Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli's AGW Witch Hunt Continues 341
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."
I Left Out The Best Part (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [hamptonroads.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There should be a law against misappropriating funds for political witch-hunts, but somehow I don't think that it's fit relative to the selective pressures that act upon laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the challenge with that would be to differentiate the times when those efforts actually turn up legitimate witches, which unfortunately happens all too often.
it's all cognitive dissonance from here on out (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the Virginia AG has broken any Federal laws with this witch hunt? Maybe the US DOJ should investigate him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He is committing barratry [wikipedia.org] a misdemeanor under Virginia law (according to the Wiki article).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if the scientist IS committing fraud? It's not as if it never happened before:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/55383/ [the-scientist.com]
(humor)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
google "michael mann research grants" and it should be your first hit.
A
Re:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read a lot of stuff from Mann but I'm unaware of any particular policy he is advocating other than the general "we need to cut emmissions". Can you provide a link to the "policy Mann advocates", and please no hearsay from the usual suspects, I want it in his own words.
Re:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:5, Funny)
He wants us to revert to stone age tools and pray to the Dark Lord and eat our babies and top-post on Internet forums! I heard it on the Interwebs from someone with no expertise in any field relevant to global warming so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He wants us to revert to stone age tools and pray to the Dark Lord
Don't be silly. Michael Mann would be perfectly happy if we'd just watch more Miami Vice reruns so he'd get residuals.
You're Talking About Penn State (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right in that the research of MMann didn't cost the university more than $500k but if you do a google search you'll find a WSJ article stating that he recived $541k dollars in stimulus funds in june 2009, so his drain on taxpayers money directly is still greater than the litigation costs, and of course the implementation cost of the policy he advocates and do research to support would have a pricetag several magnitudes higher.
I believe this is the article you're talking about [wsj.com]. And I believe it's referring to 'last June' when Michael Mann was teaching at Penn State. Mann only taught at UVA from 1999 to 2005. Here's the paragraph:
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
Emphasis mine. So he received another half a million to continue his research this year? And that's wrong because? Also, Ken Cuccinelli holds no domain over Pennsylvania State University. See, when a university is given the authority to decide where its funds go, you usually don't spend twice that much money investigating whether or not the research done meets your statistical muster or political goals -- especially when you're not an expert in that field!
... so his drain on taxpayers money directly is still greater than the litigation costs ...
Yeah, you could look at Mann's whole life and his health insurance and everything but we're not. We're focusing on one particular study done by Mann for half a million dollars carried out at UVA.
Have fun tracking down every climate scientist gathering funds for any kind of climate research and charging them with wasting taxpayers dollars. By the time you're done, it will be impossible to draw any scientific conclusion about climate change because any indication that you construe to be economically painful will be met with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have this problem on one of my computers for some time now. My solution (when I need to paste a link) is to cut&paste everything to Notepad, insert the link and then copy the whole test back. It seems that when the comment box is empty I can paste into it. /Offtpoic
I have it only on one machine (running Win 7 & Chrome). Maybe I should reinstall the OS? It's about time.
Re:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Mann was given that a grant, which was only $214,700, to investigate, and I quote, 'the interaction of the land, atmosphere and vegetation in the African savannah.' (The rest of the $500,000 went to other researchers.)
Which, of course, has nothing to do with climate change at all, and as far as anyone can tell he's actually done the work he was given the grant to do.
He's being investigated because he previously wrote an other page, not using Virginia funds, and the Virginia AG claims he got the savannah grant because he listed the climate change paper in his list of credentials.
In other words, this isn't even about the rather idiotic thing you claim it's about, it's about something even dumber. He wrote a paper, which he actually did, listed it, quite correctly, as one of the papers he wrote when he got hired for some other work, did that other work, and is now being sued for 'fraud' because someone asserts that other paper is somehow not true.
This isn't just a 'witch hunt', this is an EPIC WITCH HUNT. It's the idea that if you don't like what someone else wrote, and they at any time took any money, from someone they've mentioned that paper to, you can sue them for fraud.
Do you see how batshit insane this is? This is suing someone for fraud for lying on their resume (Which is crazy in the first place), except the 'lie' isn't even an actual lie or even a careful 'not lie' that's still misleading...he did write the paper.
This is like suing someone for fraud because they put on their resume 'Worked at Joe's Car Wash', and you claim they didn't work very hard at Joe's Car Wash, so collecting their salary from their new employer was 'fraud'. WTF? That's not any workable legal theory of 'fraud'.
