Cuccinelli v Mann

This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.

Obviously, I think that Mannian effusions have negligible scientific value. However, the people in the field think otherwise and organizations like NSF seem ready and willing to lavishly fund analysis that seems to me to be little more than paleo-phrenology. Cuccinelli’s complaint lies with NSF rather than Mann.

To the extent that Virginia citizens are concerned about public money being misappropriated, Cuccinelli’s own expenditures on this adventure should be under equal scrutiny. There will be no value for dollar in this enterprise.

It’s hard to think of ways to resuscitate the public image of a guy who, only last week, was threatening to sue Minnesotans For Global Warming. Many people, including me, were relishing the prospect of discoveries back and forth between Mann and Chicken Little. Instead, Cuccinelli has become an even bigger bully.

I intend to write Cuccinelli expressing my disdain for his actions.

I might add that this is not the first time that I’ve volunteered support to Mann in this sort of nonsense. I was copied on one of Keenan’s attempts to instigate a fraud investigation against Mann and immediately made it clear that I did not support or endorse the request, strongly disapproved of it and even offered Mann my support.

To the extent that there are issues with Mann or Jones or any of these guys, they are at most academic misconduct and should be dealt with under those regimes. It is unfortunate that the inquiries at Penn State and UEA have not been even minimally diligent, but complaints on that account rest with the universities or their supervising institutions and the substitution of inappropriate investigations by zealots like Cuccinelli are not an alternative.

Cuccinelli interviewed here http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2010-05-07/politics-hour

136 Comments

  1. MiMo
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    Thanks. Totally agree that it is nonsense.

  2. Steven Mosher
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    Agreed.

    Steve if you want to draft something up I know I will sign it.

  3. Gary Palmgren
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    I do not believe this investigation has anything to do with the competence of Mann’s work. However, Mann has accepted taxpayer money in the form of grants and your site has quoted a number of principles about data release that are suppose to be enforced by the granting agencies. I welcome a legal review of the terms of the grants to see if Mann has lived up to them. It should also show if the agencies are properly placing legal requirements on these grants based on their stated principles.

    I believe it is going to take something like an investigation from a grandstanding attorney general to break these granting agencies of the habit of ignoring the requirements for data access on the results funded by public monies.

    How else is this going to happen? Stating principles that are, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, ignored, has not worked.

    Steve: as I’ve said on a number of occasions, at this point of time (and obviously unwillingly) Mann stands virtually alone among paleoclimate scientists in providing documentation e,g, the Mann et al 2008 archive. The algorithms and programming structure are horrendously organized and incoherently structured, but that’s a different issue. It’s pointless for Cuccinelli to rattle his cage on this right now. If Cuccinelli is worried about data archiving, they should start with Lonnie Thompson. If data archiving is his cause for going after Mann, he’s not merely a zealot, but a stupid zealot.

    • Gary Palmgren
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM | Permalink

      I can’t believe I’m sticking up for a lawyer but I don’t see that Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University has taken any money from Virginia. As the Attorney General of Virginia, Cuccinelli would not have any purview to investigate Thompson. I still hope that some good will come out of this and force improvements in the grant contract language.

    • Robert
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

      Steve, not trying to nitpick but although it is somewhat true what you said that mann is one of the few who provide adequate data and codes and such, I think that it really depends on the type of paleoclimatologists. For example pollen studies such as Viau et al. 2006 have all their data up and all their codes and such and from what I understand among pollen climatologists, this is much more common a practice than among dendros for example.

  4. HotRod
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

    Agreed.

    BTW, Minnesotans FOR Global Warming?

    Steve; Yup. :)

    • Paul
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

      If you’ve lived in Minnesota for any length of time you’d be all for some global warming, too.

    • Bill Drissel
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

      We lived in MN three winters. One year, summer came on a Tuesday and I had to work.

  5. RJC
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    Obviously we all respect you and your site, but I am disappointed that you weighed in on this subject. You know quite well that Mann’s motives are far from noble-witness his attacks against you and others and highlighted by his antics against the Minnsesotans. If I believed his arguments with you and other skeptical scientists were purely scientific, I to would take your position. I do not believe this is the case. He attempted to manipulate science with a policy goal in mind that had (and perhaps still has) potential to disrupt the lives of millions of people and would be devastating to those around the world who can least afford it. In any federal case prosecutors investigate on many different fronts, this is just one of them. Again, I am disappointed you weighed in.

    • J Solters
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:36 PM | Permalink

      Steve can weigh in anywhere he wants. Its his blog. But on this topic he’s way out of his area of expertise; the ‘let’s stop the state of Virginia’ mentality proves the point. If Mann’s efforts had been limited to mere academic ruminating on climate issues like 99% of scientific research,and simply begging for more tax money, nobody would care. If he’s spending public money to concoct research which he knows for certain is a key element of IPCC policy statements which are intended specifically to influence worldwide government decisions to radically change economic behavior, we have an entirely different issue.If Mann used public money, and for example stone-walled data requests, given this overall background, his actions should be investigated by the people who gave him the money in the first place. Mann and the team aren’t operating in a vacuum. They always seek public funding for their research.(If the private sector funded Mann’s work, Virginia wouldn’t be a stakeholder.) Note to Steve and ‘posse’, save your energy; VA’s going to get some answers, like it or not. The next “Mann” will think twice before taking public money, and then joining the team to change the world.

  6. Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    I’m much in agreement, though my attempts to express my position on this have hitherto been a smidge flawed. I’d be much happier if Mann were to pursue the Minnesotans. With Mannthe instigator, that would have been a wonderful platform for exploring the value of his science.

    I’ve repeatedly stated my opposition to the angry mob/big bully mentality in comments elsewhere, and I truly believe that it’s not the climate-sceptical way. I don’t feel Cuccinelli’s attack on Mann is our crusade for scientific integrity in any way shape or form. The “enemy” (political) of my “enemy” (loosely scientific) is NOT inevitably my friend.

    • Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

      SimonH saids “I don’t feel Cuccinelli’s attack on Mann is our crusade for scientific integrity in any way shape or form.” Why is an investigation an ATTACK???? When does an ATTACK become nothing more than an investigation to determine whether there was funding abuse?

  7. Anthony Watts
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    Since WUWT is cited via link, I thought should comment. For the record, I didn’t write the article, I only reported on it and culled some excerpts from it. The article was written by a website called “The Hook”.

    Other than noting Mann might have bigger problems than the M4GW videos issue, I made no editorializing.

    I’m in agreement though that it is probably more political than substantial.

    Steve: just so there isn’t any confusion on this, I changed the link to The Hook.

    • MikeC
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

      Both of you have completely lost your minds. Quit kissing butt just to appear more moderate

    • SamG
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

      Slightly interesting that you didn’t offer your opinion on it on your website. I got the impression that the article was there to add fuel to the anti-AGW fire but that’s just me.

      • Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:14 AM | Permalink

        I got the impression that it was a significant event regarding one of Climatology’s CAGW bobble-heads, and was reported accordingly.

    • TomFP
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:08 AM | Permalink

      I’m tempted to echo MikeC, as I simply cannot see the harm in hounding Mann and his team, but here’s an attempt at a fuller response:

      Firstly, I don’t see how the Va AG could do other than investigate breaches of the terms of grant funding, if he has found prima facie evidence of their existence – and if he has read the CRU emails, I think he will have.

      As to the wider implications for climate science, or the propriety of pursuing Mann in this way – we have seen enough of the outcomes of the various non-judicial enquiries to know that we can expect no thorough investigation of Mann, Jones et al outside a courtroom.

      Steve, Anthony and others seem to me to be clinging to a forlorn hope that this whole climate thing will be eventually sorted out in a dignified collegiate way. The wrong-doers will be suitably chastened, will admit their errors, and the search for truth will resume, invigorated by its return to proper scientific principles. Nothing unseemly will happen. Very magnanimous, but surely unrealistic. Too much money and reputation at stake.

      In Kesten Green’s excellent structural analysis of Great Big Scary Predictions that Never Happened http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
      he notes that expensive, growth-thwarting legislation prompted by such scares tends to remain on the statute books for decades after the scares have faded from public consciousness, presumably because repealing them would require a lot of people who signed up to the scare to admit to themselves and others that they were conned. So I think there are compelling reasons to welcome what promises to be the first truly forensic examination of Climategate – unless Mann gets into M4GW first – and that I really do want to see!

  8. Stevo
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    It has *already* been dealt with under academic misconduct regimes. Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing and “completely vindicated” as one commentator has put it. Just as the Wang/Keenan affair was dealt with (Kafka at Albany). The academic regimes are much the same as the journal peer-review process – run by the same set of academics as are under examination. If you mean that there’s no point in enquiring into the matter at all, please say so.

