Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virginia AG Probing Michael Mann For Fraud

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the all-the-research-we-approve-of dept.

Earth 617

eldavojohn writes "Republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has requested receipts and research documents relating to nearly half a million dollars in state taxpayer money used to conduct climate change research at the University of Virginia while under direction of Michael Mann, originator of the famous 2001 IPCC Hockey Stick graph depicting rapid climate change. Mann appears to be a prime target for Cuccinelli — who has also requested hearings with the EPA to contest the grounds of their carbon dioxide studies. Mann's expenditures of taxpayer money may become problematic if Cuccinelli finds violations of Virginia's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. Cuccinelli has been active in pushing conservative views in the past, including an effort to remove the titillating mammary from the beloved Great Seal of Virginia. No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fuck yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32066964)

He deserves jail for Transformers 2 alone!

Re:Fuck yeah! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067126)

He deserves jail for Transformers 2 alone!

You're thinking of Michael Bay. This is the guy who produced Miami Vice [wikipedia.org] . Now quit spreading misinformation!

Re:Fuck yeah! (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067490)

No, no, this article is about the famous blues guitarist Michael Mann, better known as Hollywood Fats [wikipedia.org] . Easy mistake.

Not the only conservative views he's pushed (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32066982)

He's also the asshole that told all the public universities in Virginia they could no longer have policies of non-discrimination towards gays.

Stay classy.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067024)

Being gay is a behavior, it's not something that should be regulated like race and other innate attributes.

I mean we don't want special legislation protecting people who are good at math or who deal drugs either.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (5, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067070)

Religion is a behavior, it's not something should be regulated like race and other innate attributes. I mean we don't want special legislation protecting people who are homo- or xenophobic.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067228)

Agreed.

Being religious might be protected (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067312)

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects genetic defect [wikipedia.org] diseases too...

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (2, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067546)

You know, the only place where the kind of thinking - open hatred towards a class of society, is considered normal and encouraged by society is - the sorts of views expressed by you and parrotted endlessly here :-) It's quite ironic, when one thinks about it....

You're what you hate :-)

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (0, Offtopic)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067090)

Mod parent up, someone?

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067482)

Parent modded, but not up ;-)

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (5, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067118)

Being gay is a behavior,

No it's not. One could "be gay" buy never have sex with another person of the same sex. Just as slashdotters can "be straight" and remain virgins.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067198)

yeah, and I bet you think "bald" is a hair color. retard.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067382)

You don't think bald people have genes that define what their hair color would be? Retard.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (3, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067318)

Being gay is probably genetic.There's physical differences in the brains of gays. There are gay animals. You can't choose to be gay or not, same as you can choose who you fall in love with. What gays can do is not act on their desires, sames as religious heterosexuals can choose not to have sex outside of marriage OR not for procreation AND not divorce when they change their minds.. and they do that sooo well !

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067364)

And if not genetic, at least hormonal.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067386)

And I'm probably a a magical unicorn that ejaculates rainbows.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (3, Interesting)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067466)

Being gay is probably genetic.There's physical differences in the brains of gays.

I've pointed this out before but was moderated into oblivion. What you're saying is true. These differences clearly show up in MRIs. They have different brain chemistry - just as normal males and females also differ; whereby gays match neither.

What's not commonly known and likely the reason I've always been moderated negatively is that many "gays" do not have different brain chemistry from other males which likely means for many "gays" it absolutely is a choice.

What I have done a poor job of explaining is, of those who call themselves gay, there is very likely those who are born gay, having different brain chemistry, and those who choose to act gay. And so it seems the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. For some its a choice. For others, not so much. At least, that's what science seems to be saying on the subject once you get past the political correctness BS.

