Judge Quashes Subpoena of UVA Research Records 293
esocid writes "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. He also set aside the subpoena without prejudice, meaning Cuccinelli can rewrite it to better explain why he wants to investigate, but seemed skeptical about the underlying claim of fraud. The ruling is a major blow for Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic who had maintained he was investigating whether Mann committed fraud in seeking government money for research that showed the earth has experienced a rapid, recent warming. Mann, now at Penn State University, worked at U-Va. until 2005. 'The Court has read with care those pages and understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann's work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia,' Peatross wrote. The ruling also limited Cuccinelli to asking about only one of the five grants issued, which was the only one using state funds."
Judge Does Something Smart? (Score:2)
Interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not all bad...I know that the judges at our local courthouse (which is less than a mile away from our apartment...keeps crime down:-)) vary greatly.
Re: (Score:2)
So do the local ones around me. It'd be nice for a little more consistency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my experience, it's the city council politicians who run based on personal agenda and then push that agenda as much as they can while in office. They also know that they can pass all kinds of stupid "pronouncements" with little to no real meaning other than making themselves look great to the loudest nutcases, so they don't have to worry about what they pass
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's an age/affluence thing. Around here, most city council/county board position holders are either semi-retired or have upper middle class/upper class jobs that they can give them plenty of leave/sabbaticals/time off. If you're say, an executive at a heavy equipment company, they'll give you whatever time you need, because they know you will favor their interests.
Re:Judge Does Something Smart? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to agree. I'm a political junkie by nature, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that Judges do a good job of holding true to law. The big news going around about stem-cells has a lot of my peers -I work in a University- roiled, but let's face facts, if it's true that he ruled based on a 90s law that forbids stem cell research, then maybe it's time to change the law and not bend it? Same goes for this case, as it was for the big evolution case in PA where a conservative appointed
Re:Judge Does Something Smart? (Score:4, Informative)
People may appoint Judges for political reasons but they should never bow to those reasons.
Yeah, that's why Judges should be appointed. But local ones tend to be elected, so they need to run for office every so often etc.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is not a political prosecution, I don't know what is. As a Virginia taxpayer, I don't mind politicians bloviating, but I don't like them chewing up public resources to do so.
Yes, very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes down to suing researchers out of existance if their results conflict with a political stance
This is beyond scary, it is a sign of America moving from a world leader in research to a has-been backwater
Re:Yes, very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? It seems to me that it comes down to needing a subpoena in order to get access to a public employee's work product.
If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
Re:Yes, very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
The results of the work should be public. The ownership of the copyright/patent of the results should be public. That's the work product. And that's not what they are after. They have the work product. And they don't like it, so they want the notes and such leading up to the work product so they can invalidate it. And not because it's actually invalid, but because you can take incomplete anything and spin it to be invalid.
Re:Yes, very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the AG tried to issue a supoena without probable cause does not mean the information is not already available. The same is true for many of the FOI requests Mann gets from the likes of McIntryre, etc. Much of the requested information is already available either in his published work or in previous replies to FOI requests. The intent with these tatics not to shead light on the subject rather it is to create the impression that Mann is hiding something while at the same time bogging down his reseach with a mountain of legal paperwork.
Anti-AGW proponents like to paint themselves as modern day Galileo's but none of them are subjected to anywhere near the level of offical harrasment directed towards Mann and his team. Instead these unpublished, unqualified political hacks are invited to offer thier discredited opinions in the halls of power with depressing monotony. Lord Monckton is just one obvious example in this morally and ethically bankrupt abuse of political power.
Re:Yes, very disturbing (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you're going to tell me that the three [parliament.uk] independent [uea.ac.uk] inquries [cce-review.org] that exonerated Jones and the CRU (including the CRU investigation headed by the ex-chairman of Shell) were a whitewash. Look closely at the third one where it describes how the investigators were able to obtain the "hiden data" from public sources within two days. If you still belive the CRU was hiding anything after the thourough debunking of those claims then you haven't been paying attention.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why?