    So are you saying now that Mann has published all details and everything is known? Confidence intervals, selection rules, and everything? All the background to Ammann/Wahl? Because if so, it’s news to me. When did this happen?

    To be clear, I don’t think Cuccinelli’s approach is particularly useful – it’ll be a bit like the Barton enquiry in that it has political rather than scientific objectives. But it is taxpayer’s money, and if the taxpayer’s representative wants a look, who are we, democratically, to say no?

  9. dp
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    When you’re on the receiving end of a lot of tax payer dollars and all you’ve shown for it are endless examples of serial incompetence, there probably should be an investigation to see if a refund is in order. Certainly there should be an investigation to see if future funding should be directed to people who don’t consistently put agenda before science.

    It was also inevitable that a political peacock would find this story and use it to advance his/her career.

    Mann has been stirring this stew for decades and he’s only just now getting burned. Hopefully he come out of this much improved.

  10. AllenCic
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    You say that there is no value for dollar in this enterprise. I agree somewhat but if value for dollar is the main criterion for spending public funds I think almost everything the government does except for the military, police and fire would fall in this category. Certainly much of what passes for academic science nowadays would be very poor value for dollars spent.

  11. Garry
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:38 PM | Permalink

    Many of the climate science Team have for years been fully engaged in climate politics, while hiding behind the veil of academic disinterest and objectivity.

    Frankly, it’s way beyond time that they get dragged into the putrid reality of that other kind of politics.

  12. Luke Cartner
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    First off let me state as I live in Australia my knowledge (and in fact interest) in local American politics is non existent.
    That said I find Steve McIntyre’s attitude on this confusing. I have been following this blog for a while and the impression I have received from Steve’s comments is the Mann was misrepresenting the data. The title of his book “Hiding the decline” adds to the implication.

    The climate-gate emails further indicate that deliberate misrepresentations are occurring:

    ‘I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” ‘

    ‘ “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” ‘

    “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

    ‘ “Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” ‘

    What did Steve think the consequences of this would be? This issue isn’t a pure academic squabble, Al Gore made sure of that. The results of these studies have real world impacts financially and politically. Mann was funded to provide expert opinion and information to the US government. If there is any suggestion of fraudulent behavior then Mann must defend his actions and either clear his name or be held accountable.

    This is not a scientific question, this is a question of good faith and accountability.
    In fact even if his science is correct it would not be relevant if he has behaved fraudulently.
    I do not see why this would be considered a bad thing considering if he has behaved fraudulently he will have done the world a serious amount of damage.

  13. Sleeper
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    Zealot v. Zealot. Looking forward to it myself. Apparently, you want the “perfect” inquiry. Good luck with that.

  14. Gixxerboy
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    Mr Mac’s caution seems wise. I don’t know Cuccinelli from a bar of soap, but his style seems that of finger-pointing antagonism. I’d rather see cool, clear analysis and debate than a witch hunt. If Cuccinelli comes across as a frothing zealot, to the public or those on government, this would do more harm than good.

    • RedS10
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

      Right, let’s be cautious. Let’s get a committee, find the right guy, with the right motivation, etc, etc.

      If nothing else, I’ll take a witch hunt, as long as they find the truth, be it wrapped in politics or festooned in talcum powder.

  15. Jack Maloney
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM | Permalink

    I agree with Steve on this one. Bogus science doesn’t justify a bogus prosecution. I’d hate to see an “investigation” on the skeptic side that would be as ugly and flawed as the UEA and Penn State “inquiries.” And that’s what would probably come out of this political grandstanding by the Virginia AG.

    PS: “paleo-phrenology” – GREAT!

    • Luke Cartner
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

      Your statement has two base assumptions that I’d like to query:

      The first is that it is a bogus prosecution, are you saying you do not believe the the question of Mann acting fraudulently has not be raised? From my point of view it appears to be question that not only has been raised but one that has impacted the credibility of other scientists in Mann’s own field.

      The second is that the DA represents the ‘skeptic’ side. The DA is not investigating if AGW is happening or not, he is investigating if Mann used public funds to deliberately mislead the public or to act fraudulently. His views on AGW’s scientific validity would not be relevant to such a investigation nor should they be.

      Finally I’ll leave you with this comment, even if it is a platform for grand standing if the DA’s investigations finds evidence that Mann has breached the laws of the land he lives in isn’t it the DA’s duty to prosecute?

  16. bubbagyro
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    Steve:
    I am disappointed in your take on the Mann investigation.
    It is no witch hunt – I am on a committee to review and approve grants to academia. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen preposterous grants get approval because of the AGW hoaxes that get approved because of congressional or politically correct intervention by academic or government hacks. This at the expense of very worthy grants in basic sciences that could really benefit mankind. Yes, I am still for research in basic, as well as applied sciences. Maybe this investigation will send a message that we cannot tolerate “political science” to drive innovation. If there is no basis for a criminal charge, so be it, that will come out in the wash. We have enough evidence already to show that Mann is a perpetrator who goes beyond scientific misconduct. I applaud the DA’s courage to open this can of stinky worms.

  17. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    The skill set required for politics is rather different to that for science. This is a top science blog.

    Knocking politicians and political decisions is easy, but seldom fruitful, because the arguments are often non-logical or obscured by spin. Different game, different rules. I’ve played in both.

    Valid criticism of scientific effort tends to help all concerned.

    ……

    Australia has announced a 40% supertax on resources company profits. Given that the resouces sector is holding the economy together, this is a massively stupid political decision that assumes politicians have greater wisdom in spending money than those who earned it. But, it’s not the type of material for debate here, if I read the wind correctly.

  18. AMac
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    Do any of the supporters of AG Cuccinelli’s investigation believe that he has the slightest interest in the science, or the ability to offer any reasoned views on Prof. Mann’s work? Obviously not. This is a grotesque development, on a par with digging into “Joe the Plumber’s” personal history after he had the cheek to offer opinions that were distasteful to Ohio’s political elite.

    Surely there must be a violent felon in some corner of Virginia that the AG could target in the cause of his career advancement.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Tribalism at its worst. Anyway, the real issue isn’t Prof. Mann’s dubious work. Rather, it is the acceptance that this work has gained in the eyes of other climate scientists. AG Cuccinelli’s initiative to martyr Prof. Mann remedies this problem, not at all.

  19. JamesG
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    A stunt yes but it’s a bit difficult to see where else to go as the climate clique can’t investigate themselves. Will the police will ever find one of their own guilty of tazer abuse? Will the military ever find it’s flyboys to be trigger-happy? The court seems to be the the only choice left for all these unaccountable old-boy networks.

    Of course it would be nice if anything that important policy was to be based upon was properly reviewed by 3rd parties rather than just pushed through on a brief nod and a wink because of political correctness. It’s just not going to happen though. As it stands, Mann08 will be the centrepiece of the next IPCC report and they’ll probably find room for his paper that links the (now you see it now you don’t) MWP to hurricanes.

  20. Ivan
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    I am afraid you lost your way in this. Mann must be laughing. I think that your political antipathy toward the right-wing in the USA and possibly your wish to appear “moderate” interferes with the good judgement. You are playing politics, and the very bad politics in the same time. You are not good at that. You are much better as uncompromising auditor. Please, stick to auditing and respect your own proclaimed policy to not discuss politics.

    It’s obvious that “internal academic investigation” of any of these bastards is impossible. UEA inquiry was a laughingstock. Penn State even worse. We are talking about billions here. These guys are not going to shot themselves in the leg. Those are highly immoral people, ready to misuse the science for the political ends, as amply demonstrated by Climategate (and not only by Climategate). It is ludicrous to expect that Mafia is going to honestly investigate Mafia. It has to be some outsider-zealot. Cuccinneli or not,, there has to be someone with enough courage to uncover what the Mafia is doing

  21. justbeau
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:10 PM | Permalink

    Much as I have boundless disrespect for Mann, I must agree with McIntryre on this topic.

    Responsibility lies with those who endorse Mann and other members of the team. The Team’s scientists are useful chumps for politicians. Global Warming is just one manifestation of political jousting within a democracy and its champions are responsible for endorsing bad science. Mann is not responsible for Barbara Boxer and John Kerry believing his studies; they are responsible for what they choose to believe.

    Skeptics Fred Singer and Pat Michaels used to be at the University of Virginia, as was Mann; not sure what departments any of these guys were in. If the next attorney general of Virginia is a Democrat, should these skeptics be subject to a witch-hunt too? Its better to stick to the substance of studies and critique these. Science is best advanced by debate among scientsts, rather than by politicans trying to be scientists.

    • Rob uk
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:51 AM | Permalink

      I am afraid you have your head in the sand.

