Renewed energy: Cuccinelli reissues his demand for Mann docs

Cuccinelli, and guys like him, are the reason why some independent voters steer clear of the GOP in Virginia. Mr. Cuccinelli is an embarrassment to us all. He's a sideshow attraction, but thank God he'll never be governor.

Old timer... nobody is "wasting" your tax money on this. The people in the AGs office are salaried and the only real complaint you could make is that their time would be spent better elsewhere. (which is a legitamate beef.)

The AG asked for a broad scope because people hide things. Especailly words that can be hidden in emails.He also needs to see trends and context in his findings. If Mann had examined ALL the evidence he would not have had to revise his Hockey stick. (perhaps the AGs investigation will show that Manns behavior was flat and then accelerated like a hockey stick with the referenced grant)The judge rightfully forced the AG to be more specific and he is attempting to comply.

UVA on the other hand spent 352k on outsourced Lawyers to argue a "no brainer" in court for an hour. I suppose that since it is so open and shut they got ripped off by about 340k. Perhaps they should ask the AG for help with that obvious possibility of misuse of state funds.

I want to live in a state that protects the taxpayers from people who believe they are above the law which in this instance is UVA wanting to protect its grant system, not by being open honest and transparent, but by claiming that they have no obligation to prove they are acting with the utmost integrity.

You don't KNOW that Mann is innocent. You are just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless of the allegations that have been made. You are not the AG. He was elected to his position to do whatever he feels is in the best interest of those who will reelect him and within the confines of the state Constitution and laws. The Judge has given him those limits and we will see if he complied.

The crux of the matter, and the reason that people are alarmed at Cuccinelli's actions is that he's using his office and Virginia's justice system to wage a political battle.

If you think Mann's science is wrong, then do the work and write a paper refuting it.

If you think he's committed fraud, then plainly state your reasons and evidence. (He was NOT able to this with the first CID, according to judge Peatross, so one wonders whether he will be able to this time. Apparently pointing at criticisms of Mann's prior work doesn't suffice.)

If this is allowed to go forward, then any Attorney General can dig up any 'evidence,' however flimsy and trumped up, to investigate and harass his political enemies. An abuse of office if ever there were one.

The internet is full of people who make claims that Mr Mann has committed fraudulent acts.
***
Well, if people make a claim on the internet, then it MUST be true. I think that we can also safely assume that the Holocaust never happened and that the moons landings were hoaxes. After all, plenty of websites make those claims.

Not everyone who disagrees with him is a charleton.
***
Yes, but very few of them can spell "charlatan."

deleted by moderator

I'm still waiting for anyone to show evidence that a crime has been committed.

Pretty simple request and every single one of Cuccinelli's supporters have failed to comply.

It's odd that they would support an investigation when they cannot provide a scintilla of evidence that a crime has even taken place.

This is America and I, for one, do not believe the government should be allowed to investigate American citizens if no crime has been committed. It is sad that there are Americans that do not agree with this and will investigate a scientist because they find the results of his research to be inconvenient.

Thank God for the Constitution of the United States of America!!

@Bill ââ?¬Å?knew or should have known” that driving while texting could lead to an accident”Š”Š".

What an incredibly obtuse thing to say. You really can't draw a distinction between errors in a scientific paper and common sense every day life situations?

I'm sure that studies and papers are improved upon, made more specific, corrected or even disproven all the time as new studies, methodolgies and evidence come to light. But by your rationale (and Cuccinelli's), someone who published a paper which was later proven to be incomplete or have an error has committed fraud, regardless of intent. He/she simply "should have known."

Did you list that paper in your resume for a job application years ago? Sorry, you're fired, and you're lucky we don't press charges.

Did you apply for a state grant in 2001? Well, you published a flawed paper years before, so you're obviously a criminal. Let's get the State Attorney General's office to investigate this Very Serious Crime. What? You didn't use that paper in the grant application process? Well, details, details. You don't understand. We are not following evidence to a conclusion. We already have our conclusion and are looking for supporting evidence.

Bill, the argument presented in that link is that Mann's conclusions were incorrect. That is in no way an argument that he committed fraud. The author doesn't even hint at that.