Another tidbit is also likely explains why I get moderated to hell is that many mental illnesses also show up on MRIs. Which suggests diseases such as sociopaths and psychopaths, among many others, are not actually diseases. You can't have it both ways. If you follow the logical conclusion, either these are not diseases or they are. And if male and female is not a disease then it suggests that sociopaths, psychopaths, and homosexuality are also not a disease. But it also suggests that sociopaths and psychopaths are not wrongly persecuted and even worse, testing may be to the greater benefit of society. Sadly this means most CEOs would wind up the pariahs of society rather than the overly paid, valued members they current are.

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067178)

Why are you discriminating against his discriminatory views and opinions?

His Official Policy on Homosexuality Is No Secret (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067350)

He's also the asshole that told all the public universities in Virginia they could no longer have policies of non-discrimination towards gays.

Stay classy.

Well, I live in Northern Virginia by DC so I'm painfully aware of his policies. In 2004, as a State Senator in Virginia's Senate, he stated "Homosexuality is wrong [pqarchiver.com] ." This was in regards to a bill that would be introduced to add homosexuality under hate crime legislation after a particularly disturbing case. Cuccinelli vowed to fight any extension of gay rights. He would be reelected in 2007 and appointed as Attorney General this year.

Your fancy logic is no use here, this is politics. You have to disprove Cuccinelli's belief that "homosexuality is wrong" and his apparent reinforcement that it moves him up the voting chain so the populace agrees. Good luck, I sometimes have to interact with these people and often just sidestep any conversation in regards to gay rights (trust me, it's not worth it).

It doesn't end at gay rights either [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not the only conservative views he's pushed (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067370)

Don't let facts get in the way of your partisan hatred. All he did was point out that only the state legislature has the authority to mandate such policies.

Woo, witchhunts! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32066986)

After the whole Climategate thing fizzled, I was wondering when some enterprising Republican in the US would take it upon himself to try to drum up some more bullshit. I guess after the guy was done making sure you can discriminate against the gays the way the good lord intended, Cuccinelli thought he'd move on to something that's a better use of the taxpayer's dollars.

Yay Virginia!

It is very serious (4, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067038)

Even if the investigation comes up empty, as I expect it will, it could have a very damaging effect upon Mann's career. It also could have a chilling effect not only on other climate scientists, but even discouraging science students in even choosing a career in climate science.

Re:It is very serious (1, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067114)

You mean they might not be discouraged yet by the whole climategate scandal? If they haven't yet, I doubt this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Though it could stoke the fire of open research, solid peer review, and cause the desire for solid, factual research to go up.

Of course I could also get a Pink Unicorn for a pet, too.

Re:It is very serious (2, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067144)

No! It'll make it COOLER!

Hey chicks! Look at me! I'm a badass motherfucking climate scientist that get's in trouble with the LAW! I'm STICK'N IT TO THE MAN!

That's right! And climate scientist will be getting motor cycles and leather jackets with HOT CHICKS on the back!

Yep. This will INCREASE science enrollment!

Re:It is very serious (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067170)

Climate science is the new 'snake oil', you can predict almost anything short term, get lots of funding, scare people and get more funding. How soon do we forget that 30 years ago scientists were predicting a second ice age.

Do we need to look into it? Yes. But really, 'climate scientists' end up willingly or unwillingly become shills of large corporations selling their goods.

With the lack of standards, ethics and real science, I can't help but not feel sorry for all these 'climate scientists' who now have their future called in question.

Re:It is very serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067234)

Thirty years ago scientists were predicting picture phones and artificially intelligent computers. The Internet must be a hoax! With their lack of standards, ethics, and real science, I can't help but not feel sorry for all these "computer scientists" who now have their future called in question. [Moron.]

Re:It is very serious (4, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067402)

Just one quick point: you made up most of that yourself. The others, like the myth of "scientists 30 years ago" predicting another ice age, is pretty heavily debunked, and if you were interested in the truth at all, you'd know it.

Re:It is very serious (2, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067414)

There was an article in Time magazine about it 40 years ago. So how can you say it was a myth?

Re:It is very serious (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067460)

That's pretty much my point. There was one article in Time Magazine 40 years ago. And one in Newsweek. And then you have this [ametsoc.org] :

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales.