    • Brian
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

      The previous regime in Virginia (which was Democratic) went after Michaels, so I guess one way to look at it is that turnabout is fair play.

      Singer, Michaels, and Mann were all at one time or another in the same department at UVa, as were Pielke, Sr., and others.

  22. Bad Andrew
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    I recall that Steve Mc has stated in the past that he is willing to let controlling legal/political authorities perform their functions, or words to that effect.

    No blank check this time?

    Andrew

  23. Peter Wilson
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    I’m with Steve on this one. Mann is a poor scientist, who in any less politicized field would not have received the support and funding he has, but who’s fault is that in the end? It is highly unlikely this report will come to any credible conclusions on the science, and whatever else you think about Mann, it seems clear he really is a true believer, who is utterly blind to the inadequacies of his research and conclusions.

    Being wrong in science should be dealt with in scientific circles. Scientists need to be free to pursue lines of research which may turn out to be wrong, without fear of financial repercussions. I think this inquiry sets a dangerous precedent.

    Of course having Steve loudly supporting Mann will be highly ironic, but will only serve to enhance his deserved reputation as an impartial and unbiased commentator who calls it like he see’s it.

    • Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

      Ultimately it’s the fault of his peers, who seem intent on ignoring the issues.

  24. Skip Smith
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    Anyone who thinks these actions by Cuccinelli will shed any light on the science is, to put it mildly, an idiot.

    All this “investigation” will do is inject more rabid politics into what should be a scientific debate, make people people pick sides based on their tribal alliances, and ultimately make it harder to broadcast the truth to the public. Some of the comments in this thread are proof of that.

  25. Ivan
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    I think you lost your way in this. To openly support a crook whom you yourself to a large degree exposed is a very bad and misguided way of showing the moderation and good will.

    As for your idea that these guys should be investingated by the academic instances that’s completely besides the point. UEA investigation was a laughingstock, Penn State even worse. We are talking about the billions and billions here, and we are talking about the completely immoral people, ready to misuse the science for the political ends, as amply demonstrated by Climategate, and not only by Climate gate. To expect that Mafia is going to honestly inspect Mafia is a highly naive philosophy. It has to be some outside zealot, Cuccinelli or not.
    I suppose that you would refuse to witness against Mann, if the issue becomes whether he stonewalled the inquiries, or about the other specifics of Climategate. It is then not clear what is the reason of what you are doing? Isn’t the whole point to expose and punish the misuse of science by climate scientists and to prevent or make less likely similar things in the future? Cuccinelli is an official of the state that granted millions to Mann and co for cliamte science. They have every right in the world to iquire how he used or misused the funds. It’s sad that you allowed your political antypathy toward the American right to tramp your sound judgement in this area. Plese stick to the climate auditing, because you are not going to gain the credibility among the “real climate scientists” by this misguided defence of their malfeasances (only perhaps a status of a Leninist “usefull idiot”), but you are going to lose your credibility with the people who respect your work, but who do not necessarily share your left-wing politics and your aversion toward the American right.

    • Skip Smith
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

      Where did you get the idea that Steve’s goal is to “punish” climate scientists? I think that’s your own rabid partisanship talking, my friend.

  26. Doug in Seattle
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Permalink

    What I see here is a case of a political attach on a political hack. Mann dresses up as an academic sheep, but has quite clearly acted as a political wolf.

    As Steve points out academia has failed to adequately address Mann’s misconduct. I don’t think for a minute that is not due to politics.

    I have sympathy for Briffa, and even a bit for Jones, but for Mann? H E Double “Hockey Sticks” NO.

  27. Gabriel Gonzalez
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    I applaud your fair-mindedness.

    I do not like Michael Mann. I think he has contributed more to public misunderstanding of the global warming issue than any other scientist and believe his work to be shoddy and intellectually dishonest.

    That is not the same as believing that he has engaged in criminal or professional misconduct that would warrant this kind of investigation.

  28. Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    I applaud your magnanimity and regret a bit your diligence.

  29. JAY
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

    Yes, Mann should be investigated by his academic institutions. Their failure to act responsibly leads to actions like Cuccinelli’s.

  30. Scott Brim
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    False claims acts have their roots in the American Civil War when claims for payment were being presented to the US government for equipment and supplies which had never been delivered.

    Over the last 140 years, these acts have been extended somewhat to go beyond simple claims for payment for hard deliverables into claims for payment for services rendered.

    The fundamental question is this: are there grounds for believing an auditable discrepancy exists between what Dr. Mann was expected to deliver to the State of Virginia under his contractual obligations, and what he actually delivered?

    If there are such grounds, then the AG is acting within the duties of his office to investigate the matter and to take appropriate action depending upon what the investigation reveals.

  31. Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    I’ve got a whole climate blog because of Mann. Without his obviously bad work in Mann08 (very different and more simple than Steve’s early Mannian adventures) the Air Vent would be something else. I wrote on Tom Fuller’s blog, the same as I’ll write here. This is nothing but political gamesmanship, and I’ve got no patients for it.

    In short, I wouldn’t care which way any of these committees find, including Wegman, NAS, Oxford or PSU, it means nothing. The guy’s work is crap and any sane scientist already knows it. The recent work isn’t complex enough to require a committee and no decision which didn’t match my own would have any effect on me.

    I’m therefore tired of the political committee games, I’m tired of people claiming to be unbiased and finding Mann or climatgate to be just fine. We’re not that damned stupid and frankly, anyone who makes the claim that Mann’s hockey sticks are reasonable or climategate isn’t proof of the corruption of climate science are full of crap. Flatly full of crap, and I’m not going to give them a moment’s thought.

    This prosecutor is seeking fame, not truth, he should fund the investigation himself if he’s so concerned with truth. Or maybe he should read a book.

    Sorry, snip if you must, but that’s what I think.

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:56 PM | Permalink

      As always jeff Makes some great points.

      My take on it is this. Things got decidely WORSE for steve when the politicans got wrapped up in this. They dont have the skills to look at these issues.They dont have the skill to read Ar4. Can you imagine trying to explain any of this stuff to them. They know how to run TWO kinds of investigations: witch hunts and white washes. I want no part of either. What do we see in the mails?
      Scientists already know that Mann ‘has issues’ They might publicaly defend him but behind his back they are saying the kinds of things they said before about him in the mails. he’s lost all credibility. Science can fix itself. There are more Judith Currys than people think.

      Does anyone out there think the AG has called steve BEFORE doing these charges to get his first hand knowledge and experience? I bet NOT. rather I know they havent.

      • Wondering Aloud
        Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

        Now this is a good point Steve

  32. don
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

    I respect Steve’s sense of principle and fair play regarding the Team. I, however, am not that principled. The team left the ivory tower of pure research to play in the profane world of political economics–which is about power and greed and rationing out equity, not the search for eternal truths. What goes around comes around: when the team decided to play with fire I presume they were prepared to get burned. If academe can’t or won’t clean house, refuses to maintain professional standards, maybe a rank political process under the rule of men, err law, will dole out a spanking. It would be ironic if it turned into a sort of reverse Monkey Trial over quackery to defraud the taxpayer, but, then again, Al Capone went to prison for income tax evasion, not the murders he ordered.

  33. TerryMN
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    Jeff Id – we’re dealing with a situation so polluted that a lot of seemingly smart, reasonable people will not even admit that Mann used the wrong sign on a proxy – and a useless proxy (for the time period) at that. Up is down, down is up. We’ve very, very far to go.

  34. RayG
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM | Permalink

    Since Mr. Cuccinelli is going forward, we can only hope that he leads a robust investigation.

  35. theduke
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    If it weren’t for the recent EPA finding regarding CO2, which reeks of Mannian views on AGW, I might agree with Steve on this. But Mann has made several revealing and blatantly political statements on the subject of his work as it relates to policy, so any sunlight that gets shed on the quality of his scientific findings or his reluctance to provide enough data to allow for replication should be welcome.

    That said, I have my doubts that Cuccinelli is up to the task of conducting a thorough and credible investigation. There is also the possibility that it could backfire and make Mann a sympathetic figure in the eyes of some.

    I would love to be inside Mann’s brain as he reads Steve’s thoughts on this subject. Wanna bet he doesn’t think Steve is sincere?

    • Tim
      Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:59 PM | Permalink

      14 states have a lawsuit against the EPA. That will be the best forum to get the evidence examined. This VA stuff is a distraction and an extremely bad precedent.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:05 AM | Permalink

      Reading what steve wrote about the keenan issue with Mann you can see that Steve has offered to defend Mann before. This is something that u WONT see repeated on Eli Rabbit or Tamino or RC or Any of the AGW hate sites.

