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

[ThunderChunky]

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

Point out the error that you claim exists, instead of resorting to insults.

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.

Where did I profess to have knowledge of the AG's motivations? I stated facts about the AG and left the conclusions based on those facts (and the possibility of new facts being presented) up for interpretation.

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.

No. In the hypothetical case of an actual fraud having been committed, catching such fraudster would not have a chilling effect on science. The chilling effect comes from an AG abusing is power to attack a scientist for doing legitimate research. If there is no reason to suspect fraud (and none has been given), all climate scientists in virginia will have to be wary of this AG using every trick in the book to go after them. Stem cell researchers and those studying evolution may be next on his hit list. That is the chilling effect.

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.

Do you have any reason to suspect that there is actually a fraud in this case? I have lots of reasons to suspect that this AG is anti-science.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Wrong. The atorney could have asked for a FOI. But he did not. And this is the same guy which made the hub-hub about abortion.

I am sorry to break you the news in, that atorney don't care a BIT on climate change. just like for abortion he simply found an easy way to garner vote.

And *THAT* is the perfect example for the useful idiot thread.

 

[BenBurch]

What he WANTS it to make it cost the scientist PERSONALLY for having the temerity to find truth that runs counter to Conservative Dogma. Galileo was put into a similar bind.

 

[quixotecoyote]

What he WANTS it to make it cost the scientist PERSONALLY for having the temerity to find truth that runs counter to Conservative Dogma. Galileo was put into a similar bind.

No, Galileo was put in a bind for being a dick to the pope, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Cuddles]

Remain civil and avoid making personal attacks. While this is a distinct enough topic to deserve its own thread, we don't want to have to put yet another global warming thread on moderated status because members are unable to control themselves. Mhaze, this applies especially to you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[mhaze]

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

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.


Except for the "Civil Investigative Demands."


Oh, really? Is that a prediction? I say it will not fulfill the standards of the legal system in the state in question .....

Sorry, I miss your point.

I've only pointed out that an actual demand is made from the court when and if the petition is approved. (The judge's decision notes the CID is the same as a supoena.)

Also, your opinions about it being unlikely the AG will resubmit seem to be contrary to, y0u know, the real world?

He's said he was going to resubmit.

...I am sorry to break you the news in, that atorney don't care a BIT on climate change. just like for abortion .....

Sounds like one is fantasizing imputing motives.

I have no idea what motives he may have.

What he WANTS it to make it cost the scientist PERSONALLY for having the temerity to find truth that runs counter to Conservative Dogma. Galileo was put into a similar bind.

I have no idea "what he wants".
Thanks for your opinion as to his inner motives. Join the line of people who profess to have such knowledge.

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

I can't imagine what would be wrong with that. Assuming there are reasonable grounds for the bringing of a case. The strange morass of opinion on this case seems to be that it should not have been brought to court at all. And that's by people with zero knowledge of the facts of the case.

But gee...why didn't the judge dismiss on summary judgment then?

 

[bluskool]

Word salad.

No, it was sarcasm.

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.

Look, here is the document. It is a Civil Investigative Demand. It's even typed at the top in all caps and underlined for you. It's like a subpoena, but it is issued without a lawsuit being filed and without the permission of the court. It already has been issued as a demand, but the university took it to court to have it dismissed and that is the only reason the court is involved. This is really a minor point, but one would think you would know a little something about a topic that you seem to feel so strongly about.

 

[Emet]

In His Own Words
“The policy proposals I put forward apply to the real world, but they all come with the conservative philosophy. I can explain every position I got. People know where I stand. Whether people agree with me, or don’t, I have always been a straight shooter. They appreciate that, unlike a lot people, I am consistent across the board and they know that. For a lot of people that is refreshing.”(6)

http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Kenneth_T._Cuccinelli

What is WhoRunsGov?
Published by The Washington Post Company, the site offers profiles of government decision-makers that anyone can edit. Contributors can use their name, or not, and all information is reviewed by our editorial team before publishing.

Our profiles are linked to from WashingtonPost.com stories, and are reliable because any information submitted by the public is reviewed by our in-house editorial team before being published.

 

[BenBurch]

... This is really a minor point, but one would think you would know a little something about a topic that you seem to feel so strongly about.

Good luck with that. Knowledge and passion seem to be opposites here too often.

 

[bluskool]

I've only pointed out that an actual demand is made from the court when and if the petition is approved. (The judge's decision notes the CID is the same as a supoena.)

That's wrong. The demand is being made by the AG, unlike a subpoena, which would be issued by the court. Had the university complied, the court would not be involved.

Assuming there are reasonable grounds for the bringing of a case. The strange morass of opinion on this case seems to be that it should not have been brought to court at all. And that's by people with zero knowledge of the facts of the case.

But gee...why didn't the judge dismiss on summary judgment then?

Dismiss what? There has been no lawsuit filed. The judge did dismiss the CIV, which was the only thing he was ruling on. The only way the judge could have gone further would have been to deny that the AG has the authority to investigate state grants awarded for scientific research.

 

[Aepervius]

Sounds like one is fantasizing imputing motives.

It sounds like you failed to research that guy past action, and just jumped on the occasion because it spoke to your own pet stuff : "climate change".

As I said, google for "useful idiot wiki". You are just feeding in this guy attempt to garner voters.