(Wikipedia's summary: "A survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming, with the warming articles also being cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.")

Re:It is very serious (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067532)

Compare "There was an article in Time magazine about it 40 years ago" with the statement "30 years ago scientists were predicting a second ice age" (or for that mater "30 years ago a group of eminent climate scientists agreed that a second ice age is very likely in the near future"). Consider, as an equivalent example, the comparison between "Fox News reported a Ford Mustang found on the moon" with the statement "The SETI institute, with the backing of NASA has announced the discovery of an alien Ford factory on the moon".

Re:It is very serious (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067384)

In one stroke turn many sciences outside maths or military industrial engineering disciplines into 'arts' in the eyes of the US public.
No more messy European style reports about cadmium, lead, beryllium, dioxin, strontium, the water table, air quality ect. by 'experts' in US courts.

Re:It is very serious (5, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067488)

It also could have a chilling effect not only on other climate scientists, but even discouraging science students in even choosing a career in climate science.

I suspect that's the plan, according to the article he's wanting documents from the period of 1999 - 2005, and it goes on to describe what's he's demanded be produced as:

Among the documents Cuccinelli demands are any and all emailed or written correspondence between or relating to Mann and more than 40 climate scientists, documents supporting any of five applications for the $484,875 in grants, and evidence of any documents that no longer exist along with proof of why, when, and how they were destroyed or disappeared.

I seriously, seriously doubt all the E-mail correspondence will still exist, we're talking about stuff that goes back 11 years. And when it does, and they can't prove "why, when and how" those E-mails were lost exactly, this asshole will claim it's all some giant cover-up. No matter what Mann and the UVA does they're going to lose here, because this isn't a legit investigation, it's a political witch-hunt pure and simple. McCarthy would be proud.

This disgusts me greatly, I'm torn between being glad I'm not living in Virginia and wishing I was so I could raise holy hell at the waste of my tax dollars on political witch-hunts by this jerk. Maybe Virginia voters will wake up and demand an investigation into Cuccinelli's waste of their tax dollars under the same law he's abusing here.

Re:Woo, witchhunts! (0, Offtopic)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067102)

Why should behavioral decisions become protected with special legislation?

Re:Woo, witchhunts! (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067250)

please do prove it's behavorial.

Non-peer Review (4, Insightful)

Machupo (59568) | more than 4 years ago | (#32066990)

Great...

Definitely the beginning of the end when science is evaluated by non-scientists (or bought/paid for court "expert witnesses").

Re:Non-peer Review (4, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067076)

When Scientists act like politicians, I don't find it hard to believe that politicians will soon act like scientists.

On the other hand (4, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067106)

it is a great day for economic development in DC and Maryland, who is going to locate a scientific research institution or bio-technology business in Virginia with this going on?

Re:Non-peer Review (0, Flamebait)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067130)

You mean it's not?

Ken Cuccinelli (2, Insightful)

TimmyDee (713324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067002)

What an asshole...going after academics for political reasons. What's next?

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (1, Troll)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067086)

Mann has credibly been accused (with evidence) of publishing fraudulent results (see also "hockey stick"). While I neither agree or disagree with your assertion, a more precise listing of what political reasons you think may be present would be nice.

The reason I ask is simple: any political officeholder can be accused of acting on political reasons. The thing lies in what those reasons may or may not be.

Re: Ken Cuccinelli (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067400)

a more precise listing of what political reasons you think may be present would be nice.

Contrary to what the talking heads would have you believe, Republicans -- the politicians and party leaders, not the voters -- aren't conservative. Their 'base' is billionaires, and their political philosophy is that the proper role of government is to ensure that the rich get richer faster.

Fighting climate change is going to cost some billionaires a small fraction of their income, so devout Republicans are desperate to prove that nothing needs to be done.

So we get the absurd notion that climate change is a liberal conspiracy.