      Mann has read that offer. Now everyone knows that Steve has offered to defend Mann. Will Mann deny it? of course not. Will he talk about it?
      I dont know. Maybe people should go to the AGW sites and see if they will ask Mann the question: Did Mcintyre offer to defend you and do you think he is sincere?

      • Tim
        Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:57 AM | Permalink

        For some reason I suspect the last thing that Mann wants is SteveMc defending him while dropping zingers like “paleo-phrenology”.

  36. Dave L.
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    I seriously doubt anything adverse to Mann will ever come of this maneuver. I think Mann is merely a gnat in a much bigger game. Cuccinelli has filed suit against the EPA over its CO2 emissions regulations, claiming that the EPA’s actions will adversely effect the economy of Virginia via the energy sector. Don’t forget that southwest Virginia has a significant coal mining industry, and circa 50% of Virginia’s electricity comes from coal fired plants. Under the pending EPA regulations, the price of energy is going to go up at the expense of consumers, both individuals and businesses, and as a result employment could drop.

    One of the major arguments levied against the EPA is that it was supposed to conduct an independent audit of the science used to justify its endangerment position; instead the EPA relied heavily upon the science of the IPCC. So I think Cuccinelli is fishing for any additional facts that he could use in support of shooting down the science of the IPCC. If he finds more damaging information, such as additional e-mails similar to Climategate or evidence of data manipulation, then he will have more ammunition to fire at the EPA. He will receive cooperation in this matter — being cited in contempt of court would not look good for UVA or Mann. Don’t be surprised if the other entities that are challenging the EPA also file briefs in support of Cuccinelli.

  37. Steve McIntyre
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    Readers that think that some light might come out of the engagement should consider that the grants in question – they don’t cover “hide the decline” or, as far as I can tell, MBH99. Cuccinelli doesn’t seem to be the sharpest knife around.

    • steven Mosher
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:12 AM | Permalink

      he is an idiot.

      Look people if you are going to ESCALATE and raise the stakes, then don’t put bozo in charge. What do you get then?

      A. mann gets a shiny new martyr coat.
      B. STEVE gets slimed, just because the Tim lamberts of the world will
      find a way to Blame him for the idiot’s deeds

      • Gary
        Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

        Exactly right. That’s what the Hockey Team did and look what it got them.

    • schnoerkelman
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (May 2 22:23),
      May I suggest moving this information into the top post? I find the specific grants a compelling argument in Mann’s defence and in suport of your (Steve’s) position.

      bob

    • Ron Cram
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

      Steve,
      Just because Mann’s “hide the decline” work or MBH99 was not funded by the state of Virginia does not mean Mann did not violate the law with these other papers. Have you looked into all of these papers?

      Mann’s academic misconduct is not a secret. If he committed academic misconduct with taxpayer money, then he broke the law. The Fraud Against Taxpayers Act was written for this purpose. In my opinion, there is more than enough evidence for probable cause. Whether Cuccinelli has anyone on his staff capable of investigating such a crime is another question. I hope he does.

    • Bill Hunter
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

      I presume MBH99 means a 1999 paper. According to the act the AG must commence his action within 10 years. So MBH99 may be beyond reach or alternatively UVA may not have paid for it which may be the case for “hide the decline”.

    • CG
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

      This is from a completely uninformed viewpoint as to the specific studies mentioned… but it’s possible that the investigation could stumble across more wrongdoing, as Mann has shown to be incompetent enough that you almost expect errors in all of his work. Cuccinelli’s team may find problems with mann’s work in the grants you mention (if he gets non-political people to investigate), but I agree that this is besides the point (climategate), and wont help the IPCC ARs improve at all.

    • yguy
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

      Steve, I’m at a loss to understand how the listing of specific grants demonstrates Cuccinelli’s incompetence, since the demand for information is not limited to those. Neither is it clear – at least to me – that the Virginia AG has the legal authority to make the same demand WRT MBH99 that he does WRT the listed grants, because I don’t know whether VA provided any funding related to that.

  38. kuhnkat
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:36 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    “To the extent that there are issues with Mann or Jones or any of these guys, they are at most academic misconduct and should be dealt with under those regimes.”

    If he had not taken grant money I would agree with you. If he had not made statements of what his work PROVED, it would also have been much less of a problem.

    As the Universities also take Government money AND appear to be doing NOTHING to prevent this type of activity happening again, I think they should also be subject to this kind of scrutiny as possible accomplices.

    Your work, of course, does not PROVE fraud. It does make a very good circumstantial case.

    • Ben
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 2:30 AM | Permalink

      “If he had not taken grant money I would agree with you. If he had not made statements of what his work PROVED, it would also have been much less of a problem.

      As the Universities also take Government money AND appear to be doing NOTHING to prevent this type of activity happening again, I think they should also be subject to this kind of scrutiny as possible accomplices. ”

      The problem is that the AG is going after ONE individual when he should be going after the University FIRST. They failed in their duty to make sure the grant money they received was being used correctly. This is the wrong venue for this to come out.

      That being said, Steve might be one of the best scientists working on climate studies, but remember he is good at science and (maybe or maybe not) at law, which is an entirely different can of worms. You don’t have to replicate a trial or even media spot-lights…the damage is done for the individual.

      There is no chance for him (Mann) coming out of this looking better, any kind of accusation will hurt him and if this AG gets lucky (or talks a jury into thinking its fraud) ..well this might be good for the argument most of us want, but is this the route we want?

      I guess this is more of a philosophical question in that do the ends really justify the means? In this case, no. This AG will get famous no matter the outcome, because in the end the truth of all this science will come out. When it does, he can say, “look, I knew it and tried my best” if he loses, and if he wins the case (doubtful) but we all know he will take all the credit.

      And more then anything as much as I think Mann is a complete dirtbag, no one deserved to be the victim of someone who appears to be just grand-standing and starting what I would call a witch-hunt. This could get ugly….and if this is the route it goes, science is going to get hurt badly in the process.

      I am not a lawyer or politician, but I would honestly say the best thing for Steve and others to do is to just ignore it, give Mann private support, and hope it goes away. Giving this publicity in any method is going to just give the AG what he wants.

      Now the other court case, about the video…now that was one I was looking forward to. But alas, some upstart AG no one heard about until now wants to be famous…

  39. EdeF
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:46 PM | Permalink

    Scientific sloppiness and laziness is no reason to invoke the power of the state to resolve this issue. The best way to cleanse these abuses is with the light of counter-arguments, some of which originate here. The VA AG would need possibly millions of dollars in attorney and scientific expert fees just to get up to speed on this issue. That money could be more efficiently spent elsewhere. Suppose we find 50 years from now that Mann et al were right after all. Who is going to apologize to him if the AG is successful? Cutting-edge scientific debates need to be carried out in the hurly-burly world of scientific argument, counter-argument, journal articles, blogs, op-eds, teach-ins, long winter evenings of reading and meditation. The court room is a g**-awful place for this debate to happen. I may not agree exactly with Mann, but I will fight for his right to be wrong, even woefully wrong.

  40. Mike Davis
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

    The AG of a state can only investigate something that involves state money. If state money was not involved no cause for investigation. If other agencies had done due diligence this would not be happening. Blame them not the state’s AG. Further auditing of the situation should have provided answers before claiming “Witch Hunt”. And maybe the Tack is not so dull.

  41. geo
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 10:56 PM | Permalink

    Minorities (and AGW skepticism has been a minority in the past, may possibly be one now, and may possibly be one in the future) should be damn careful about promoting ideological witch hunts when the temporary correlation of forces turns their way.

    The worm may turn again, and then all you’ll have done is armed the forces already braying for Nuremburg-like crimes against humanity trials of AGW skeptics.

    I suspect Steve and Anthony see that –how could they not, as they’d be far up the “list”. Those others of you braying for Mann’s blood –how far up the list would you be?

  42. bubbagyro
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve:
    It has to begin somewhere. I agree that the puppet masters, the Gores, Kerrys, Obamas, Schumers, are the ones who should be uncovered and taken to task. But it never ever happens that way. The little skinny legs of the corrupt chair have to be sapped before the fat cat sitting in it falls, if it ever gets that far.

    It is irrelevant whether Cuccinelli knows science at all. He is a lawyer, and must proceed under the law. As for catching bigger criminals – name one bigger than he one who is a major cog in the big grinding wheel that converts corn to ethanol at the price of world famine, and takes money from countless citizens. These guys make Bernie Madolf look like pikers.

    John Brown wasn’t a brilliant strategist either, when he assaulted Harper’s Ferry. But he started something bigger.

    A small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

  43. Bill Hunter
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

    Steve, your comment: “but complaints on that account rest with the universities or their supervising institutions and the substitution of inappropriate investigations by zealots like Cuccinelli are not an alternative.”