That doesn't matter (Score:3, Informative)
What matters is what the public sees, and most of those FOX News zombies will look at all of this and see the Noble Attorney General defending them from the vast international conspiracy consisting of 90% of the planet's scientists and being run from Al Gore's house (oops, I mean run from an obscure school in the UK, I forgot about the emails), which is of course in turn part of a much larger 4 decade old conspiracy by Kenyan goat herders to install a secret Muslim terrorist agent in the White House, who wo
Re: (Score:2)
And to a more important matter: since when and why can't i copy paste into my comments?
That would be an edit control under the sway of your operating system and browser, not slashdot. So look into a local problem. I'd probably restart my browser, and if that didn't fix anything, reboot my computer to see if it was some odd transient error.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Gas is up to damn near $3 again, but this time, people don't have jobs. Environmentalists wanted to reduce our energy use, and they are going to get it. Hopefully we can avoid the starvation and poverty normally associated with reductions in energy use.
just a witch hunt; (Score:3, Insightful)
Washington Post: "Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia" [washingtonpost.com]:
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 veget
Re:just a witch hunt; (Score:5, Insightful)
Washington Post: "Ken Cuccinelli seems determined to embarrass Virginia" [washingtonpost.com]:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In a grant application, Michael Mann cited some of is his prior research papers that, it is alleged, Mann knew were bogus. In other words, Mann committed fraud in a grant application. That is a crime, as it obviously should be.
For details, read the Attorney General's letter [washingtonpost.com] to UVA.
Re:just a witch hunt; (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, lets say if someone rips you off for half a million, you decide not to pursue them because it will cost nearly that much again. So, someone else sees that you don't pursue cases like this, and rips you off for another half a million. You don't pursue them because of the cost, so someone else does it as well. Better to spend a million chasing the first guy, so the second (and third, and subsequent) know that you are not someone to fuck with.
Now of course this may be a politically motivated witch hunt, I
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that's a risk, but you can't know that in advance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I have to disagree with your logic. OK, so the Slashdot consensus is that Mann is on the right side of things and this is a witch hunt. Suppose that he wasn't, though. Should the AG ignore the matter just because it might be expensive to prosecute or defend against? And what if there was a hive of scum and villainy that the AG was trying to browbeat into legality by setting an example against one particular actor - surely that's justifiable up to a point?
Don't interpret this to mean that I'm supporting the
Re: (Score:2)
Researchers like Mann
Whew! I thought I had to RTFA! Only about 5 comments down and I find out it's not the guy who made Miami Vice!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding - thats why I RTFA in the first place! Almost skipped it entirely because I saw the word Virginia - they dont make much good whiskey or beer there so why should I care what happens there? *shrug*
Nope, but Virginia has produced some damn good presidents. Regrettably good whiskey and beer have been more important for some time now.
Re:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:4, Insightful)
You have got to be fucking kidding, Mann is at the top of his field and lists well over 100 papers in his CV [psu.edu], many of them in journals such as Nature and Science. The only reason this crooked AG can get away with resurecting McCarthyisim is because useful idiots like you allow him to do so.
How do you know what is real? (Score:5, Informative)
So... how do you know what is real?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do you know what is real? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad hominem hostile logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh man, did you just mention Wegman? I think you did! The Wegman report was a hilarious parody of science, as has been quite [deepclimate.org] thoroughly [deepclimate.org] documented [deepclimate.org]. Not only that, but Wegman's penchant for plagiarism has apparently spread to his PhD students! Imagine that, an unethical scientist creating unethical students.
The whole thing is just funny, but a kinda sad sort of funny.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget something? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forget something? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Somewhat off topic here, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Professional Conduct (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the actual Science... (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Any questions?
1. What turned you into an evil, anti-god, pinko communist?
2. Why do you hate our economy so much?
3. Why can't you understand that the biosphere should just pull itself up by its own bootstraps?
Re: (Score:2)
2. It's not 'ours' any more, it belongs the the global community
3. Oh it will, but we will be extinct by then
Re:Back to the actual Science... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I personally agree with the finding of human-induced global warming, your statistics only show what people who work in the field believe, not what ground truth is. If you surveyed the members of a homeopathic society they would probably believe in overwhelming numbers that homeopathy works, but that doesn't constitute proof that it does. Ditto for astrology.