Re: Ken Cuccinelli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067544)

And contrary to what you seem to believe, Democrats aren't liberal (root "libertas"), they're socialist/progressive. Robin Hood ("take from the rich, give to the poor") or Marx ("From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need"), as you prefer.

A friend of mine put it well: "Republicans want control of your bedroom, Democrats want control of your wallet."

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (0, Troll)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067092)

I am sorry but those "academics" allowed themselves to become political and the consequences are they now get treated like politicians.

No matter if you think the climate change theories have merit or if you are a "denier" you must admit there has been a great deal of poor scientific practices and fraud where climate change research has been concerned. Its provable that lots of data is coming from stations to close to man made radiators by standards set and then ignored by the same researchers. Some of the climate-gate allegations were true; even though most of the worst were not; and the hockey stick theory was shown to be total bunk and the people who put it forward knew it.

The scientists and academics allowed themselves to become political; and now the existing body politic no longer sees them as off limits and will subject them to their rules. Welcome to the dark ages 2.0 regardless of who brought it on.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (1, Troll)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067132)

The greater the Implications of your Discovery, the Greater Burden of Proof there is. The fact that the Climate Scientists came out and said that we are doomed unless we change now, with so many unanswered questions, is bad science.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067156)

The scientists and academics allowed themselves to become political;

What does that even mean? All science has political implications. That doesn't mean the researchers are doing it for politics, and it certainly doesn't warrant government harassment of scientists. There had better be a damn good reason and some solid evidence of malfeasance before such "probing" is initiated.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (1, Troll)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067188)

You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change? And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067388)

You do realize that there is a large population of people who don't support the idea of climate change? And if its not able to stand up against political pressure, those people Will Never be coerced.

Which is why science should be based on the scientific method, and not on public opinion.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067428)

Well, for what it's worth, Michael Mann and a few others contribute regularly to the arguably political website known as Real Climate [realclimate.org] , a website which isn't exactly known to allow dissenting views.

By their own words, the site was organized to provide immediate spin/response (you pick) to media stories on the subject of AGW... much like any other environmental organization does for topics that relate to their own specific causes... organizations that most folks do not hesitate to label as political in nature.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067514)

Well, for what it's worth, Michael Mann and a few others contribute regularly to the arguably political website known as Real Climate, a website which isn't exactly known to allow dissenting views.

Excuse me, but why would it? There's information that has scientific credibility and there's stuff that isn't. I would expect a site like Real Climate to post what is generally thought by real scientists to be accurate, not publish "dissenting positions" for the sake of "balance".

Balance can mean a lot of things, but when balance is advocated for balances sake, to the point that for every truthful statement, a lie must be told as well, then it serves nobody, and is utterly unethical to engage in.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (3, Interesting)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067096)

From his point of view, his state may have spent a large deal of money on something that may have given tainted results. How many pro-climate change supporters would act any different in the same position had Michael Mann brought proof against global warming?

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (1)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067520)

Then Cuccinelli wouldn't be looking at it. This "investigation" is for political purposes. Which is the main problem folks here have with this decision.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067140)

You can't be surprised here, both sides do it.

Re:Ken Cuccinelli (2, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067266)

To me, allocation and use of public funds - taxes - is by definition political, and I'm happy someone is checking they are wisely spent.

But, I'm not sure there enough suspicion to specifically investigate that guy, nor that other investigation may prove more wirth it, if less politically rewarding.

Pure trolling (5, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067004)

That's pure trolling from Cuccinelli, he has not asked for the data (which is open) related to the papers in question, but ALL of Mann's e-mail with about 20 people.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/cuccinelli_is_using_the_law_to.php [scienceblogs.com]

You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067116)

Because if he's not, and Mann DID commit some sort of fraud, any and all AGW claims will be blown to smithereens.

The anarchist in me might relish that, but I dunno if it's worth it.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (4, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067172)

"Because if he's not, and Mann DID commit some sort of fraud, any and all AGW claims will be blown to smithereens."

Even if we assume that Mann bribed all scientists reviewing his work, killed Kennedy and in fact is a reincarnation of Hitler (pre-emptive Godwining) - it won't change ANYTHING.