    We are in agreement that the responsibility lies with the University. But from your link.

    “In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli’s office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann’s receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann— now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State— was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.”

    “commands the university”

    Hmmmm, it seems the respondent is the University, not Mann. In other words it appears that the AG is holding UVA’s feet to the fire on this matter not Mann. Sounds like Mann will only be in for what he is in for.

  44. John Slayton
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    I don’t intend here a rhetorical question; I really would like your take on this. You have over time made a strong and effective contrast between the practice of due diligence in promoting mining prospects and the practices of climate researchers. If a promoter had engaged in behavior comparable to Mann’s (refusing to release data until required by a congressional committee, hiding relevant but inconvenient files from potential investors, coordinating activities with other promoters to obstruct investors’ evaluations….)–What legal consequences would such behavior elicit? Would there in fact be any legal liability, civil, criminal, or otherwise?

  45. Ron Cram
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:38 PM | Permalink

    Steve,
    I completely disagree. Mann ran a verification statistic and he knew his research failed. You know this better than anyone since you found it in the CENSORED folder. It is clearly academic misconduct not to disclose the failed verification statistic. To take the government money and attempt to persuade policy dishonestly is exactly why Virginia passed the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The Attorney General is not only well within his rights, not to prosecute would be a dereliction of duty.

  46. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

    Gotta side even with Mann against the nanny state. The problem is not what Mann did with the taxpayer money he was given, it is that Mann was given the taxpayer money in the first place. The state should have no role in the funding of science. If you let politicians get involved in science, then the science becomes politicized. It is no surprise to me that scientists such as Mann are exalted and coddled in the system we have here in the US. But that is not Mann’s fault. The system is to blame.

  47. Jerry Haney
    Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

    Just as the financial crises in the USA began with corrupt, incompetent science, this AGW science will cost many times what the mortgage mess cost us. Bad science, funded by tax payers, has to be put to a halt before we are all made poor.
    The corrupt science, that claimed to show that minorities were being denied mortgage loans unfairly, has damn near banckrupted the USA. Taxes on CO2, foisted upon us by incompetent and politicized scientists will make the mortgage debt look like petty cash. Michael Mann and the team are politically motivated and the only way to put a halt to politically motivated science is by taking them to task, under oath, in a court of law.

  48. J. Peden
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM | Permalink

    In the practice of his “science”, Mann has already demonstrated that he will try to get away with doing whatever he wants to do as long as no one adequately stops him, and it hasn’t happened yet.

    The idea that he operates similarly in the matter of the funding of his business/work is not at all unreasonable.

  49. Stuart Lynne
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    If Mann broke the law (presumably false representations WRT to grant processes) then he should be charged.

    Its just improbable that he did and unlikely that this is anything but an over zealous prosecutor looking for headlines.

    And that in the long run simply won’t help.

  50. Posted May 3, 2010 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    I didn’t expect such a strong denouncement from this quarter. I didn’t expect any denouncement in a dedicated thread. Thank you. I stand corrected.

    • Hoi Polloi
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:10 AM | Permalink

      Well, if you’re surprised you clearly haven’t paid attention the last years to the contents of this blog. McSteve always preferred playing the ball rather than the player.

  51. mccall
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

    re: “To the extent that Virginia citizens are concerned about public money being misappropriated, Cuccinelli’s own expenditures on this adventure should be under equal scrutiny. There will be no value for dollar in this enterprise.”

    The counter-prosecution position based on expense in the investigation, arrest, and prosecution (call it I-A-P) of a crime is specious. There are very few crimes that cost more than their I-A-P. If this public-funds problem is wide-spread or threatens to become same, the investigation and prosecution is deemed warranted, period. Prosecutors make this call all the time… and to speculate at the motives of the prosecutor is basic violation of the rules of this blog. Posts (mine too) on CA are stricken all the time, for violating this.

    Based on that, I agree this thread is a waste, and a surprising step away from the science — same for the M4GW cease and desist for that matter.

  52. geronimo
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

    Cuccinelli is just showboating. Whatever I think of Mann, it isn’t for politicians to be investigating scientists who they don’t agree with. If this proceeds I would cheerfully contribute to Dr. Mann’s defence fund. It’s outrageous.

  53. STEPHEN PARKERuk
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM | Permalink

    “Academic misconduct” hmm.. Here in the uk our whole vehicle taxation is based on co2. Its serious stuff

  54. Alan Wilkinson
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 2:54 AM | Permalink

    I agree with Steve. The solution to politicised science is not more politics which is all Cuccinelli is going to provide.

  55. Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:03 AM | Permalink

    I side with comments that say Steve McIntyre is out of his depth on this. When does academic misconduct also become criminal fraud? Is Steve McIntyre equipped to answer this question?

    I sense a liberal/academic bias against Cuccinelli coming from Steve — like scientific ivory tower elitism. Steve might have a case if the academic investigations could be relied upon, but they can’t.

    Steve, what exactly did you put in your letter to Cuccinelli? Did you offer any alternative actions? Did you, for example, defend the academic investigations as being adequate? Or did you argue that no criminal action whatsoever should be brought against Mann ever? Did you offer your expertise to help in the investigation at all?

  56. hwsiii
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I have been a long time reader of yours, and I stand 100% behind your statements that ALL scientists have to stand behind any material that they have published and that has supposedly gone through the peer review process. But the peer review process in climatology is NOT quite the same as it is in the other sciences, and whether it was or not ALL studies should be required to post their data and the associated software so their can be REPLICATION of their results to prove that what they say is backed by VALID scientific data and procedures.

    CLIMATOLOGY is a field that most world governments are trying to PUSH very hard, thus the UNLIMITED funding that is available to the people posting the RIGHT studies,in my opinion. We are discussing the LARGEST transfer of wealth that has EVER happened in this world.

    And anybody who has had as many important published papers as Mann, especially his Hokey Stick which really was SENSATIONALISM and yet NOT true. He should be under the utmost scrutiny, in my opinion, especially, when it is proven that he has virtually LIED in so many of his papers, and that WE the PEOPLE paid for those lies, with our hard earned money.

    There are very powerful people that stand to make TRILLIONS, if the UN is able to push these accords through to a final agreement, and they are using their political connections to make sure the people that get most of the money are the ones that will help them get there.

    Sensationalism is one of the difference between this particular field of science and many other fields. That is why there have been so many scientists willing to fudge their scientific results to make the issue appear so MUH more an IMMEDIATE CRISIS and act like they have all the answers in their little computer models.

    YES, I believe Cuccinelli, HAS to go after Mann, SOMEBODY has to be held accountable for all of the misinformation that has been coming from most of the scientific community about this subject, and EVERY time I read of the supposed investigations into this field it is ALWAYS a WHITEWASH. This is why it is still continuing today, because all of the scientists know that there are no real PUNISHMENTS for lying, because it is what the POLITICIANS want to hear, so they can get their share of those TRILLIONS.

    All that has to be done to make the science in this field BETTER and TRUER is to let everybody know that if they are willing to falsify data that they will HAVE to pay a PRICE for that, and so far it appears that Mr.Jones is the ONLY one that has had any type of repercussions from his behavior.

    Steve, I am sorry I do not agree with you on this particular subject, but in order for the science to be TRUE, I believe ALL of the scientists in this field need to know there can be VERY damaging consequences for falsifying data.

    H

    • Peter Whale
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:28 AM | Permalink

      hwsiii
      I agree with this post if the scientific community will not stand up for the integrity of science and you have politics masquerading as science let politics deal with its own dirty game.

  57. Blade
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:13 AM | Permalink

    Interesting how all the legendary brainpower on this site heads for the tall grass when someone finally shows some spine and goes on offense. I’d be surprised if any of the bed-wetters here could handle a friendly game of chess, let alone a violent confrontation with some random thug outside their door. Hey folks, reaction and defense is *not* itself a winning strategy.

    Fighting on multiple fronts, making the enemy react, using the element of surprise, thinking outside the box, asymmetrical warfare. The best defense is a good offense. This is simple to understand. Try to remember that these loosely confederated international socialists have their cross-hairs on us, our money, our property, our energy and our lifestyle, and yes, our children and grandchildren.

    But let me make this crystal clear by reminding several squishy folks in particular (Steve, Jeff ID and Mosher) of something they may remember …

    Not long ago, one anonymous hero took it to the enemy, thinking outside the box and breaking all the rules. That person released the FOIA zip documents and single-handedly fueled the push-back of the last 6-months. Had that not happened, only God knows how bad it would be now. Surely Steve and Jeff and Mosher won’t allege that their work prior to last fall would by itself have turned the tide?

