'Climate Skeptic' Attorney General's Fishing Expedition on Climate Scientist

[Puppycow]

Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena of U-Va. records

An Albemarle County Circuit Court judge has set aside a subpoena issued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to the University of Virginia seeking documents related to the work of climate scientist and former university professor Michael Mann.

Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli can investigate whether fraud has occurred in university grants, as the attorney general had contended, but ruled that Cuccinelli's subpoena failed to state a "reason to believe" that Mann had committed fraud.

The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic who had maintained that he was investigating whether Mann committed fraud in seeking government money for research that showed that the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann, now at Penn State University, worked at U-Va. until 2005.

According to Peatross, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, under which the civil investigative demand was issued, requires that the attorney general include an "objective basis" to believe that fraud has been committed. Peatross indicates that the attorney general must state the reason so that it can be reviewed by a court, which Cuccinelli failed to do.

This is chilling. There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.

 

[mhaze]

Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena of U-Va. records



This is chilling. There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.

Well now aren't you quite the misrepresenter of the day on JREF.

First of all, neither your excerpts or your title reflect actual facts. Here are the relevant facts:

In a statement, Cuccinelli said he will take the judge's ruling into account and rewrite the civil investigative demand.....
"While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth," he said.

​

I have no problem with the judge's ruling. Cuccinelli doesn't seem to either. Everything looks proper. Nobody seems to agree with your take on the matter, do they?

Now let's look at your Alarming Commentary.

This is chilling.

​

Nope. It's a pretty standard issue of a judge asking for details and clarifications and a rewrite. Otherwise grounds would be established for a possible appeal. And the judge clearly says that the objective facts are included the petition will be granted.

There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.
​

Nope. That's your belief. And your belief is the type of thought process that the Judge in the case objected to. The prosecuting attorney said he'd fix his petition with more details - because that's the proper thing to do.

Now, are you going to fix your judgmental and belief driven thought processes? I'm eagerly awaiting to hear your answer.

Please use the objective criteria the judge requested in your assessment of the Attorney General who's views you seem to despise.

 

[bluskool]

There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.
​

Nope. That's your belief. And your belief is the type of thought process that the Judge in the case objected to. The prosecuting attorney said he'd fix his petition with more details - because that's the proper thing to do.

Oh please, that is not just his belief, that is exactly what is going on in this case. Cuccinelli is a vocal doubter of climate change science and is going after one climatologist, accusing him of fraud by manipulating data. He has not offered a single piece of evidence nor given any reason for suspecting Mann of data manipulation. It's not like Cuccinelli is going after scientists from various fields just to make sure they are not violating state fraud laws. He is singling out one particular scientist that just so happens to do research that Cuccinelli disagrees with.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh please, that is not just his belief, that is exactly what is going on in this case. Cuccinelli is a vocal doubter of climate change science and is going after one climatologist, accusing him of fraud by manipulating data. He has not offered a single piece of evidence nor given any reason for suspecting Mann of data manipulation. It's not like Cuccinelli is going after scientists from various fields just to make sure they are not violating state fraud laws. He is singling out one particular scientist that just so happens to do research that Cuccinelli disagrees with.

Research that gores the ox of major campaign donors, the Coal Industry...

It's not EVEN a matter of belief, its a matter of corrupt party politics.

 

[godless dave]

It's not the judge's ruling that's chilling, it's the prosecutor's demand.

 

[mhaze]

It's not the judge's ruling that's chilling, it's the prosecutor's demand.

The "Prosecutor's demand"???

What demand has he made?

You referring to the rejected supoena? When it is modified and resubmitted, and approved by the judge, it is a demand for records of the university - made by the court - in order to establish facts and trails of evidence in the case.

There are no "demands" by the prosecuting attorney.

Oh please, that is not just his belief, that is exactly what is going on in this case. Cuccinelli is a vocal doubter of climate change science and is going after one climatologist, accusing him of fraud by manipulating data. He has not offered a single piece of evidence nor given any reason for suspecting Mann of data manipulation. It's not like Cuccinelli is going after scientists from various fields just to make sure they are not violating state fraud laws. He is singling out one particular scientist that just so happens to do research that Cuccinelli disagrees with.

That's YOUR BELIEF. It's up to Cuccinelli to produce a reasoned statement in line with centuries old legal procedure which he has agreed to do so as the judge instructed. Evidentiary rules, hearsay, etc.