 

[metzomagic]

Hahahaha. This just in:

Peatross decides: Judge pens halt to Cuccinelli inquest

From that article:

The Peatross ruling blistered the AG’s office on several points including the state’s failure to state precisely why it believes that old emails relate to a monetary fraud. Additionally, Peatross found that only one of the five grants Mann received at UVA actually consisted of state money, and so it didn’t meet the requirements of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, or FATA, the 2003 Virginia law that gave the AG the right to his so-called Civil Investigative Demand.

And from a reader comment there by 'Ferro':

1) 4 of the 5 grants were federal grants, and therefore the AG cannot investigate them (see section 5).

2) The 5th grant was a state grant, but apparently was granted in 2001. Therefore FATA (not enacted until 2003) does not apply and the AG cannot issue a CID under FATA for it (see section 6).

(my emphasis added) So Cuccinelli has *nothing*. Absolutely NOTHING. No grounds whatsoever for accusing Mann of wasting Virginia taxpayers' money. An *attorney general* ff sake, and the guy didn't even get a basic point of law right! This proves he's just on a witch hunt. Now who's been shown to be wasting the taxpayers' money?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, Galileo was put in a bind for being a dick to the pope, but that's neither here nor there.

And being in under a court that could fabricate evidence at will. The whole secret agreement they sprung on him at the trial that was stricter than the one they actually told him about.

 

[mhaze]

...Look, here is the document. It is a Civil Investigative Demand. It's even typed at the top in all caps and underlined for you. It's like a subpoena, but it is issued without a lawsuit being filed and without the permission of the court. It already has been issued as a demand, but the university took it to court to have it dismissed and that is the only reason the court is involved. This is really a minor point, but one would think you would know a little something about a topic that you seem to feel so strongly about.

It may indeed be a minor point. Since there is no demand as I have previously stated. You refer to a demand which existed on paperin the past, and which was conditional upon judicial approval, that not being approved, ceased to exist.

There is no demand.

Hahahaha. This just in:
....

And from a reader comment there by 'Ferro':...
(my emphasis added) So Cuccinelli has *nothing*. Absolutely NOTHING. No grounds whatsoever for accusing Mann of wasting Virginia taxpayers' money. An *attorney general* ff sake, and the guy didn't even get a basic point of law right! This proves he's just on a witch hunt. Now who's been shown to be wasting the taxpayers' money?

No, this is an error by you and your commenter. Both of you should read the judge's ruling which takes these matters into account and clearly spells out the path the AG should follow in moving forward with a supoena.

 

[lomiller]

The only way the judge could have gone further would have been to deny that the AG has the authority to investigate state grants awarded for scientific research.

My understanding is that in addition to saying the AG needed an actual reason to believe fraud was committed he also ruled that the AG could only investigate 1 of the 5 grants in question.

mhaze seems to feel not being prohibited from filing a new demand on the 5th grant is somehow a victory, ignoring the fact the judged ruled the AG had no evidence or justification for issuing a demand at this time.

 

[bluskool]

It may indeed be a minor point. Since there is no demand as I have previously stated. You refer to a demand which existed on paperin the past, and which was conditional upon judicial approval, that not being approved, ceased to exist.

For the third time, that is false. The demand required no judicial approval. It only went to court because the University challenged it.

 

[mhaze]

It sounds like you failed to research that guy past action, and just jumped on the occasion because it spoke to your own pet stuff : "climate change".

As I said, google for "useful idiot wiki". You are just feeding in this guy attempt to garner voters.

Hahaha. Now you impute motives not just to the AG but to me too?

I understand that liberal intellectuals think they know better than everyone else. But now you know motives in lawsuits from past statements of conservative principles?

You realize that the character in question, Dr. Mann, has done studies alleging "hockey sticks" as the result of temperature input to algorithms. But others have found red noise input to the same algorithms would produce identical output?

I guess all one can say is...

It sounds like you failed to research that guy past action

 

[mhaze]

My understanding is that in addition to saying the AG needed an actual reason to believe fraud was committed he also ruled that the AG could only investigate 1 of the 5 grants in question.

mhaze seems to feel not being prohibited from filing a new demand on the 5th grant is somehow a victory, ignoring the fact the judged ruled the AG had no evidence or justification for issuing a demand at this time.

I have no problem with the fact that the judge found that four of the five grants did not apply to the statute in question, and I have no problem with the fact that the AG stated he would proceed to modify the supoena and resumbit as requested.

Not I - it's other posters who think this is somehow chilling or unfair or mean and nasty.

 

[bluskool]

My understanding is that in addition to saying the AG needed an actual reason to believe fraud was committed he also ruled that the AG could only investigate 1 of the 5 grants in question.

mhaze seems to feel not being prohibited from filing a new demand on the 5th grant is somehow a victory, ignoring the fact the judged ruled the AG had no evidence or justification for issuing a demand at this time.

Yes, that is correct. The judge could have ruled that the AG had no authority to challenge even the one state awarded grant. He instead ruled that the AG did have the authority, but did not provide justification for using it.

 

[ejk]

It may indeed be a minor point. Since there is no demand as I have previously stated. You refer to a demand which existed on paperin the past, and which was conditional upon judicial approval, that not being approved, ceased to exist.

There is no demand.



No, this is an error by you and your commenter. Both of you should read the judge's ruling which takes these matters into account and clearly spells out the path the AG should follow in moving forward with a supoena.

The CID does not require judicial approval. You keep saying this, but it is incorrect. The matter only ended up in front of a judge because the University filed suit claiming the AG had exceeded his authority in issuing it, a claim the court agreed with as to that CID (Civil Investigative Demand). The ruling makes it clear that the AG is free to issue another CID, and again the University will be free to challenge it.