    Here’s a thought, make believe it is early November 2009 and this thread is entitled: ‘URGENT: Whistle-blower Need Advice! Should I release the FOIA zip to the public?’

    My guess is that the same squishy people would show up and demonstrate their oh-so-thoughtful moderation by recommending the whistle-blower to forget it. Marquess of Queensberry rules and all.

    Trust me, the best thing that can happen is for these scientists to be scrutinized from every possible angle. We want them to lose sleep at night. We want them to worry about every damn penny they spend. Previous generations would have used tar and feathers by now, but here we are arguing over little tiny baby steps like legal scrutiny by a state government! Sheesh!

    As taxpayers and peers, they should be FEARING us, not mocking us.

    • sleeper
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:02 AM | Permalink

      Re: Blade (May 3 03:13),

      Hear! Hear! Hey Mosh, perhaps you could contribute some of the money you made off your book to Mann’s legal defense fund.

    • Pops
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 6:02 AM | Permalink

      You have my vote, Blade, 100%. Mr McIntyre and his associates have done remarkable work in the recent past, as history will no-doubt record, but, without climategate, last December’s warm-fest might have ended with a far different outcome. Since then, the AGW ship has been taking on water but it’s nowhere near to sinking so let’s not quibble if someone with a bit of power – for political reasons or otherwise – wants to kick a few more holes in the rotting hulk, or the ribs of its rotten crew.

  58. Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:39 AM | Permalink

    “To the extent that there are issues with Mann or Jones or any of these guys, they are at most academic misconduct and should be dealt with under those regimes.”

    Seems to me these “regimes” are either unwilling or unable to police themselves. A little heat, pressure and tender words of encouragement can work wonders at times.

  59. Carl Chapman
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 3:52 AM | Permalink

    Steve:
    You and Anthony Watts are heroes to me, but I think that you are too nice to people like Mann and Jones. They fight dirty and take grants and money (eg the Heinz foundation). You calmly come back with facts. Maybe it also needs someone to fight back dirty.

  60. Punksta
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:01 AM | Permalink

    RE: Steve Mosher above

    So which is best:
    (a) whitewashes only ?
    (b) whitewashes plus witch-hunts ?

    Sure it would be good if the AG got to grips with the issues first. Perhaps the Steves could help with this?

    “Science can fix itself. There are more Judith Currys than people think. ”

    HOW is science going to fix itself?
    Any WHERE are the other Currys?

  61. Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:06 AM | Permalink

    Just to put things in context, and to perhaps provide some background on what MAYBE motivates Mannian science.

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10120/1054507-100.stm

  62. Carl Chapman
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 4:34 AM | Permalink

    Steve:
    It’s not just a polite science debate. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted. Ordinary people suffer.

    For example, consider a coal miner who is thrown out of work. He watches his family suffer, and feels despondent and useless. Eventually he feels there’s only one way out and he kills himself. Or a struggling mother has to decide: shoes for the kids, or school books, or food. Then the electricity bill arrives and it’s double what it was a few years ago. In Britain, thousands of steel mill workers were fired so the company could claim carbon credits for no longer producing steel.

    What Mann, Jones and “the team” have done to benefit themselves and people like Gore is sickeningly. They get fame and fortune. Millions of others suffer.

  63. David Bailey
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:23 AM | Permalink

    I think if you accept a large grant and use it to twist the truth – particularly on a subject as important as this – you deserve what you get – I have no sympathy with Mann.

    As Carl Chapman said above, a lot of people will lose their jobs over this scare, and vast amounts of public money is being wasted because of Mann – maybe without him, the others would have been rather more cautious.

    I would even call myself an environmentalist, in the sense that I do think we are in danger of taking too much from the planet, and people like Mann have knowingly diverted people’s genuine concerns for the environment (overpopulation, depletion of resources, pollution (not CO2!)) into a criminal racket.

  64. Melissa
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    Anthony you say the actions of these guys are “at most academic misconduct”.

    But there are those of us that feel this was deliberate biased work that bullied out any sort of reason in the debate. These people ran roughshod over all dissent and as a result hugely costly mistakes by Governments and business is a consequence of their falsified work. The carbon dioxide trading scam is built on the work of these scientists. In Europe we as citizens are paying severely for carbon dioxide taxes implemented by this groupthink falsified scientific research. There has been huge consequences from hide the decline mentality. This is just another case similar to that of South Korean Dr Woo Suk Hwang. Genuine scientists have nothing to fear.

  65. Al Goon
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

    I was looking at some of the climate gate emails especially the one where Jones says they need a 0.15 degree dip in the 1940’s set.

    Looking at the ‘Fudge Factor’ computer code, you can see this line of code:

    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj= 0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

    If you take the 5 values: -0.1, -0.2, -0.3,0, -0.1 they average out to -0.15
    (this is the start and end of the negative values)

    The start date of 1904 and 5 year intervals give this a start date of 1934 and and end date of 1954 and (on average) drop the temp by 1.5 degrees just as Phil wanted.

    from the ClimateGate Emails …

    [quote]
    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean ….
    [/quote]

    Just an observation that may need a bit more analysis. He is talking about sea temps but I am not sure what the above data was used on – a bit of a coincidence though, no ?

  66. Solomon Green
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

    While nobody has done more to expose the erroneous statistics and conclusions of Mann,Briffa and others than you, I think that you are mistaken in attacking Cuccinelli.

    As a result of the efforts of Mann and others, the governments of the world are in the accelerating process of wasting much needed funds on attempting to limit CO2 emissions instead of combating disease and poverty.

    Climategate increased the number of sceptics. If Cuccinelli is able to locate any similar skullduggery in Mann’s files then the number of sceptics will increase still further. Scientists will no longer have to assert their allegiance to climate change before obtaining research grants or having their papers published in Nature.

    Eventually the numbers will be such that even the politicians might become brave enough to express their own doubts and curtail the funds that are being wasted on renewables.

    Science alone will not be enough.

  67. LearDog
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    Sorry Steve – I disagree. If Mann had shown remorse and investigations not been total whitewashes – I would agree with you.

    But the ‘academic misconduct’ issue has NOT been dealt with by the scientific community (NSF or anyone save a few brave souls), and an entirely bogus train of groupthink has taken the world by storm.

    All pinned to this guys ‘science’. Its a criminal conspiracy that occurred at UVa.

  68. Stephan
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

    Totally disagree with the tone of this posting, unless of course SM knows something we don’t. The postings here, data etc point towards this Mann having basically produced data with a purpose. Wrong Wrong Wrong….

  69. kim
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:11 AM | Permalink

    Climate science as played by the hockey team has been a game with rules made up on the fly, cheered on by the greedy and power hungry in the best rink side seats. Those attempting to establish rules for the game need our constructive criticism; the play has become malevolent, and the clock is winding down.
    ==============

  70. RJC
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:18 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I posted way of front that I was disappointed you weighed in on this topic. You are held in extraordinary high regard by a lot of really intelligent people, but I am not convinced you know what you are up against. The “team” and their funders are not interested in science, their interests lie in policy. Just because you are skilled in linear algebra and stats and have convincingly proved the case against Mann means not a hill of beans to the government and financial players who see this as their chance to fundamentally reshape the world in their image. If you think Soros, Kleiner Perkins, Goldman Sachs, Gore, Chicago Board of Trade, care one iota about your audit I think your are kindly naive. Now that Pandora’s box has been breached, it is going to take multi-front approach to undo this great moral injustice. You through the first punch, don’t be timid about finishing the fight.

  71. Manfred
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

    I tend to disagree here as well.

    With science, peer review, politics and media in such a poor shape, I don’t expect reason and truth to be a game changer.

    I can’t blame anyone to try to use a broken judicial system, the guys with their fingers in the honey pot will play this card anyways, no matter how kindly they are treated.

  72. hunter
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    Dr. Mann has built a lucrative career converting tax payer money into alarmist bad science.
    Being wrong is not a crime, but deliberately being wrong and misleading people may be.
    Why not let someone who is an expert in legal affairs review this?
    Certainly skeptics would be well served in letting the system work?
    Condemning the review outright, as many skeptics seem to do, seems to be an exercise in anti-skepticism.
    Certainly AGW promoters have wasted no effort in calling for legal actions against skeptics. If a state AG was investigating say Climate Audit or WUWT, or Dr. Pielke, is it fair to ask if Mann & pals would be tripping over themselves to condemn the investigation?
    We do not know all of the basis of the Virginia investigation. Certainly it is proper skeptical behavior to wait for the facts to emerge before condemning it?

    Steve: Would they be “tripping over themselves” to condemn such an investigation? I sure doubt it. But I aspire to higher standards.

  73. david elder
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    As an Australian I perhaps have a different perspective than most.