That statement which he produces no doubt you won't like. You'll say it's silly or make some other lame excuse. You'll be outraged at what it says.

But it will fulfill the standards of the legal system in the state in question.

That's the point - not your lame belief sets. And those as I noted are something of what the judge said "Not to have", yet you display them here. And this is why I previously said and suggest to you also:

Please use the objective criteria the judge requested in your assessment of the Attorney General who's views you seem to despise.

 

[bluskool]

The "Prosecutor's demand"???

What demand has he made?

You referring to the rejected supoena? When it is modified and resubmitted, and approved by the judge, it is a demand for records of the university - made by the court - in order to establish facts and trails of evidence in the case.

There are no "demands" by the prosecuting attorney.

There are no demands, just demands. Demands are clearly different from demands.
Anyway, their has been no "subpoena" issued. Cuccinelli issued a "civil investigative demand" (which I think is a demand, but it might be a demand, I always get those confused.)

That's YOUR BELIEF. It's up to Cuccinelli to produce a reasoned statement in line with centuries old legal procedure which he has agreed to do so as the judge instructed. Evidentiary rules, hearsay, etc.

That statement which he produces no doubt you won't like. You'll say it's silly or make some other lame excuse. You'll be outraged at what it says.

But it will fulfill the standards of the legal system in the state in question.

That's the point - not your lame belief sets. And those as I noted are something of what the judge said "Not to have", yet you display them here. And this is why I previously said and suggest to you also:

Please use the objective criteria the judge requested in your assessment of the Attorney General who's views you seem to despise.

Wow, you simply repeated the charge that this is just my "belief", while ignoring my argument, told me what I will think about a statement that doesn't exist, told me that said non-existent statement will be legally sound and then resorted to calling my "belief set" "lame." Good show!

 

[ThunderChunky]

That's YOUR BELIEF. ]

What isn't a belief?

It's a fact that this AG is a global warming denier, it's a fact that he is using his position to attack this climate scientist, it's a fact that he is a politician with an agenda.

You are also trying to make some technical point that was he is doing is legal... who cares if it's legal? The point should be whether or not it is a terrible thing to do.

 

[mhaze]

There are no demands, just demands. Demands are clearly different from demands.
Anyway, their has been no "subpoena" issued. Cuccinelli issued a "civil investigative demand" (which I think is a demand, but it might be a demand, I always get those confused.)

Wow, you simply repeated the charge that this is just my "belief", while ignoring my argument, told me what I will think about a statement that doesn't exist, told me that said non-existent statement will be legally sound and then resorted to calling my "belief set" "lame." Good show!

Word salad. There are no demands. There is a request for one - a supoena. The request is by the prosecuting attorney.

There will be a demand for production of documents when such a paper is approved by the judge and then released.

What isn't a belief?

It's a fact that this AG is a global warming denier, it's a fact that he is using his position to attack this climate scientist, it's a fact that he is a politician with an agenda.

You are also trying to make some technical point that was he is doing is legal... who cares if it's legal? The point should be whether or not it is a terrible thing to do.

You may be on the wrong thread. This is a thread defined by the OP not I on which is on the topic of some legal proceedings on which I make a few comments. It is not about beliefs, deniers, attackers. There is no "technical point", there is simply the explanation of some of the procedures used.

Is there something going on here which is a terrible thing to do? If so I don't see it.

If Mann has committed fraud let's dish out the jail time. If not then he's got no problem.

 

[ThunderChunky]

You may be on the wrong thread. This is a thread defined by the OP not I on which is on the topic of some legal proceedings on which I make a few comments. It is not about beliefs, deniers, attackers. There is no "technical point", there is simply the explanation of some of the procedures used.

Is there something going on here which is a terrible thing to do? If so I don't see it.

If Mann has committed fraud let's dish out the jail time. If not then he's got no problem.

Where did the OP say or imply that what the AG did is illegal? You claiming that his actions are legal does not defend against the criticism raised, it's an extraneous and irrelevant point.

The point of the discussion should be 1) whether or not this AGs views on climate science are the reason he is pressing this matter and 2) what effect might this may on science and academic freedom. If the AGs personal ignorance has motivated his action here, then this is chilling, and yes, it is a terrible thing to do.