Can you access your local mayor's email account?
Can you download the full schematics for the space shuttle?
Why isn't your local police department's incident reporting system completely open source?
I'm all for increased transparency, but there is no reason that all information from publicly funded work should be publicly available.
Because:
- Overheads. The costs of doing this would be huge.
- A lot of publicly funded work is done by private companies, who might not want to release their work to their compe
Re:Yes, very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to talk scary, that's scary. Mann worked/works for public universities paid for with tax dollars. Explain why getting access to anything that he does while on tax payer time isn't as simple as saying "hey dude, can we see your work?"
Asking to see his work would have amounted to asking for a dump of his published, peer reviewed research papers. They're available without a subpoena. Just because someone works for the public does not mean that they're subject to arbitrary, unjustified investigation at any time, especially when that investigation is expensive and has to be paid for by the public.
And that's all this judge has said: present evidence that this expensive, time consuming investigation is justified, you get your information. Fail to present it, the public will be spared the cost both of the investigation, and the cost of lost research time that the public will have to bear while this individual is investigated for no reason. It's a valuable function, and our government wouldn't survive without it. In a hypothetical world where investigations have no cost, maybe it would be reasonable to allow this to go forward with no justification. We don't live in that world.
I guess that's "scary".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Peer reviewed papers are one thing. But science also requires the ability of anyone to replicate the experiment and validate the results. This requires the original models (code), data, and procedure used. Without this, the science is invalid.
This subpoena was not looking to get Mann's code or find data that could reproduce his experiments. Mann doesn't even work for that university anymore, and it's doubtful they have his notes. Rather it was an attempt to find evidence of fraud and misuse of funds. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self: never accept a job in Virginia, and never collaborate with anyone working in Virginia. Sure, there might be little political controversy over cell biology that isn't ESC related, but who knows when a little nero from VA might get it in his head that the bible says I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how many people are killed, no matter how much legislation is en
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the Virginia Attorney General qualified to do that investigation?
A public officer needs to have some basis for any investigation he starts. Unless he has the proper scientific qualifications, or has received reliable information from an expert in the field, anything he does is nothing but political pressure.
Unless something is found, it's the Virginia Attorney General who must prove he had cause to start that investigation. If he didn't have anything concrete, then he's at least guilty of wasting the state's resources.
US Constitution Fourth Amendment (Score:2)
No.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unless there's a reasonable cause to suspect a law has been bro
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
As you are well aware, Mann has been repeatedly investigated by political hacks and repeatedly cleared. This is just another politically motivated fishing expedition amoungst the constant stream of FOI requests, death threats, and political investigations he and his team are subjected to on a daily basis.
We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.
Way to ruin somebody's career. (Score:3, Funny)
Attacking climate change was his stepping stone to national prominence...
His life is ruined, ruined I tell you.
Re:Way to ruin somebody's career. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he can sue reality for not conforming to his imagination
Re: (Score:2)
I'm told he's planning to launch that law suit immediately after the conclusion of his investigation into Virginia scientists promoting a controversial theory that the earth is round.
Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:5, Interesting)
If a climatologist is the biggest fish on Cuccinelli's radar then he needs to take a closer look at local problems that directly affect his constituents. I'm not saying global warming wouldn't directly affect his constituents
Causation and Correlation (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, an argument often seen here on Slashdot is that "correlation does not imply causation".
However, correlation is a good argument for further studies on causation. And there's a very strong correlation between being a global warming skeptic and having a strong anti-science and pro-creationist stance.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC Darwin was well aware that his theory of evolution was incomplete and indicated in his published works where he though furt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well stereotypes have survival value and when you consider that 99.99% of research and 100% of reputable research supports the conclusion that mans efforts at living the good life have effected the climate in such a way that polar ice caps are melting, storms are getting stronger and weather patterns changing. It will be funny to see Cuccinelli trying to get votes from those portions of Virginia like Hampton and Norfolk are as under sea level as New Orleans. Speaking of which they had better build those le
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow.. 99.99% of all research and 100% of all reputable research, that's amazing. Where can I find out more about these outrageously large or inflated values? Are you sure you aren't just suffering from selection bias or something? Perhaps the old saying that goes something like 80% of all percentages are made up on the spot?