Mann's papers are just several of many thousands, written by different teams from various parts of the world with different methodologies and data sources used.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067210)

But how many of those thousands of papers and researchers used Mann's research as a basis?

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (3, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067336)

Considering that much of AGW research was done long before Mann's papers - it's still won't change anything.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067260)

"Because if he's not, and Mann DID commit some sort of fraud, any and all AGW claims will be blown to smithereens."

Even if we assume that Mann bribed all scientists reviewing his work, killed Kennedy and in fact is a reincarnation of Hitler (pre-emptive Godwining) - it won't change ANYTHING.

Mann's papers are just several of many thousands, written by different teams from various parts of the world with different methodologies and data sources used.

That's not relevant to the politics of the situation. If Mann's emails reveal he cooked the books or undermined peer review, AGW-addressing acts such as cap-and-trade will be politically dead.

Hell, look how lame the results from Copenhagen were in the wake of the Climategate data leakage.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (3, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067296)

I thought Copenhagen stalled because a third of the poorest countries were angry that they would not be allowed to develop and that us Big Countries were getting to much of an advantage?

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067494)

IMO, the big grand treaties method is the wrong approach. From an emission standpoint, the developing nations and other small countries are irrelevant and will remain so for some time yet.

It would be a better idea to just work on the G8+China+EU and maybe Australia, agreeing on something, or even just getting the US and China to agree on something. It would achieve the majority of the results for a lot less work and get it done a lot faster. Once that's done, then they can work on hashing things out with the developing nations and other small emitters.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067534)

The problem with treaties are, most other nations can cheat on them, but when we have a treaty, by our Constitution, they become law.

Re:You mean you *HOPE* it's trolling (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067498)

I thought it failed because the poorest third were angry that they weren't going to be guilt-tripping the developed third into propping them up through international welfare.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened.

Not a matter of "YOU BROWN FOLK STAY POOR". We drove our car through standing water and it flooded, killed our car, we've got a mess on our hands. We're waving our arms shouting "Look if you go this way, global warming. Bad shit. Go around the long way. It's harder, but if we had known about this shit we'd be going that way too".. meanwhile the third world refuses to understand what we're saying, and instead are just preoccupied with the fact that we went right through the high water and now they have to go around. ... but more than that, what they REALLY want is just reparations from the industrialized world. Nothing like a big fat annual check for never managing to get a working competitive economy in order.

faculty union (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067016)

I bet the faculty union has the best lawyers money can buy. This is not some poor schlep, he has a Ph.D., he will be fine. He'll probably start a center afterwards to defend scientist that are attacked. Some sort of center for research ethics or what not.

Fraud? It's looking him in the mirror (4, Insightful)

TimmyDee (713324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067026)

Maybe someone should sue Cuccinelli for fraud. After all, this sounds like a waste of taxpayer money if I've ever heard of one.

Re:Fraud? It's looking him in the mirror (5, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067200)

Don't hold your breath: Persecution of scientists who support inconvenient ideas is a tried and true tradition of politicians who wish to maintain power. During the cold war, they would call you communist and wreck your career if you supported social reforms. They took away Linus Pauling's passport and only gave it back to him so he could travel to Stockholm to receive his Nobel Prize. Oppenheimer's reputation never did recover after his security clearance was revoked, even though everything they said about him was a complete lie. Before that, the church would try you for heresy if you were uppity. Also, every time a dictator or oligarchy takes power, they always kill the intellectuals first.

Mann did invite a lot of criticism by not opening his data when people asked him for it. I'm referring of course to the issues with the bristlecone pine and his convolution of several sets of temperature proxies. I haven't heard of any evidence that Mann is involved in any fraud though, but witch hunts by their very nature never come up empty-handed. This one won't either.

Re:Fraud? It's looking him in the mirror (-1, Flamebait)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067280)

Yeah, and if its not political groups doing it, its other scientists. Scientists have persecuted other scientists with dissenting opinions for just as long as there has been science.

One of many shenanigans (4, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067028)

This is but one of many shenanigans [washingtonmonthly.com] the new Virginia AG is involved in.

sPh

No end in sight... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067048)

Of course not... It's about ratings. The facts are worthless without the song and dance... and then they just get drowned out in the same.

Oh, you don't need meth and you don't need speed
Cuz' Everything is better with A Bag of Weed

Virginia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067050)

Wow, way to make us embarrassed to live in Virginia, Cuccinelli. This guy is the worst of the worst, he's abusing his position and wasting taxpayer money to legislate his extremist political views. I'm pretty sure that's not what the AG position is intended for.

Dear Virginia: GTFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067080)

Dear Virginia: GTFO. Especially since there's apparently no chance of tits with Cuccinelli in charge.

Sue the AG (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067146)

When this investigation comes up with nothing, can we sue the AG for wasting taxpayer dollars?

Re:Sue the AG (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067202)

In 50 years when we realize that all global warming is, is just pure hype can we sue all these people promoting it for lies?

Asses all around (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067164)

The AG is an ass and a bigot. Mann is an ass at the least. They both need to be investigated.

Vagina Probing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067204)

Oh .. I seriously need to get coffee

consider this... (3, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067232)

Can you envision any scenario where a republican calling for a fraud investigation related to climate research would not be criticized as "politicizing science"? I agree that's probably what's happening in this particular case, but it seems that any call for an investigation would end up being impugned as "politicizing science" regardless of the investigation's merits.

Re:consider this... (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067496)

Probably because it is politicizing science regardless of the merits. The way science operates is not generally by having attorneys general investigating the merits of scientific papers. If something was wrong or fraudulent, that's a job for journal editorial staff and university misconduct boards to sort out.

Similarly, it'd be correctly considered "politicizing science" if democrats launched a fraud investigation of a libertarian economist, regardless of whether that economist did or didn't fabricate evidence. The attorney general is just not the right person to do it.

Re:consider this... (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067528)

I fail to see your point. You agree that the AG is probably full of shit, but you think he's being treated unfairly?

Politicizing science? (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067244)

'Global warming' -- sorry, I forgot, it became 'climate change' when the planet stopped warming -- has been pure politics ever since Margaret Thatcher came up with it as a great wheeze to justify closing down the coal mines to get the Marxist union-leaders out of her way. So suggesting that this is somehow 'politicizing' it is laughable.

Re:Politicizing science? (-1, Troll)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067326)

funny how the planet hasn't stopped warming. Looks like you need to pull your head our of whoever's ass you've been brown-nosing and look around.

Re:Politicizing science? (0, Redundant)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067346)

Didn't one of the leading climate scientists come out and say there wasn't any statistically important heating of the earth over the past 10 years?

Re:Politicizing science? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067536)

Yes, a leading climate scientist made that statement recently. Do you understand what the term statistically significant means, and what the implications of that observation are? Two important points to remember are that such an observation is not inconsistent with AGW, and that you cannot do statistics on a sample of one.

If each year we look back and determine whether there was statistically significant warming in the past X years, we would expect to see no statistically significant warming in some years. Similarly, if you throw loaded dice time and time again, you would expect some runs that appear to show no statistically significant deviation from what would be expected from fair dice.

Re: Politicizing science? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067418)

'Global warming' -- sorry, I forgot, it became 'climate change' when the planet stopped warming

I guess the glaciers in Glacier National Park are disappearing because we don't allow enough logging to keep the trees in check, and a northwest passage is opening up because we tolerate too many whales.

Re: Politicizing science? (0, Redundant)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067492)

I don't know about you, but I would expect the glaciers to recede and the arctic ice to thin in periods between ice ages.

There is also the part that arctic ice has actually been increasing over the past few years.

Another Carpetbagger (3, Funny)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067286)

He is just another Republican carpetbagger (from New Jersey). These grifters evidently think that everyone in the South is an easy mark.

