Bishop Hill Cuccinelli appeals
Jan 3, 2011 Climate: Mann 
I have covered the ongoing back and forth between the University of Virginia and VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, as the latter tries to obtain Michael Mann's emails to further the investigation into grant applications made by the hockey stick maestro.
I'm slightly confused by all this toing and froing. Last I heard, Cuccinelli had applied for the release of the emails once again - this was back at the end of September - with the university applying to have the demand set aside in mid-October.
It looks to me as if the university's application was successful, because just before Christmas it was reported that Cuccinelli had appealed a court ruling turning down his demand. However, the Virginia Qui Tam Law blog, from whom I have obtained this news, says that there is a strong case that the judge has erred.
...it seems to me that the AG is correct, and the Circuit Court erred in a number of ways, not the least of which was in ruling that Cuccinelli needed a "reason to believe" that there had been a violation of the VFATA.
On that issue, the Circuit Court clearly went against more than a century of very clear federal and state case law when it quashed the Civil Investigative Demand. The Circuit Court applied a standard somewhere in between a subpoena and a document request in civil discovery—that is to say, it applied a "judicial standard" to the CID rather a "law enforcement standard."
It is apparently also likely that even if this appeal fails, Cuccinelli will still get what he is after.
The appeal document can be seen here. This contains the interesting information that the university had previously told a Virginia congressman, Bob Marshall, who asked for the same emails under FOIA legislation, that it no longer held Mann's emails. However, in response to Cuccinelli's requests they had subsequently revealed that an email server containing this correspondence had been located. The Virginia legislature is now considering a bill that would allow termination of the contracts of public employees who breached FOIA legislation. A fuller account of this story is here.
The appeal also contains this snippet about post-normal science:
Academics are free to follow any philosophy of science they wish. Nonetheless, Post Normal Science has produced jargon which might be misleading/fraudulent in the context of a grant application if its specialized meaning is not disclosed or otherwise known to the grant maker.
Reader Comments (46)
Tempting though that might be, your Grace, may I suggest a minor re-write? I hate to be a pedant but ...
Sam
Better?
The discrepancy in which the University first claimed not to have documents and now admits that they do is key. Cherchez et voila.
========
I think this is the last appeal... which to my understanding hasn't been decided yet.
Ornery, I think they call it, in those Southern USA States, when they get dander is up.
Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
(Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers)
But Cuccinelli's real target is the EPA Endangerment finding. Not witchhunting Mann. He wants to challenge the EPA for using dubious IPCC conclusions using Climategate to do so.
Sam
Better?
Much! Thank you.
When it come to carbon prejudice Cuccinelli is honest and has industrial interest at his heart, ironically there is no subsumed interest to found out or discovered. It is clear he has miners who lobby but provide jobs and he also has coverage in Manns area...
Cuccinelli is a lot more easy to understand than any English hy[pocritical conservative politician who is prone to being found out for suckling at the states nipple and claiming to be green
But still, I say this. The case of Cuccinelli against Mann is wrong. There is no case, and it just prejudice by haters.
Science is not a defence but a liberation and freedom and is allowed in scientific work - in a cyclical way.
Mann has a bad algorithm but that is all.
Mann has something to say about climate because he has thought about it. It needs some work.
I love the "Book" (by Montford) and see the history though...
Cuccinelli can ask about any money "he" payed for, that is all I would have thought
Steve2,
Bunk on you.
Mannis funded by pubnlic money and is acountable to the lawful prcesses the public utilizes to see if he has in fact committed fraud.
Your premise is particularly offensive: that the AG is doing this for mining interests.
You have literally no evidence except that fabricate between your ears to support that premise.
Mann's work stinks, his behavior stinks, and reviewing his work is a lawful lgitimiate thing to pursue.
Frankly your smug ignoranve is quite irritating.
Hunter, I think serously that coal is important in Virginia and is in Cuccinelli's area of concern which is "carbon" intensive".
I assume if that if that is clear there is no doubt.
Tell me how Cuccinelli could care less about Carbon and I will allow you to win a negative proof
I think you can't. So then (inevitably) agree with my description of him as less disgusting than the average UK politician.