Ahh,, I get it now, you simply do not understand the argument. It's not about who put th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It could also be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be, but somehow I doubt it. Of course starting your comment off like this, I'm left wondering if your just another troll from the church of global warming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why are so many people saying that the boat is not taking on any water, or saying that until it's proven that it's taking on water we should take no action about it, or even if the boat is taking on water there's nothing we can do about it anyway? Why not take the safe cource of action and turn on a pump, any one? If it's later determined that it wasn't sufficient or that it was more than necessary, at least we took action.
Can you come up with a rational argument for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:5, Informative)
It is interesting (and very bigoted of you) to assume anyone who is a AGW skptic is anti-science and pro-intelligent design.
I realize that this isn't universally true, but I've noticed a large overlap - specifically, the vast majority of creationists appear to be "AGW skeptics", and they are certainly anti-science, and very militant about it. When I see the cretins from the Discovery Institute reading from the same script as the anti-AGW crowd, I'm naturally suspicious of the latter. This may seem unfair to you, but it's no more unfair than accusing climate scientists of wanting to force society back to a pre-industrial state.
Which brings up a more accurate point: while the "skeptics" may not all be anti-science, they definitely come across as anti-scientist.
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that list is bad. I mean, painfully, horribly bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Check, and Mate.
As an aside, I love how there is a link to 'Counterexamples of the Bible' which only goes on to state: "There are no counterexample to the Bible." Fucking brilliant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which brings up a more accurate point: while the "skeptics" may not all be anti-science, they definitely come across as anti-scientist.
Which is worse, saying we should believe everything scientists say, or being anti-scientist? Maybe neither, but there's definitely blind faith on both sides in this debate.
Also, good that the judge knocked the AG down.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is worse, saying we should believe everything scientists say, or being anti-scientist?
Both are a bad idea, and as a scientist myself, I've learned to keep my BS detector set to "11". But when faced with a choice between believing actual scientists versus the propagandists at the Discovery Institute, I'll side with the scientists every time.
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:4, Interesting)
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.
You don't have to present a false choice between the Discovery Institute and 'scientists.'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But even when considering specific domain (like climate science), I disagree in that there is equivalence between trusting scientific community's consensus and discrediting it completely: positions are rather asymmetric. Especially when latter is not done by specific argumentation
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is necessary for court of law because of significant losses that convicting innocent people causes; but it is not the level that is needed for engineering efforts and society-level planning of environmental issues.
When you're talking about changing the basis for the global economy, it is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when it is unclear if these changes would actually do anything about the alleged "problem" in the first place.
Even some AGW advocates oppose the whole "carbon trading" idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you been asleep for a decade? 2009 was the second hottest year in the hottest decade on record. 2010 has, thus far been the hottest year on record. I think you took a few years of relatively stable temperatures in the early parts of the 2000-2009 decade as a trend, and
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:4, Insightful)
The term "AGW skeptic" is a misnomer. Skepticism in the typical scientific or philosophical sense is about asking for evidence for claims. The problem with "AGW skeptics" is that evidence for AGW is plentiful and evidence against it is scant. Someone who refuses to accept evidence presented, no matter how scientifically sound the evidence is, is not a skeptic. The more accurate term is "AGW denier".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you dont understand or agree, it may be helpful to recall what the difference between historical fact and scientific theory is, and whether theories can ever be exhaustively proven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:5, Insightful)
No, to deny merely means to refuse to accept the claim regardless of what evidence has been put forward. The word makes not assumptions as to whether the claim is true or untrue. It's possible to disagree with AGW without being a denier, but such a person would be open to the possibility of it being accurate.