The strength of science is its openness, but the drawback is that understanding it takes more work than most people are willing to invest. From my perspective, who is better equipped to deal with scientific questions than somebody who has spent their whole life studying those questions? On the other hand, people who don't like the answers can always claim that the scientists have a vested interest in certain answers, or have bought into group think. And sometimes that's true, as with homeopaths and astrologers. The scientific method deals with this - it's perfectly okay to question anything as long as you're willing to use data and evidence to judge the validity. However, the religious right and other anti-intellectuals have learned to use this to their advantage by doing the questioning but ignoring the validation side.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really hard to do validation without the source data... Also, it's really hard to do validation on extrapolations done by computer models. In addition, it's really hard to do validation on climate (which changes on a scale of 10s of thousands of years) with a few hundred years of decent data and only about 100 of good data.
That's why science is based on experiments that are repeatable, not on computer models. I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't believe in nuclear power either if we didn't have several examples of working reactors.
Thank god Einstein, Fermi, Szilard and Co believed in math and science enough to not need working reactors.
Newsflash: EVERYTHING is a mathematical model. Some theories are based on algebraic equations, some on non-linear equations, some on a set of iterative equations, but they are all "just" equations that model reality.
Computer models are just a fancy way of doing the same calculations that would be done by hand otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which interestingly climate "scientists" are reluctant to make available.
Also, it's really hard to do validation on extrapolations done by computer models.
Without knowing exactly what the program does (which can require more than just the source code) you can't really tell much.
In addition, it's really hard to do validation on climate (which changes on a scale of 10s of thousands of years) with a few hundred years of decent data and only abo
Re: (Score:2)
Tim S.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I would like to know by what mechanism carbon dioxide increases the heat retention of the atmosphere, from a physics and/or physical chemistry perspective. I ask this because when I made the calculations, I found that the heat capacity of carbon dioxide is actually BELOW the average of other atmospheric gasses, and significantly below the average when you take water vapor into account. Indeed, the variation in humidity on the surface of the Earth seem
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas, but water doesn't get 'locked up' in great quantities for long periods of time. Carbon (dioxide) does, and the problem is the rate at which we're rel
Ya I do have a question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the vast majority of people are morons, and wouldn't understand the science if it was bashed over their heads. In fact a lar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'll answer with just my opinion on why I trust a scientific consensus:
I trust that the scientific method has become more objective and accurate over time and that scientific knowledge is moving towards truth on average. References to old scientific paradigm shifts like flat-earth, or earth-centric universe do not apply. That was not an age of real science like we are in now. I guess I'm trying to say that I believe the scientific method to currently be our best process for discovering fact. If a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. It's so obvious when you follow the money and motives on each side.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...but...but...then there wouldn't be ANY humans involved.
(Explanation ['cause some people don't seem to get it]: Even the most communistic of nations have a material gain motive. The party operatives and leaders during the heyday of communistic Soviet Union had a much higher living standard that the factory workers or farmers, and the same situation exists in the worker's paradise of China and North Korea.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Surveys" and "Consensus" sound science indeed you fucking ninny
No, but they are useful to people who are *not* scientists, and therefore don't know how to parse the kind of nuanced,carefully caveated statements scientists are trained to make when they speak in public. When a scientist is saying something is a slam-dunk, it sounds like a member of the general public saying he's almost 50% sure the thing is bunk. People expect public statements to be couched in hyperbole, the way marketers and politicians do it. Understatement is a foreign concept to them.
So maybe it'
Re: (Score:2)
Percentages of scientists is not science, that is an opinion poll.
Science is about facts.
Right. It is about facts.
Not about what 97% of scientists say.
Wait a minute. 97% of those scientists have facts to back up what they say. You're making it like sound like it's a public survey of people who are guessing.
Science is not an opinion poll. It is about learning and making our lives better. What if the 3% are right? Thats real science. Question yourself.
Go for it. However, as much as people who deny AGW say this over and over, have you constructed your own models. Do you accept criticism of them, have you collected raw data, etc.? (You being the group that you seem to identify with, not you you).
Today's xkcd was a good example of that for me. http://www.xkcd.com/803/ [xkcd.com] Yet that is the way air lift is taught and it is wrong.
That is the way lift is taught to children. Children you can't do line integrals an
Re: (Score:2)
If 97% of those scientists had facts, they should've polled them for citations of those facts, not their opinions. You make it sound like the 3% of scientists couldn't possibly have had facts to back up what they say, leading us to essentially judge this as a popularity contest, or a statistical guess that 97% of people will always be more right than 3% of people.
Grr.. I was typing a reply then lost it... Anyway, that's a little unfair to require scientists to provide citations every time they are asked a question. They weren't asked for citations, which are present in their papers and discussions, they were asked 'given your experience and expertise in the field, what is your opinion that; climate change is occuring? humans have a significant impact and can mitigate that impact? that climate change will be a problem?'
While I didn't say that the 3% could not hav
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Rub it in why don't you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
That was a poor write-up even by /. standards. I tried to parse it, and for a second thought this had something to do with movies since it mentioned Michael Mann. There was no indication other than glaciologist and the picture of earth this might have something to do with whatever the current term for global warming is.
Why, oh why, do I even bother coming here anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not saying much...
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't sure what the heck this article was talking about, so I had to read the start of TFA.
You weren't sure? Hell, I thought the article was about Michael Mann, as in the Michael Mann who directed Miami Vice. That's from someone who takes pride in keeping abreast of current events.
Re: (Score:2)
Investigating and misuse of government grant money is perfectly within his mandate.
Of course doing so when there is no indication of such misuse and a previous investigation yielded nothing is stepping out of the bounds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't bet against Cuccinelli (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't bet against Cuccinelli (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:Don't bet against Cuccinelli (Score:4, Informative)
Cuccinelli claims on page 28 of the subpoena [washingtonpost.com] that since Mann used the word “community” in a blog post, he must be using “Post Normal” jargon, and that might be “misleading/fraudulent” in the context of a grant application. Now if that's not making a pretzelised interpretation of the law I don't know what is.
Given a fair judge, I cannot see any possibility of Cuccinelli nailing Mann to a cross while simultaneously grasping at such tenuous straws.
Re:Don't bet against Cuccinelli (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately for Mann the new case hinges on an issue of fact - the statistical validity of the analysis - that lies deep in Mann's territory. He has to demonstrate fraud on Mann's part, as fundimental requisite of the statute this brilliant lawyer somehow forgot when he filed his first case. There's years of evidence and hundreds of researchers, going back to the original peer review, which have viewed it as being made in good will. What's the plan here? Hire some pseuds and try to bullshit the audience into believing Mann's stats were not bad, but deliberately cooked? It's nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately for Cuccinelli, I should say.
Increasingly dire problem with prosecutors (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Thinking point: So, you're in favor of abolishing the EPA?
A justified investigation by the Attorney General (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A justified investigation by the Attorney Gener (Score:4, Insightful)
So you value "evidence that the work was probably bogus" from an Accountant who majored in Chemistry over every professional climate science association on the planet? That the UN IPCC is defrauding the world for the sake of "covering up for one of their own"?
> There is more than enough evidence to justify investigation of Mann's work
So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for. The criminal justice system is for murderers and robbers, not scientists with unpopular conclusions.
Unless ...
nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument.
No, it is an "appeal to authority" argument. If I maligned the author's character while avoiding the actual issue, that would be an ad hominem argument.
>> So investigate it. That's what scientists do, that's what peer review is for.
> peer review is not intended to catch fraud
But it often does. And you ignored half the sentence - competing scientists are definitely out to disprove each other. That's the whole point of being a scientist, disc
Michael Mann responds. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the editorial Mann says even if you ignore his work and the whole field of paleoclimate it doesn't change the climatologists conclusions on global warming. [washingtonpost.com]
So Mann doesn't really matter that much, he's just a convenient boogy man that people have heard about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As much as I want to free the climate science from biases and dishonesty, this is not the way to do it.
Indeed. If you actually wanted to do that, you would be trying to get rid of the denialists.
Re:No the way to do it (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't understand how a movie (which I haven't seen, I guess, so I can't really judge) can be thousands of times worse than what Cuccinelli's doing. One is a bit of free speech that people are capable of ignoring if they desire. The other cannot be ignored, since it's couched in the auspices of the courts and the Office of the Attorney General - ignoring it may mean fines, contempt citations, obstruction of justice charges, etc.
What Cuccinelli's doing is thousands of times worse than the 10:10 movie.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just don't understand how a movie (which I haven't seen, I guess, so I can't really judge) can be thousands of times worse than what Cuccinelli's doing. One is a bit of free speech that people are capable of ignoring if they desire. The other cannot be ignored, since it's couched in the auspices of the courts and the Office of the Attorney General - ignoring it may mean fines, contempt citations, obstruction of justice charges, etc.
What Cuccinelli's doing is thousands of times worse than the 10:10 movie.
I
Re:No the way to do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Having looked at it, it seems to advocate killing people who don't conform to reduction of greenhouse gasses in the same way Monty Python advocate killing people who fail at hide and seek in their "How Not To Be Seen" sketch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, let's all fall back to the "That's what the Nazis did, too!" argument. That's always been the fallback for thoughtful individuals around the world.
Sometimes a joke is just a joke, otherwise the world would be a dreary existence of searching for hidden ulterior motives. Sure, this movie had a message, but the message isn't "Let's kill some of those guys who disagree with us!" If that's what immediately came to mind when you saw or heard about it, then you must have a fit whenever you watch a slapst
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, this movie had a message, but the message isn't "Let's kill some of those guys who disagree with us!"
No, the message was “Let’s make jokes about how funny it is to kill those guys who disagree with us! But it’s okay, because we’re just joking. What’s the matter, people? Can’t you take a joke?”
Of course, I can take a joke. I can also play a joke on them in return... I went around and turned on all the lights in my whole house for a couple of hours. Ha ha. It’s a funny joke. Really!
WHOOSH - The 10:10 movie was comedy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Either people don't understand the comedy (and need jokes explained to them), or they are being offended on purpose.
Re:WHOOSH - The 10:10 movie was comedy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Either people don't understand the comedy (and need jokes explained to them), or they are being offended on purpose.
"Comply or die" is not humorous. This is a controversial issue, and needs to be handled with respect. Let's change the topic, shall we, and we'll see if it remains so hillarious:
A) All those who are citizens raise their hands, now all the illegal aliens...
B) All those who go to church raise their hands, now all the atheists...
C) All those who are jihadists raise their hands, now all the infidels...
I'm still not seeing the humor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, it's like this: people are going to die due to global warming. This is a fact. If we do not cut back on our CO2 emissions, more people will die.
Whether or not this is a certainty is debatable, but the chance of AGW resulting in loss of human life is magnitudes less than that of reducing dependence on foreign oil. Why?
Thermal Nuclear War.
Those oil-producing places aren't exactly the most stable politically, are they? Causing them to have less money will, certainly, lead to loss of life.
So you explode Ted, which you didn't necessarily have to do, and juxtapose that to the possibility that some humans are screwed either way. Whether we cut back or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only comedy with this video is that the producers are so self absorbed that they can't see the fact that their radicalism is showing for the world to see. I showed the video to my wife, without an explanation of where it came from. She thought it was a tasteless spoof of environmentalist.
I got the joke. It just wasn't funny. Killing people that disagree with either your premise, or your method of resolving a percieved problem in such a horrific way isn't funny...in any way, shape or form.
Re: (Score:2)
However, those comparing the children in this video to al-Qaeda terrorists in training (read the YouTube comments if you want to lower your IQ a few points) I think are missing the point entirely. If you can't make the distinction between religious fundamentalists who can and do kill people and (as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this little "joke" [youtube.com] is easily the least intellectual thing any group could have possibly done. The message is clear - comply or die. How they thought it was funny is beyond me. There's no 'whoosh' factor here. This is the sickest, lowest form of a joke that is easily spotted, and disgustingly insulting.
See, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. When you feel that everyone should cut consumption by 10%, you apparently think it is hilarious to cause those who disagree to explode. When
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good lord you missed the point.
If you do not cut back your consumption by 10%, people will die. They will not be people in your country, or even people in your continent - they will be anonymous Chinese rice farmers, or Indian fishermen, or Nigerian scam artists. But you don't give a shit, because those people are brown and don't even speak English, right?
The 10:10 commercial wasn't saying "comply or die" - it was saying "if you don't comply, people will die". They just tried to bring the point home by expl
Re: (Score:2)
putz
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. In other words, climate change brought about by human activities.
The Virginia Attorney General is acting like a total douchebag because he can't give up his fight against AGW (could be because he *looks* like a total douchebag).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Murkowski is no longer the Republican running for Alaska's Senate seat, but she woud caucus with them if reelected as that's how she'll have seniority on committees. Since she has joined every Republican filibuster - on any kind of legislation, so long as it obstructed Democrats - there's no reason to believe she won't go along with them, especially since she'll have to make deals with the party to keep her seniority. She might not lead witch hunts, but she will eliminate Social Security and Medicare [firedoglake.com] to giv