You admit to not being a lawyer. It doesn't seem that you are a scientist either or even understand what they do. I think it's a rare scientist that would say "case closed." Mr. Mann has analyzed data and found certain tends were indicated by that data. He may (or may not) have chosen irrelevant data, collected it in error prone ways, made errors in calculation, drawn insufficiently well thought out conclusions, or more, all without having once committed fraud.

The test for those faults of methodology or thought in the scientific world is to publish and have one's work considered by one's peers. It is proper and expected that one might encounter criticism when one does that. The fact that such criticism exists is not evidence of fraud, rather it is evidence of a healthy system that allows each side to present the argument it wishes to make. The Attorney General's suit is an attempt to silence through intimidation one side of this particular debate. The University is right to resist allowing him to establish such a chilling precedent for the damage that it would do to the University's primary function, which is to foster thought and debate.

Your reference to "political agendas" is a curious one since this whole Cuccinelli show is based on a purely political agenda which doesn't seem to bother you. On the other hand, if political agendas determine how grant money is distributed, why would it have even been necessary for Mann to engage in fraud to get such a grant? Why then is the Attorney General not pursuing those who give the money rather than one who got it?

Bill, I think you are confused. Mann is not accused of distorting results with grant money. As far as I know no one disputes the paper produced by the grant. Cuccinelli is investigating whether or not Mann engaged in fraud in order to procure the grant money itself. He does so by a rather convoluted process, which makes me question his motives.

I also doubt your claim about the hockey stick as being debunked. I believe the NAS re-affirmed the graph a couple of years ago. I'm open to new information, but please, no americanthinker.com type blogs.

There is indeed a reason UVA is resisting the CID, and it's very simple: you don't give in to a bully's demands. Did you read the scope of the demand? Does that seem like a reasonable request? It's a grant from 2001 (2 years before FATA), and has nothing at all to do with the Hockey Stick. It is interesting how this whole affair compliments Cuccinelli's political ideology and aspirations however, which of course is what's really driving it.

"knew or should have known" that driving while texting could lead to an accident........

I believe that Mann is not above attempting to enhance his reputation. Regardless of some of the people on this blogs point of view his hockey stick has been debunked many times over. The simplest debunking is that his original hockey stick was based on tree rings in North America, which has two obvious flaws. North America is not the world and tree rings are reflective of the annual growth season and available moisture and light, NOT year round temperatures.

I believe that the AG is of the opinion that Mann distorted results for these very reasons and if he did so with grant funds that is a crime.

I still believe the bigger issue is accountability for people who suck the government teat for grant money and then want to be above reproach when asked for details about whether or not they used the funds as promised. There is a reason UVA is witholding and protecting a guy that left there years ago.

The burden of proof of the one remaining grant is astoundingly weak.

The grant named in the CID is "Resolving the scale-wise sensitivities in the dynamical coupling between the climate and biosphere." The two Mann papers that Cuccinelli uses as evidence of fraud, MBH98 and MBH99, are not referred to within nor used in application for the grant in question. Mann was not even the Principal Investigator.

So it seems in order to allege fraud, we have to believe the following is worthy of suspicion: Mann authored two controversial papers, which increased his reputation as a climate scientist. His reputation then assisted in the grant application process, which led to the grant. So if there was fraud perpetrated in the MBH98 & MBH99 papers, it led to the fraudulent award of $214k.

Also, the purported fraud is defined by the fact that Mann "knew or should have known" that his original papers were misleading. "Should have known"? We can now equate intentional fraud with unintentional mistakes? (I'm not claiming there were errors, by the way, but fraud would seem to imply intent to deceive, not sloppy work or inadvertent errors).

Simply amazing.

I guess one question is what research Mann cited to get that one grant. Regardless, the judge made clear that Cucc had no right to ask for all of the emails between Mann and other climate scientists that had no relation to the grant.

No, Bill, everyone including the judge believes that the attorney general has the authority by statute to investigate potential fraud involving state funds.

Most people including the judge realize, however, that no evidence of fraud has been presented. Why don't you present some from a reputable source (any one of the numerous expert committees that has looked at Mann's work, for example)?

Bill Marshall,

"He did not show the public his methods"

That is not true. His methods were available to the public, through the standard methods that all scientific jounrals make them available.

But I know you are a business person who thinks the development of Albemarle County is great, because all those fictitious half acre businesses paying 50k a year salaries are collecting lots of withholding, so everyone else should subsidize the water.