    I agree with Steve. Unless Mann has committed some non-scientific felony, the intrusion of a state attorney general into scientific matters will merely inflame the situation. Mann will be able to pose as a martyr of science, another Galileo. He will be seen at home and abroad as a victim of a new McCarthyism. In Australia McCarthy is one of the few figures further back than JFK that most people have heard of. And many Australians think it is ‘cool’ to regard the US as a breeding ground for hordes of McCarthys. That perception is probably true of many other countries outside the US. Maddening as Mann is, I believe it is a crucial test of maturity for the US to be seen to deal with him appropriately. And as an earlier commentator noted, if sceptics win the first round in any politicised fight, their opponents will feel justified in retaliating in kind next time around. Remember the Supreme Court and the reciprocally unedifying tit-for-tats that resulted when this body became politicised. Bad science must be driven out by good science, not by a politicised stampede. Yes, it will require patience. What worthwhile thing does not?

    • Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

      David Elder said: “Unless Mann has committed some non-scientific felony, the intrusion of a state attorney general into scientific matters will merely inflame the situation.” David, how do we traditionally make the determination re: legal infraction? Answer: A legal investigation!

      Your assumption that it is only a scientific investigation is not necessarily true. Let the legal system work to its conclusion.

      The scientific review process appears to be broken. Maybe this legal review will disprove that impression.

  74. Wondering Aloud
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    I am not sure I agree here. The scientific community has shown an unwillingness to address the issue of lousy scientific method represented by Mann’s work. I don’t see that the legal system is likely to be much help but how can we make people like Mann begin to actually use the scientific method, especially the part about reproducible results, when there is no consequence other than an ever fatter paycheck connected to their abuse?

  75. Bob Brand
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

    Dear Mr. McIntyre,

    Kudos to you for standing up for academic freedom and freedom of (scientific) discourse. I would much rather see open debate and resolution in the exchange of facts and arguments, then by means of a politicized approach smacking of McCarthyism. By the same token, Mann should drop his silly case against an equally silly clip by Minnesotans For Global Warming…

    No matter what bias or tunnel vision Mann may possess, he’s trying to argue for his case as do you. Freedom to you both.

    Cheers,
    Bob

  76. mike
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM | Permalink

    i’m sure manns’ scientific work was compromised by his politics. if a lawyer can prove it, good luck to him. this AG has requested all info regarding half a million pounds of public money that i’m sure was misappropriated. i don’t know wat he expects to prove but i don’t know why you object.

    • gimply
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

      As Steve points out, the grants don’t appear to be in the middle of the climategate Mann-isms, but it is the school, not the person, being challenged. Which brings us back to the inherent bias toward exoneration within the halls of ivy. I, too, worry about the unintended consequences of another whitewash…

  77. Posted May 3, 2010 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    I’m with Steve. The persistent uphill work he and others have done, showing the weakness and dubious validity of many of the claims of the climate science community, is bearing fruit. Opinion polls show that the public is becoming more and more sceptical as regards the magnitude of the threat of climate change.

    When you are winning you have to more careful than ever to keep your hands clean.

  78. Bob McDonald
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    Steve said:
    “To the extent that there are issues with Mann or Jones or any of these guys, they are at most academic misconduct and should be dealt with under those regimes.”

    Unfortunately, the effect of Manns’ science goes far beyond “academic misconduct”.

    Lets not pretend that the science of AGW d
    – snip – venting

  79. bubbagyro
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM | Permalink

    Steve:
    I wonder now what your game is. I get the uncomfortable notion that if you had had access to the inside CRU emails, you would not have been a whistle blower, either, but would have tried to “work within the system” and maybe bury the result. Would you have complied with FOI requests? OR Would you have construed such requests as a witch hunt? Would you have said, “none of your business, lawyers, I don’t comply with no stinkin’ FOI”, like Mann and trenberth did?

    The Piltdown Man hoax discredited science for 40 years! Yes, it took “peer” scientists 40 years to challenge the good old boy network.

    Are you trying to be part of the good old boy network, Steve? Have they put some kind of pressure on you to soften your stand? I could understand and forgive that. Are you fried? You have worked awfully hard on this stuff, and I commend what you have done so far.

    If it is a genuine stand you are taking out of a misguided sense of loyalty to a class of scientist that does not deserve your support, I also forgive you. But, if Mann et.al. violated statutory law in VA, you have to as a citizen either support the law or work to repeal that Fraud law, not condemn the lawyer who is charged to enforce it.

    Being a big government supporter does not advance science. Look at France where they strike if their university work hours are increased. I also see that real innovation comes from private laboratories with actual benches and test tubes, not just solely arrays of servers and computer workstations, but from scientists actually trained in physics, chemistry and astronomy.

    You cannot take money from us taxpayers on one hand, and say none of your business on the other. It just should not pay to bite the hand that feeds you. Kudos to Cuccinelli. May his tribe increase.

  80. Roger Knights
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    Let’s say that a whistleblower went to an AG with anecdotal evidence of some sort of procedural (not substantive) misconduct. The AG has a duty to check out the records to see if the charge is true.

    For example (I’m just guessing here), suppose that one of the studies that was funded had actually been researched and even written up before the funding was sought for it. The AG would have a duty to check out the files for supporting evidence of this, and for evidence of similar hanky-panky in other grants, in order to justify a refund request from UVA.

    The whistleblower may have gone to the previous AG and/or the UVA administration and gotten nowhere. I.e., it may not be that Cuccinelli has decided to launch a vendetta, but that the other overseers didn’t want to disturb a hornet’s nest. I.e., he’s doing his duty and they didn’t.

    The AG wouldn’t have launched such a potentially explosive, high-profile investigation without an OK from the governor, I don’t think. So that lowers the odds of his being a loose cannon.

    And it’s unlikely that the AG is challenging anything scientifically substantive, because the media, the populace, the scientific community, and elite opinion would come down on him like a ton of bricks if he did. He must be wise enough to realize that. And he must be wise enough to realize that he needs a very strong suspicion of meaningful procedural hanky-panky to justify his look-see.

    It’s possible that a few embarrassing e-mails will be turned up. (E.g., “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP,” or words to that effect.) If so, that’s not legally actionable. But it would be worth knowing, because it would help put Mann’s research in context.

    I don’t think this sort of hanky-panky, if it occurred, or an embarrassing e-mail, if it is found, discredits the science. It just takes the shine off its halo, like Climategate. But that’s enough to justify taking a hard second look at it. That’s all our side can hope for at the moment.

  81. Ben
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    I posted earlier in response, and yes I think I agree most of us want to see blood so to speak or justice. This is problematic in that coming out in an arena like this in this method…

    This route will be teneous and like I said earlier will be ugly. Science will be hurt when scientists in this field who just followed up on shoddy research will also be nailed. And in the court of public opinion all scientists will be hurt.

    The truth will come out, but if it does this route, several “scape-goats” will take the blame and a lot of the people involved will escape without a mark to their name when they are just as guilty. This is the problem with witch-hunts, the true witches will just hide in plain site, and you might coincidently grab a few “real” witches, but a majority of the people you nail will be innocent.

    This will not hurt the truth coming out in any way, but this is just not the proper method.

  82. mpaul
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    We don’t know what information the AG has in his possession. To say that he is a “zealot” suggests an understanding of his motive. At this point, we can not divine motive without knowledge. The AGs Civil Investigative Demand indicates that a fair amount of research has gone into this action. I’d like to know more about what prompted the action before condemning the AG.

  83. harrywr2
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

    I seriously doubt Mann is the actual target.

    Virgina is party to a lawsuit challenging the EPA finding that “CO2 is a harmful gas”.

    IMHO It’s less of a with hunt and more like a fishing expedition to find some juicy tidbits that can be used to overturn the EPA finding.

  84. Matthew Drabik
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    Steve,
    Cuccinelli’s case is not about the science and his investigation will not try to determine the “truth” about CAGW. Cuccinelli is smart enough to know he can only win if he controls the battleground. If the case becomes a debate about proxies, feedbacks, etc., Mann will get to muddy the waters. This case will be strictly about whether Mann made any fraudulent claims on the specified grant applications and subsequent payment requests. People on both sides of the climate issue will be surprised by the banality of the charges (assuming any charges are eventually filed).

    I know you would rather not have this distract attention away from the scientific debate, especially as the tide is turning. However, as a Virginia taxpayer, an UVA alumnus and a contracts professional, I am happy to see this investigation go forward.

  85. Steve McIntyre
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    Readers are too angry. I ask readers all the time not to be angry and do so once again.

    I’ve been subject to a lot of abuse and defamatory statements, but I’m (99% of the time) not angry – so I don’t see why readers should be. Aside from making your life worse, it interferes with accomplishing whatever you want to do.

