reading somewhere that there's no statute of limitations on fraud in the US. I also remember some brief mention in the Climategate letters of passing on a request to destroy data to avoid FOI requests, as well as fudging data with more than one program and "hiding" evidence that dendro work is phrenology. Mann is very prominent in the correspondence. Can Cooch nail him on conspiracy charges? Nobody really knows at this point. Cooch obviously thinks there's a smoking gun or two in the leaked UEA papers. Now he just wants some fingerprints off the guns. I fail to understand, after the blatant good-ole-boy whitewashing we've seen so far, why it's somehow not cricket for Mann to have to face the music.
I find it quite strange that there are so many doubts expressed to Cuccinelli’s approach to obtaining items of information associated to Mann. Geronimo warns of repercussions rather than supporting the AG in having a good root around Mann’s documentation so that he can decide whether there is evidence of any wrongdoing. Cuccinelli’s approach is directed towards someone who cannot be trusted and is a follow up in line with his challenge to the EPA. I doubt his method is a threat to future scientific freedom but if it is then it will be the result of a few bad apples in the scientific barrel that perhaps should have been policed better from day one.
Sounds as though the specific grant moneys may have been utilised for other purposes than intended, perhaps time spent on blog related issues politicizing a cause were not part of the remit.
so it's nothing to do with science. he requested the money for something and used it for something else? we'll have to see if that holds water but it seems reasonable grounds for investigating.
Mishandling of grant monies would not be incompatible with the hubris Mann has demonstrated elsewhere. The original framing of the request by the AG made it sound like it was a misuse of funds. What do you do when the deliverable for which monies were expended are not delivered? Co-mingling of grant monies, especially when the researcher is an aggressive grant seeker like Mann, is to be expected. But tht doesn't mean the researcher is not vulnerable. Mann's visibility simply made it more likely that he would be pursued. It is a bit like Al Capone and his taxes!
Steve's got a new comment on the 'Hockey Stick and the Milankovitch Cycle' thread of a 1999 email from Jones to Mann(still at UMass) casting much doubt on the shaft of the stick. It looks more and more like the Team understood all along the thin justification for the hockey stick and must have immediately understood the meaning of Steve's early work. They've just stonewalled since, and now the walls have tumbled.
Let us pray to Mother Curry. Let us thank God for Yamal and the Royal Society, and especially for miraculous email revelations.
===================
"and especially for miraculous email revelations."
Exactly kim - where would we all be now without them? How was scientific integrity, academic self regulation, investigative journalism, FOI and due process performing up until last Novemeber?
"Geronimo warns of repercussions rather than supporting the AG in having a good root around Mann’s documentation so that he can decide whether there is evidence of any wrongdoing."
That encapsulates my point precisely. There has to be suspicion of malfeasance with at lease some evidence before a search warrant is issued. Mann, whatever we think of him and I'll come to that, has every right to expect that the AG has some evidence, or suspicion, of malfeasance before, as you say, and it's a lovely word, rooting through his emails, public or private. The possibility is that the AG's request will result in an avalanche of similar requests against anyone who works for the public sector, whose politics/views don't coincide with the administration in an effort to find malfeasance.
My personal opinions of Mann are very low indeed, I'm reading the HSI for the second time and it is clear to me from what I read that we have here a manipulative human being at the centre of a web of corrupt science. Any reasonable scientist can see that MBH1998 is an artefact of statistical manipulation, yet this man has persuaded not only the inner circle of the hockey team, but the wider climate science community to stay schtum. For the inner circle it's worse, I see people, like Briffa, and yes, Jones doing things it they would never have considered doing in a thousand years under the influence of this character. No "declines" were hidden before he came along, these weaker characters have gained strength from his brazen chutzpa and have themselves dipped their toes into the "naughty boys' water", and for a time at least, found it exhilerating. Climategate has stopped them in their tracks, they will be rueing the day they fell under the influence of this scientific Svengali and they will know in their heart of hearts that, even if they overcome the present embarassment, along the line there waits a more forensic examination of their shenanigans that will reveal them as a bunch of scientists who distorted their science in the cause of climate advocacy.
Dr. Mann, of course, in keeping with the type of personality, will have no such misgivings, he's convinced he'll get away with it, and meets each set back on it's own terms delaying the inevitable outcome. Do you want him to get away with it? No? Neither do I, the only way he can dodge the inevitable stamp of scientific infamy will be for some half-assed right wing nutter to make him a martyr, when the whole scientific community, as aware as I am of the outcome of letting the AG get away with this as I am will come to his defence to a man and a woman and bury the evidence of his treachery to science.