 

[Trakar]

Judge quashes Cuccinelli subpoena of U-Va. records



This is chilling. There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.

Sounds like a social/political issue rather than one of science, but if it is going to be a discussion of the science, shouldn't it be on the moderated thread?

 

[mhaze]

Sounds like a social/political issue rather than one of science, but if it is going to be a discussion of the science, shouldn't it be on the moderated thread?

I do not see matters of science entering into the court hearings. Of course, well, who knows. But remember this is all about very specific statutes on fraud and whether Mann has gone over the edge on those statutes.

Basically this is a matter of reading the statutes section by section, then looking at the actions of the individual and seeing if they qualify. For example if in an email he said "What we gonna do? It ain't been warming, I gotta find some other way to prop up that hockey stick or we're all toast".

Well, then that bad boy may have to spend some time in his little room IF he subsequent to that email did a grant application and received funds asserting positively absolutely that hockey stick was rock solid science.

So....don't look for this trial to be a trial on global warming. It's simply a trial on fraud.

 

[geni]

So....don't look for this trial to be a trial on global warming. It's simply a trial on fraud.

Are you always this nieve with regards to the actions of politicians?

 

[mhaze]

Are you always this nieve with regards to the actions of politicians?

I answer the only way possible...directly with respect to your naive question:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nieve.html

People who spell this French-derived word “nieve” make themselves look naive.

In French there is also a masculine form: “naif”; and both words can be nouns meaning “naive person” as well as adjectives. “Nieve” is actually the Spanish word for “snow.” “Naiveté” is the French spelling of the related noun in English. If you prefer more nativized spelling, “naivety” is also acceptable.

 

[mhaze]

Where did the OP say or imply that what the AG did is illegal? You claiming that his actions are legal does not defend against the criticism raised, it's an extraneous and irrelevant point.

The point of the discussion should be 1) whether or not this AGs views on climate science are the reason he is pressing this matter and 2) what effect might this may on science and academic freedom. If the AGs personal ignorance has motivated his action here, then this is chilling, and yes, it is a terrible thing to do.

First of all the OP is in error regarding the judge's rendered opinion on the request by the prosecutor. This is obvious, let's move on to the point that you address:

The OP says that the AG's (opinions, beliefs, attempt to investigate, etc) are "chilling".

I've highlighted in red the part of your statements that are essentially irrelevant. The judge doesn't care whether the AG believes or does not believe in AGW. The judge cares about whether the rule of law was followed in the affidavits and requests.

 

[ThunderChunky]

First of all the OP is in error regarding the judge's rendered opinion on the request by the prosecutor. This is obvious, let's move on to the point that you address:

The OP says that the AG's (opinions, beliefs, attempt to investigate, etc) are "chilling".

I've highlighted in red the part of your statements that are essentially irrelevant. The judge doesn't care whether the AG believes or does not believe in AGW. The judge cares about whether the rule of law was followed in the affidavits and requests.

The OP made no comment about the judge...so I do not see an error in that regard.

He stated that he finds the actions of an anti-science AG chilling, because he is going after a scientist whose research he opposes. You can argue that the AGs actions are legal, but that is what is irrelevant (the law can be abused for chilling effects). The question is about the AGs judgment/motivations in pressing this matter. If his motivations are based on evidence that a fraud has occurred (independent of the science itself), that is one thing, if they are based on his politics it is another.

 

[mhaze]

The OP made no comment about the judge...so I do not see an error in that regard......

First of all, read the exact statements and respond to them:

the OP is in error regarding the judge's rendered opinion on the request by the prosecutor

Otherwise you are wasting everyone's time unless you are just another libtard using misdirective tactics

....He stated that he finds the actions of an anti-science AG chilling, because he is going after a scientist whose research he opposes. You can argue that the AGs actions are legal, but that is what is irrelevant (the law can be abused for chilling effects). The question is about the AGs judgment/motivations in pressing this matter. If his motivations are based on evidence that a fraud has occurred (independent of the science itself), that is one thing, if they are based on his politics it is another.

Actually, no. "Chilling" can occur regardless of the AG's motivations. Which you do not know although you profess to have knowledge of such in extreme hubris.

In other words, a "chilling effect" on science can occur if the AG is motivated purely by an interest in maintaining law and order and if in the issue of Mann, he's found guilty of fraud.