    • kim
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

      The last thing I told Peter Bocking was that I hoped it all would end in ridicule and not in anger. His reply, post enchanted larch grove but pre email release was that too many had died already. I disagreed at the time, but don’t any longer, particularly in view of the persistence of the charade and the ongoing tragedy of misbegotten, huybristic, policy.
      ===========

  86. Redbone
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    This appears to be some kind of Stockholm or Lima syndrome on Steve’s part. He is starting to bond with and show undeserved empathy for his adversaries. I think that he needs to take a break for awhile and do something else.

  87. MinB
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    I knew an idealistic tax protester who was investigated, tried, and crushed by the IRS as an “example”. When it’s government against an individual, it’s never a fair fight and, even when the individual “wins”, they still lose almost everything.

    The last thing I want is for Cucinelli to “crucify” Mann as a political tactic; it’s evil and will serve no good purpose.

  88. MinB
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM | Permalink

    And yes, I know this investigation is of UVA, not Mann personally, but we all know he’s the tethered goat.

  89. PhilJourdan
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    Nothing may come of the investigation, but What Cuccinelli is doing is what he is supposed to do. If nothing develops, fine. But it is his sworn duty to make sure the laws of the commonwealth are upheld. And that goes for the grant money as well.

    You will note he is not going after Mann, but Mann’s work while at UVA. Mann never needs to put in an appearance.

  90. Juan
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    I disagree Steve. This is the difference between applied and pure science.

    Billions have been wasted because of what this man has done. Someone needs to hold him accountable. If he purposely misled or conjured up data to enrich himself or others…or used his work to garner ever higher positions…then he should be ready to back it up.

    The AG has an obligation to find out the truth and to protect his state. Every state employee has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of their state as well.

  91. MikeN
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    I disagree with this stance. I think the Climategate e-mails and other behavior are enough to make a case for investigation. Saying that he will forward a message to delete e-mails is enough. I’m still not clear as to what type of things they are investigating here.

    I agree that this is a fishing expedition. I believe the end result will be no prosecution, and no finding of any wrongdoing.

  92. Howard
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    The comments supporting the criminalization of incompetence to achieve a result at any cost are naive. Some think SM is some ivory tower egghead without bare-knuckle toughness and street-smarts. On the contrary, those calling for sending Mann to the electric chair are foolish cowards throwing wild roundhouse punches at shadows.

  93. Unscientific lawyer
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    Based on what has been reported, the AG so far has taken only the step of requesting documents to determine whether there is a basis for a “qui tam” suit. Qui tam allows the government, or an individual on behalf of the government, to sue in order to recover tax money that has been wrongfully acquired. Although the subject of the suit may be subject to monetary penalties, it is a civil action, not a criminal one.

    The civil investigative demand by the AG is not an allegation of wrong-doing; it is just a request for documents. I’m a little surprised that anyone would express disdain for the AG’s actions at this stage since all he is doing is requesting documents, which, I believe, is something several of you have done under various freedom of information statutes.

    I’m not sure I understand how someone who has benefited from laws that allow access to documents from scientific institutions can be upset by this.

    • Bill Hunter
      Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

      Unscientific Lawyer, I agree with your take on this.

      The Virginia act also allows a private citizen to pursue this course of action. If a private citizen does so the case is held for 120 days while reviewed by the AG to determine if the suit is a nuisance suit in which case an investigation is denied, or if the plaintiff can continue, or if the AG desires to substitute his own investigation.

      This is in effect a sunshine act on the expenditure of public funds and not much different than a lot of private funding agreements that allows the lender/grantor to audit the borrower/grantee.

      I think it is a mistake to suggest that the AG is inserting himself into a scientific argument. There is really nothing whatsoever scientific about “Mike’s Nature Trick” or of involvement in email exchanges suggesting a conspiracy to dodge FOI requests by deleting correspondence.

      The public resoundingly and clearly recognizes the implications of such talk, this is in no way shape or form is a “science” issue. Its a public accountability issue and an investigation seems warranted if for no other reason than to restore the public’s trust in its institutions.

  94. Brian G Valentine
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    I am a Civil Servant and work for the US DOE, and I am as “skeptical” about man-made climate change as they come.

    I’m a “denier.”

    Everything I have said or written is open for investigation, everything I do is done with the protection of the Public’s interest in mind.

    WHY SHOULD ANYBODY COMPLAIN IF CUCCINELLI INVESTIGATES MANN? IF MANN COMMITTED WILLFUL DECEPTION THEN MANN NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR IT

    MCINTYRE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF “SERVICE IN THE PUBLIC’S INTEREST WITH THE PUBLIC’S MONEY” IS ALL WRONG

    Brian G Valentine
    Arlington, Virginia
    bgvalentine@verizon.net

  95. Scott Brim
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    Since this is a False Claims Act matter, the accusations likely involve some kind of alleged inadequacy in Mann’s recordkeeping process and procedure — either with financial accounting requirements, or with records management requirements which apply to the conduct of the research itself and to the documentation items the research produces.

    False Claims Act allegations have to do with claims for payment for work that was either not actually performed, or for items that were not actually delivered per the contractual specifications.

    It is one thing to allege that financial records which justify a claim for payment were not adequately maintained, or that documentation items associated with the research itself were not properly collected and maintained according to contractual obligations.

    It is quite another thing to allege that a false claim for payment exists because the products of the research may not be defensible scientifically. Who is to judge whether the product of a scientific research effort is, or is not, scientifically defensible? Certainly not the Attorney General of Virginia.

    If the Virginia AG’s False Claims Act investigation has to do with record keeping requirements related to maintaining evidence that work was performed per contractual requirements, then he is acting within the duties of his office.

    On the other hand, if his investigation has to do with allegations concerning the scientific validity of the research itself, then he is very clearly out of bounds in applying the False Claims Act. Go down that path and we would soon be investigating every government-funded research project in America.

  96. J Solters
    Posted May 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    Looks like new ideas on the VA Mann topic have run their course. Comments are somewhat split.

    snip

    Steve: I agree that comments have run their course. Too much angriness and too much time to moderate this thread, which is now closed.

  97. Steve McIntyre
    Posted May 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    Cuccinelli interviewed here

    http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2010-05-07/politics-hour

14 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Wow!  To his credit, Steve McIntyre shows that a scientist can be a climate “skeptic,” and he … [...]

  2. By CUCCINELLI v. MANN « the Air Vent on May 3, 2010 at 8:57 AM

    [...] General is apparently filing suit against Dr. Mann.  Steve McIntyre is reporting on this here:  (http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/).  Apparently Cuccinelli’s justification is fraudulent use of NSF [...]

  3. [...] worth noting that not all deniers welcome what Cuccinelli has done. Steve McIntyre calls it “a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I [...]

  4. [...] for example the reactions of Steve McIntyre and Thomas [...]

  5. [...] climate record on his own time and who – though he doesn’t agree with Michael Mann – recently leapt to Mann’s defense when he felt “Dr. Hockey Stick” was being unjustly harassed. There’s Anthony Watts, the [...]

  6. [...] and some others have expressed strong opposition to Cuccinelli’s actions, as have even some who clearly are seen as being in the climate skeptic community and not admirers of Michael Mann and [...]

  7. [...] that accumulated while I was reading and listening to what my students had to say, I found a fine post from none other than Steve MacIntyre on the Virginia’s ‘fraud [...]

  8. By Exonerated? Not. | Watts Up With That? on Oct 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    [...] Steve also discusses Cuccinelli here. [...]

  9. [...] it has been the impetus for multiple [15] critical [16] books [17] and blog posts. Skeptics have dismissed the graph [18] as “little more than paleo-phrenology” and claimed that “Mann-made warming [...]

  10. [...] of privacy aspects, but they seem fine with it now. Steve McIntyre, the Great Auditor, was against it, but now he’s for it. Even Anthony himself was once merely tepid on this tactic. I guess [...]

  11. [...] [...]

  12. By Climategate II hits home | declineeffect.com on Dec 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM

    [...] Warm Period, talk about fraud or criminal charges was abusive and excessive. Steve McIntyre showed a lot of class when he spoke up in Mann’s defense regarding such charges, and contacted Mann directly with [...]

  13. By Above the Law « Climate Audit on Mar 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM

    [...] whether Cuccinnelli had sufficient grounds to investigate Mann under FATA (a point on which I had spoken out in Mann’s favor), but on the totally bizarre grounds that the Attorney General is only [...]

  14. [...] own peril. It is therefore heartening to see the scientific community — skeptics included (see here and here) — coming together to condemn Cuccinelli. Despite the depths of the disagreement and the [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,196 other followers

%d bloggers like this: