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."
Forget something? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forget something? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:2, Informative)
google "michael mann research grants" and it should be your first hit.
And to a more important matter: since when and why can't i copy paste into my comments?
Re:I Left Out The Best Part (Score:2, Informative)
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:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
How do you know what is real? (Score:5, Informative)
So... how do you know what is real?
Re:just a witch hunt; (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:How do you know what is real? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How do you know what is real? (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.
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 would destroy America by creating Death Panels that execute all the elderly white people so that undeserving black people can buy Rolls Royces with food stamps.
Did I mention that millions of stupid people are allowed to vote in my country?
Re:Must do the work yourself (Score:3, Informative)