Why am I not surprised you want to excuse a witch hunt for another bunch of fictitious claims?

I don't care if Mann was studying Global Warming or the mating habits of ex presidents from arkansas. Evidence has come forth that shows probale cause that he may have committed a crime by misusing reasearch funds. The Judge threw it out as too broad and the AG has refiled hopefully within the letter of the law.

I think the difference of opinion here is whether the AG has the right (responsibility?) to root out fraud. I think he does. If he does so in a partisan way then don't vote for him. What he is doing is certainly within the scope of his job.

UVA is apparently of the opinion that they should not be accountable or have to answer for the people who use taxpayer money under their watch. I believe that they are mistaken and I hope the AG proves them wrong.

If a busnesss owner has to show his books to the irs both state and federal and account for every penny then so should a researcher. If the resercher was given the money to do honest research and manipulated the data in any way while using taxpayer money he misused the funds. That is a crime.

UVA can possibly prove him innocent but chooses not to. I think they are trying to protect a much larger misuse of funds and are afraid of a gigantic nationwide scandal that would cut out millions of dollars in grant money.

Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that misuse is out there. Why should these researchers get a pass?

I had to file something at the Courthouse and the C. vs. Uva file was sitting next to the file date stamper. Before the first ruling someone sent the Judge (and no copy to the attorneys of either side) a big packet of Mann's published works with Cliff notes written off to the side "and you need to understand" "and here's the hockey graph" etc. Peatross is going to rule if its legal to issue this CID he doesn't need 3rd outside parties sending in Cliff notes on Mann's work.

Bill, you have no idea what you're talking about. Mann's data and code are readily available. His work has been repeatedly examined by expert committees and they have never found evidence of fraud. Why don't you cite material from a reputable source such as the National Research Council report?

It is easy to claim the AG is a bully. It is a little harder to explain why Academics feel they are above the law. There is nothing wrong with asking for accountability. Mann was not exonerated by submitting proof; he was exonerated by a university that wanted the problem to disappear and received a direct benefit from that disappearance. He did not show the public his methods and has never explined how when random numbers from a phone book were entered into his program the results always came up the same.

Probable cause contains evidence that a crime "may" have been committed. The emails and the lame explantions meet that standard.

We will see what happens.

The AG is not a bully. Mann is the one who took taxpayer money, came up with a conclusion and then doesn't want to show his work except to people who have a vested interest in continuing the money flow. Mann is the one who claimed he has 4 aces. Show the cards. A real Scientist would see the benefit of proving things in the court of public opinion since it would be public opinion that would force the politicians to pass laws to save the planet.

Accountability should have been put out there as soon as the email scandal broke. The AG shouldn't have even had to get involved. Unfortunately UVA prefers to bury their head in the sand while lacrosse players commit murders, women are raped, the endowment loses billions etc.

They always circle the wagons and do nothing else until it is too little too late. Now they are wasting money instead of cooperating. I think when the truth gets out they are hiding something. It may not even be Manns work. It might be the tip of the iceberg with all the other grants.

Time will tell.

Eli - Seems there is a scandal brewing at George Mason. Another example of an uneven hand in the administration of the law under the Attorney General. The Attorney General seems to be playing a game of cowboys and indians were he gives a pass to those on his side (who are likely cowboys) and goes after the other team (who are likely indians). This game might be interesting sport if he were not elected to administer the office of Attorney General with the responsibility to oversee enforcement of the law for all citizens of the state.

Bill, why don't you cite credible sources such as the National Research Council report on subject?

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

The article cleary points out that there was deception and misreprsentation. His cohorts came to aid and said his lies were irrelevant to what they purport to be the "fact" of global warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/global_warming_and_the_science.html

THe AG is unwilling to take their word for it and wants to see for himself. UVA is stonewalling instead of showing the proof.

The AG is going back to court to try and secure the info within the confines of the law. We will see if he accomplishes that when it gets back to court.

This is about global warming for some and partisan politcs for others when it really should be about accountability from those who receive taxpayer money regardless of the issue.

KS, you are mistaken

http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law/foia-overview-a-faqs-law...

that article presents absolutely no evidence of a crime having been committed, nor does it purport to. what is its relevance?