Re:Another Carpetbagger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067358)

You mean they're not?LOL...

Re:Another Carpetbagger (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067434)

Oh, and he apparently doesn't like our state seal [washingtonmonthly.com] , either.

Re:Another Carpetbagger (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067472)

He is just another Republican carpetbagger (from New Jersey). These grifters evidently think that everyone in the South is an easy mark.

You know, Illinois carpetbaggers come from Kenya via Hawaii and Indonesia.

And boy, did HE find some easy marks to fool.

Gitmo closed yet? You fool.

Troops home from Iraq yet? You fool.

Don't-ask-don't-tell repealed yet? You fool.

Patriot Act repealed? You fool.

"Illegal wiretaps" halted? You fool.

"Middle-class tax cut"? You fool.

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067288)

So you guys are upset that the AG is probing for misuse of public funds? The article itself says it will be "problematic" if violations ARE found... problematic??

Wait... (-1, Flamebait)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067330)

No end in sight for the politicizing of the science and research surrounding climate change.

Isn't that what the Virginia AG is investigating Mr. Mann for to begin with (using taxpayer money to perform a fraudulent study to back a political ideology/policy push)?

Is it now OK to misuse taxpayer money for political purposes as long as they benefit the Progressive movement and/or it's goals?

It's so hard to keep up with what laws those on the Progressive Left can violate in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others, as the list just keeps growing every day.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Strat

Re:Wait... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067550)

in the pursuit of forcing their ideology on others,

I think you actually mean..

in the pursuit of whatever the hell they damn well please, be that their ideology or wallet or libido

You Commit Three Felonies a Day (4, Interesting)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067332)

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html [wsj.com]

Re:You Commit Three Felonies a Day (4, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067440)

This is true. I hate to say it, but unfortunately some scientists do play a little too fast and loose with their research dollars. The fact is, you can't maintain a research program without moving some money around sometimes to fill in the gaps. These are things like one research grant ending, but the graduate student being paid as a research assistant hasn't finished his or her degree quit yet because they showed up half way through the grant starting (the start of the grant and finding the student are almost never coincident), and so you support that student with another grant for a semester or two until they finish. The alternative is to let the student go unpaid with no degree, but this too will be disaster for a professor if he or she can't graduate students.

Unless Mann is a saint, even if he is not truly fraudulent with his funds, he will be hard pressed to defend every last research dollar spent under his program. He could be found guilty for nothing more than what is an accepted practice among researchers because the alternative is a non-workable research program.

Great Seal of Virginia (2, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067354)

The motto on the Great Seal of Virginia is "Sic Semper Tyrannis". It means "thus always to yyrants" and was attributed to Brutus after stabbing Caesar and was also what John Wilkes Booth said after murdering Lincoln. Timothy McVeigh was wearing the motto (with a picture of Lincoln, not the VA seal) when we was arrested.

That (now) hateful phrase remains on the seal, but at least the cartoon titty is gone.

Mann Should Have Stayed In Florida (2, Funny)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067446)

He didn't have all these problems when he was doing Miami Vice.

Good. (4, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067450)

Its better to test these claims in front of a court than to listen to the defamation of sciene much longer. Much easier to defend yourself there.

Cuccinelli (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067456)

Cuccinelli is indeed an ass for his attack on Gays, but the fact is Mann fudged the numbers. But I understand... he's on your team so you have to take his side.

Um (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32067510)

Guys, the hockey stick graph has been proven to be, at best, a very narrow view of the data, and at worse, a hoax. If you take federal grant money, and you perpetrate a hoax, it is a crime.

Enter the attorney general.

If you think *he* is wasting Virginia's tax-payer dollars, what do you think of the billions in federal funds used to whip the public into a frenzy ala global warming?

"Eppur si muove" (1)

Chemware (311783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32067540)

... and what happened to those countries who chose to persecute their best and brightest ?

Greece after Socrates ... Italy after Galileo ... Germany after Kristallnacht ... America next ???

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?