But in this case the original cause of the "chilling effect" would have been the extreme arrogance of an individual abusing scientific privilege. Hence, no mercy for such in the court, applauds for the AG, and tough love for your basket of feelings.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

It’s obviously a complete coincidence that a long-time AGW denier wants to investigate a leading climate researcher for fraud, ROFL.

 

[Puppycow]

Well now aren't you quite the misrepresenter of the day on JREF.

First of all, neither your excerpts or your title reflect actual facts. Here are the relevant facts:

In a statement, Cuccinelli said he will take the judge's ruling into account and rewrite the civil investigative demand.....
"While this was not an outright ruling in our favor, I am pleased that the judge has agreed with my office on several key legal points and has given us a framework for issuing a new civil investigative demand to get the information necessary to continue our investigation into whether or not fraud has been committed against the commonwealth," he said.

​

I have no problem with the judge's ruling. Cuccinelli doesn't seem to either. Everything looks proper. Nobody seems to agree with your take on the matter, do they?

Now let's look at your Alarming Commentary.

This is chilling.

​

Nope. It's a pretty standard issue of a judge asking for details and clarifications and a rewrite. Otherwise grounds would be established for a possible appeal. And the judge clearly says that the objective facts are included the petition will be granted.

There's an attorney general out there going after a scientist because he doesn't like his scientific conclusions.
​

Nope. That's your belief. And your belief is the type of thought process that the Judge in the case objected to. The prosecuting attorney said he'd fix his petition with more details - because that's the proper thing to do.

Now, are you going to fix your judgmental and belief driven thought processes? I'm eagerly awaiting to hear your answer.

Please use the objective criteria the judge requested in your assessment of the Attorney General who's views you seem to despise.

The "Prosecutor's demand"???

What demand has he made?

The "Civil Investigative Demands." You might want to read this, although your reading comprehension skills are not in evidence.

You referring to the rejected supoena? When it is modified and resubmitted, and approved by the judge, it is a demand for records of the university - made by the court - in order to establish facts and trails of evidence in the case.

If it is modified and resubmitted, and approved by the judge. Which seems unlikely, at least the part about the judge approving it, because he would have to show a "reason to believe" that fraud has occurred.

There are no "demands" by the prosecuting attorney.

Except for the "Civil Investigative Demands."

That's YOUR BELIEF. It's up to Cuccinelli to produce a reasoned statement in line with centuries old legal procedure which he has agreed to do so as the judge instructed. Evidentiary rules, hearsay, etc.

That statement which he produces no doubt you won't like. You'll say it's silly or make some other lame excuse. You'll be outraged at what it says.

But it will fulfill the standards of the legal system in the state in question.

Oh, really? Is that a prediction? I say it will not fulfill the standards of the legal system in the state in question (if he resubmits it at all; if he's less delusional than Orly Taitz, he might realize he's got no case and just quietly let the matter drop).

There are no demands, just demands. Demands are clearly different from demands.
Anyway, their has been no "subpoena" issued. Cuccinelli issued a "civil investigative demand" (which I think is a demand, but it might be a demand, I always get those confused.)

Word salad. There are no demands. There is a request for one - a supoena. The request is by the prosecuting attorney.

When is a demand not a demand? The legal term employed by the prosecutor and the judge is "civil investigative demand," not "subpoena." The meaning is the same so in addition to being wrong, your argument is only about semantics.
Evidences

Cuccinelli issued a civil investigative demand, essentially a subpoena, for documents from U-Va.

There will be a demand for production of documents when such a paper is approved by the judge and then released.

If such a paper is approved. Fat chance.

If Mann has committed fraud let's dish out the jail time. If not then he's got no problem.

Oh, well then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if a democratic AG investigated you, searched your house and papers for evidence of any crime. If you've never done anything wrong, you've got no problem, right?

Sounds like a social/political issue rather than one of science, but if it is going to be a discussion of the science, shouldn't it be on the moderated thread?

No.

 

[Puppycow]

Here's what's chilling:

Cuccinelli's petition seemed to be his boldest stroke since he took office last month, after a campaign in which he promised to use the attorney general's office to pursue conservative goals.

And yes, it would be equally chilling if an AG promised to use his office to pursue liberal goals. The AG office shouldn't be used for politics. It should be used to fight crime, not for fishing trips against people you don't like.