Mann has a clear flaw.
One of the biggest ever.
Tough! It dont change owt in science or even climate but neither does it make him a fraudster...
Some of you mongs who [snip] here dont seem to realise that...
"Tough! It dont change owt in science or even climate but neither does it make him a fraudster..."
Steve2,
Investigations happen because a person is SUSPECTED of bad behavior. Let the evidence be gathered and evaluated (you know, like the way science should be done) before you exonerate anyone of anything.
Andrew
"Investigations happen ..."
"Prejudice exists..."
What is the difference?
Mealy mouthed "exonerated".
There is no crime in science... What act needs the word "exonerated ?
Prove him wrong like McIntyre does.
If you have always got a result from every penny spent then you are good, if you did that as a scientist then you are a fraud, a conclusion ahead of time is easy.
Oh! when you said:
"a person is SUSPECTED of bad behavior"
sounds like your persnal history and has no relation to science ;)
It does change owt. The uncertainty's been outed.
=============
"There is no crime in science..."
Pardon me, Steve, did you just make up this rule yourself?
When deception is part of the presentation, you can call it macaroni if you want, it's still a crime.
Andrew
Andrew, if it is useful, it is useful. I work in the real world and don't worry too much about academia
If it gets you tenure it is useful. To an academic. If you can prosecute them then that is useful. To a politician.
Work for a real company, the *it* has to be useful, to the real world ;)
[Ed - I have dealt with your complaint]
Steve2,
Your last comment is a bit cryptic.
Does your last comment have something to do with what we were discussing? :wink:
Andrew
[Snip - Trolling]
Steve2,
Is that scientific jargon? ;)
Andrew
Bad Andrew
I am working out "macaroni" is that latin or eating?
All presentation is deception
Steve2,
"All presentation is deception."
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you there.
Andrew
No one has made a case for Cuccinelli's case to find legal fraud, and yes the onus is on Cuccinelli.
I have said above, but have been told "I have literally no evidence", that Cuccinelli has coal and mining interest interests at heart, and I agree. I don't have any evidence.
I think I can find it and I think you all can. Look where he lives and what he does for a living.
Why deny that point?
How political is Cuccinelli? Is he Christ in your mind?
If the political will of Cuccinelli and the scientific will of Mann is happily intertwined by idiots then I fight on Mann's side.
Steve2,
If you get to assign motivations to Cuccinelli, then I get to assign motives to Mann.
Andrew
When Josef K has motiveless persection then that is fine eh?
Slippery pal
Steve2,
Sorry, you are losing me again. Who is Josef K?
Andrew
Bad Andrew
Doy ou like an ideal motiveless prosecution?
How does that work?
Scientificly inicted?
We have a new breed of scientist - the activist scientist.
All applied professional branches - medicine, engineering, law, nursing have professional licensing bodies and guilds. Licensing is granted after practical experience, and can be revoked.
The scientist stands outside this system.
The activist scientist should not.
As with all guilds, members who transgess norms gain support from peers in the event of external attack. But to the extent they rely on that for professional support, their internal standing diminishes.
The activist scientist face no such repurcussion.
Josef or Joseph K is from Franz Kafka's - The Trial
An iconic - Kafka-esque account of a man persued by a all encompassing accusation of guilt from the state without any explanation - it is motiveless.
An ideal in your mind apparently
My 12:39 post was to Bad Andrew
Steve2,
I didn't say anything about "motiveless" prosecution. You seemed to be OK with the process of ASSIGNING motives from the outside, when you don't have all the facts... when YOU do it.
But you seem opposed to it when someone else does it.
Andrew
You have an easy time there. I love people who have an easy time like that. Could you fill in any of the blanks?
[snip bad language]
My motivations are here to see - as always - and what I said about Cuccinbelli and his state Virgina and its dependency on coal is there to be seen - I am not hiding anything am I? Cuccinelli has publicly spoke out about cap and trade, I actually like him, but I see people lying in his defence by attacking me for agreeing with him.
[snip - bad language]
Reveal the information, e-mails, etc. Put the facts on the table. Let the people determine what is right. Anything less is an obstruction of justice. No more of this CAWG b*llsh*t. It is ultimately going to destroy this country and the economy.
TELL IT LIKE IT IS. It is time to stop the B.S.
Sorry, should read CAGW above.
Aside from the point that potty mouth back and forth is boring, it doesn't advance the discussion of the issue.
Cuccinelli is a elected official. He probably does have the political implications in the back of his mind while he pursues Mann. That doesn't mean he isn't legitimately concerned about misuse of public funds by Mann and that it isn't a valid issue for law enforcement. White collar crime (as this may be) is vastly under prosecuted in US. Let the AG pursue this case and see if it is valid.
Mann is a public employee hired to do (and teach) science. If he used public funds to advance his own political agenda (i.e. AGW) instead of doing honest research and publishing honest results, I think there is a case for some sort of fraud, malfeasance, or _____________(fill in the appropriate legal term here).
If Mann can be shown to have known that he was falsifying data or distorting data to produce a predetermined outcome of his "scientific" work, that, I think, is a crime (since it was publicly funded research). Maybe not, but if the AG of VA thinks that it is possible that a crime was committed, he should be allowed to see the documents needed to make that determination. If Mann is just stupid and came to incorrect conclusions from data he didn't understand, then it is not a crime.
The emails may show whether he was trying to "hide the decline" or just an idiot. Motive is very important (as I understand it) in criminal cases. These emails are essential to establishing motive.
Distorting science is not a victimless crime. This is true whether you falsify data to get a worthless drug FDA approved or support claims that climate change is man-made when it is natural. Billions of dollars have be diverted to subsidize wind mills, solar panels, ethanol production, etc. that might have done good (reduced the 3 million malaria deaths last year in the world, for example) instead of lining the pockets of the AGW bandits. Did Mann knowingly assist in this fraud or was he just a "useful idiot" given a forum because his poor science supported AGW ?
I for one think that determining whether Mann is a dupe or a criminal is a valid project for the legal system and I hope that some "transparency" will finally be brought to bear on this issue.
Many govt enviro depts sported the Hockey Stick on their letter head as their reason for existence.
It influenced public policy enormously and the direction of huge amounts of taxpayer funds world wide.
It influenced the indoctrination of possibly half the world's population.
If it was dishonestly arrived at with public funds, to not look into it would seem a dereliction of duty.
[Snip bad language]
Steve2. Totally putting aside your argument please stop with the expletives. My wife and family follow this site and this is the first time in a couple of years that I have seen this sort of behavior.
Bish, please step in on this.
Steve2
This sort of language is not tolerated here. Consider yourself on a final warning.
Not sure of the motives of Ken Cuccinelli but I sure am curious what is in Mann's emails, will he have passed on Jones request to delete emails as he suggested he did or did he leave Jones out to dry and really do nothing. Got to be worth a look just to answer that question.
[snip - venting]
Cuccinelli is pursuing two avenues. In September, he issued a much more narrow CID to UVa that complied with the strict letter of the circuit judge's ruling. UVa is resisting this new CID. In December, Cuccunelli filed an appeal of the circuit judge's first ruling (that set aside the original CID). If Cuccinelli wins the appeal, then he will likely re-issue a broad CID.
UV is a state institution. Send in the State Police and take them.
Think I have found the motivation. The US EPA have a EF endangerment finding which they will be using to control CO2. And Virginia have filed litigation, guess they think they can use Manns emails to discredit the IPCC report.
'A number of parties including Texas, Alabama, and Virginia have filed litigation challenging the Endangerment Finding (EF) that CO2 threatens human health and welfare. SEPP is one of the parties claiming the EF has no scientific basis. The EF is based on the 2007 IPCC report which contains great inaccuracies and false scientific claims. At most, EPA should have declared the science is too uncertain to make a scientific finding.'
from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-9/#more-30899
Breath of Fresh Air
That is remarkably similar to my conclusion upthread Jan 3, 2011 at 9:05 PM
No, it was Mengele.
Pharos, you picked it up a lot quicker than me and on a lot less info.