Oh wait, I know! The difference is that the judge actually has to rule on the law while billmarshall is free to have whatever crackpot opinion he wants based on some webpage somewhere.
***
Ha, ha, ha! The other funny thing is that the judge repeatedly asked the attorney from Cucc's office for some evidence of fraud during oral arguments and the attorney kept pointing to the type of information cited by billmarshall and presented by the AG's office in their brief. And the judge kept saying that he had read and considered all of this information but none of it suggested any indication of fraud.

It's amusing that Cucc's followers continually believe that obviously crackpot and/or ideologically driven websites are more reliable sources of information than NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science, or the National Research Council.

DW: "This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults."
He's able; he *chooses* not to.

HS: "The University has tapped into private funds to cover the $352,874.76 in legal fees it has thus far incurred..."
UVA doesn't have its own legal staff? It spends over a third of a million on outsourced lawyers? At least it's a more useful expenditure than 47,000 T-shirts...

But it advances Cucc's political career by impressing his reactionary base.

I suppose with the same lack of evidence he presented at the last court hearing...

This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults. Such a combination inevitably leads to an abuse of power. The law should be repealed as quickly as possible.

It is not just this bad law that is to fault. The Attorney General again goes too far and enforces the law with an uneven hand. Speaking as a taxpayer, we deserve better.

Several investigations of the e-mails show no illegalities related remotely to the Commonwealths tax laws, yet the Attorney General goes after them. These e-mails were made public by individuals who stole them from a private e-mail system. The Attorney General makes no effort to prosecute these individuals for this theft commonly referred to as "hacking".

Enough is enough. It's time the Attorney General represent the people of Virginia rather than his own personal opinions. Time for him to drop this case, end the politically motivated witch-hunts, and serve all the people in Virginia, not just the ones who agree with him.

....perhaps Penn State, and the UK don't have access to the records from UVA.... perhaps they didn't ask for them because they were uninterested in a negative outcome (for them)......

And then: Where is Cuccinelli finding his basis for fraud if there is no corroborations from the other panels that had already investigated these incidents thoroughly? Sure, if Penn State disciplined Mann, Cuccinelli can go for it. If UK found evidences of fraud, Cuccinelli can celebrate and pounce on the case. Except... there has been no findings of fraud anywhere.

Edward Wegman lawyers up As they say about glass universities

Jay-J points out part of the ruling that states the very limited scope a CID could carry forward if allowed. The judge also said the Attorney General did not present any evidence a crime was committed that the University may or may not have documents that confirm or deny. There you have it: very limited scope, but no probable cause. It's the no probable cause part the Attorney General did not read.

Maybe it's his personal biases, maybe it's his vanity, but the Attorney General is unable to see his efforts are at a dead end. He might try investigating the hackers and get the e-mails that way, but the trail of evidence might not be direct and he likely does not have jurisdiction. Seems time to drop the case and go on to something else, but the Attorney General seems unable to do that either.

Bill Marshall,

Let's address the two agendas that you believe Cuccinelli has (besides the pandering to the neoconservatives base... but I digress)

1. Cuccinelli has the authority to use Virginian taxpayer money to ensure that Mann's results satisfy his beliefs? Let us be clear here. Mann's techniques and results have been cleared of any fraud by both scientists and laymen in the United States and the United Kingdom. Cuccinelli does not have any basis of fraud besides claims by "experts on the internet" that have been debunked. You can certainly argue about Mann's ways of using the data, but you cannot claim fraud on his techniques.

2. So via your second claim, you believe that scientists have to address taxpayers' beliefs when they conduct their research? Somehow, because 30% of taxpayers believe in global cooling, 40% believe in global warming, the scientist has to fit his paper into this category? There are plenty of reasons to keep politics out of science.

Who are you to say what are facts and what aren't? Copernicus did not consider the facts from the church when he made the claim that the Earth rotated around the Sun. You are making very bland conclusions about scientific facts when so much are still unknown, especially in the field of climate science. The truth of the matter is that the facts in science are always in flux. You accuse Mann of using personal bias in writing the paper, but do you not also have personal bias in accusing Mann of fraud? Would that not satisfy your convictions and beliefs about global warming? Should science be forced to follow the conscious of the ruler, or in this case the attorney general? Should the University of Virginia be banned from doing climate science, simply because they know that Cuccinelli would be dogging them if they try?

UVA certainly has certain grounds to improve upon. Relinquishing academic freedom to the force of politics is not one of them.