So I say, no fishing, wait for the inevitable outcome, be patient and we will have our man exposed for what he is.
jorgekafkazar: Generally, in mopst USA states have from two (2) to (5) years for civil fraud (depending on what the legislatures think is appropriate), and usually three (3) years for criminal fraud.
However, the AG is operating under a very specific statute:
VA Statute 8.01-216, Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act whose text is this regarding limitations:
"A civil action under § 8.01-216.5 may not be brought
(i) more than six years after the date on which the violation is committed or
(ii) more than three years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the Commonwealth charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in that event no more than ten years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last."
You can read the statute yourself. Note in particular it's a civil action but note the legislature gave the AG's office the responsibility to investigate under the statute. The law reads mostly like those of Inspector Generals. Likely they wanted did NOT want to create another IG who would, obtw, have to refer any civil actions to the AG anyway.
My view it two-fold. (1) Mann has entered the political arena intentionally. Actually, there should be no question about this. (2) He has become something, like a Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay who were examined by every AG/IG in the universe if there was any connection whatsoever with their jurisdictional authority. Oh, and for a bonus, the AG can wave the political banner of "defender of tax monies". Oh, and yet another reason which is what I call the IRS reason. The IRS is well known to go after well known taxpayers as a method to scare folks to cheat less on their taxes. Mann fits the bill exactly on this.
The folks that want to change the VA law would do what? Limit fraud with public monies to only three years? Two?
The simple answer, imho, is if science wants to stay out of Inspector General-like inspections/investigations then quit lying, cheating and altering stuff. It smells. And if you promote a political action. Don't be surprised if the smell seeps into a politicians office. Or a law enforcement office.
I listened to the interview and am very relieved that Cuccinelli is not intending to investigate Mann's science. The thought of deciding the hockey-stick in a court of law is chilling. Investigating the misuse of funds is another matter. I am a little perplexed by his statement however....
"...it is one unlike virtually every other expenditure in state government where there is at least some information out there that has been brought to us that indicates there maybe problems in terms of whether or not the money was spent for what was requested for...
does that mean that every other case they've investigated has evidence brought to them of possible wrong-doing and the UVA/Mann case does not, or did he mean that in every other case there has been publicly available evidence one way or the other to determine if an investigation is warranted and in the UVA/Mann case there is no such evidence?
Let the AG have his investigation; it's not like he's going to reveal any information before he has to. If he's got good evidence for fraud or malfeasance, so be it and I'll enjoy watch Mann get shafted. If it turns out that that the AG simply doesn't like Mann's politics and is merely harassing him, then I'll contribute to the defense fund myself. If the AG has reasonable grounds for an investigation but finds in the end that there is no evidence of malfeasance or fraud, then I would hope he has the integrity to say so in as public a mannner as the investigation was first revealed.
Can any of you who deplore Cuccinelli's action tell the rest of us in simple terms how you would explain to a Virginia taxpayer that it is not in his interests that his Attorney-General investigate the proper use of those taxes by a man now known to be a fraud?
Geronimo
It is logical to assume currently the AG has sufficient evidence to have raised his suspicion of wrongdoing to warrant a more in depth investigation to decide if there is a case to prosecute. If eventually it turns out to be a blind ally then no doubt there will be some red faces and explanations in order but presumably part of the AG’s job is to make decisions on whether to investigate possible crimes in the first place. He certainly doesn’t want to be accused of wasting tax payer’s money, so my opinion would be that the AG has fairly strong preliminary evidence. If further investigations find misappropriation then Mann’s dishonesty is brought into the headlines which in turn will question the honesty of his science.
Your concern regarding a political motivated avalanche of similar requests I think is somewhat OTT, a similar concern could be applied to the FOI requests, which is a lot easier to reciprocate from any disgruntled politician or harassed scientist and I don’t think we saw a tit for tat situation there. So I would say at this stage the AG is doing the job he is paid to do let him get on with it.
Politicians don't care about facts, only about perception (aka votes) -- that's why so many of them jumped onto the AGW bandwagon when it seemed to be the popular thing to do.
Politicians in Australia, France and Germany have already seen the light. More will follow as the bankruptcy of AGW continues to be exposed.