These people are certainly deniers. Their counter-claims have little validity (most have none and many are outright fabrications) and most of their arguments lately have been ad hominem attacks on the researchers. So far, I have yet to see one of them acknowledge the strength of the data or admit to having made a mistake when they were shown to be wrong. They're deniers, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a stance might rarely be acceptable when dealing with recent history, but certainly not when dealing with meteorological and environmental theories.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>It's possible to disagree with AGW without being a denier, but such a person would be open to the possibility of it being accurate.
Precisely. Aside from a few minor quibbles (though these quibbles often turn into long, pointless debates on /.), I have no real issues with AGW, though people try to paint me as one, because of various issues I have.
My main problem is that the 'solutions' to AGW are almost universally bad. Either ridiculously overpriced, overintrusive, undereffective, unfair... and most
Re: (Score:2)
As a fellow skeptic, I have to ask you not to throw around words like "theory" so casually. Theory is actually pretty far along on the scientific spectrum of truthiness. If something gets to "theory," it's had a lot of work backing it up, which has held up to a good deal of scrutiny.
Dismissing something as "just a theory" just makes you look foolish to those who know just what a theory is.
And anyway, it gets in the way of the real goal, which is to keep government from trumping up GW and AGW to usurp mor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, "deny" implies the denier is unwilling to participate in the normal scientific process. It's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I don't believe you". The denier often does not have a competing theory let alone a better one, does not comprehend the current theory, and refuses to apply his "skepticisim" to his own ideas.
The above applies honest deniers, however (as with high profile historical deni
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, "historical facts" is a term generally reserved for human events that have been recorded in writing. In science, you typically call them "observations". A good set of terms is that the mathematics based on your observations that is supposed to predict future observations is a model or, if it's successful, a law. The explanation of why your model works and how that fits in to the rest of known science is a theory.
Which means for any reasonably complicated field that can be cast under one umbrella
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not for or against global warming, I just don't care. It's just a change, which has happened any number of times in (pre)history. Some land will become less useful to humans, some will become more useful; some species which can't adapt will die off, others will thrive. If burning fossil fuels is a cause, well, we're almost out of those anyway. Methane from cow farts?, beef can't sustain a growing global population anyway.
I hate that some people have turned it into a virtually religious issue, and intent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
to attack the speaker of the idea, instead of the idea itself is just wrong.
It's just turnabout. Every time you talk with a denier, sooner or later they will accuse scientists of either deliberate deception for personal gain, or abject stupidity. I have never, not once, met one whose argument did not fundamentally rest on one of those two options.
When faced with such an argument, no amount of rational persuasion is going to be effective. When faced with somebody prone to consider such an argument, showing them papers and math is never going to be effective. It has passed out of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is something I don't understand. Why do people harp on a supposed financial advantage for showing that GW is happening? Most of the money in this fight is on the side of fossil fuel companies. Certainly if a scientist wanted to get more money, there would be some way of getting it from the anti-AGW interests. I'm tempted to get biblical myself - something about beams and motes in people's eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, your argument boils down to:
About your "running out of fossil fuels" argument:
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not for or against global warming, I just don't care. It's just a change, which has happened any number of times in (pre)history.
So I guess it's safe to assume you and your family live on one of the islands that is going to be completely underwater..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the Sceptics have diluted and changed the meaning of the word sceptic.
We've relabelled them Deniers because that's what they are. They aren't interested in evaluating evidence and will cling to the tiniest error and use that as evidence that the science is wrong. A typical conversation between a scientist, sceptic and denier:
Scientist: Here is my publication with my results.
Sceptic: I'll need more proof, I want to replicate your experiments and get my own
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Annals of Applied Statistics is publishing a paper, A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE? [e-publications.org](McShane and Wyner 2010) that says things like.
"On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. "
"Consequently, the long flat handle of the hockey stick is best understood t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The funny thing is that the paper ends up with a hockey stick that doesn't look that different from Mann's.
Here's some discussion about what that paper does and does not show [realclimate.org]
Actually, Mann was trying to do something that had never been done before, pulling together indirect data from a wide variety of sources to get an idea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Mann's original "hockey stick" went back only to 1400, and a subsequent paper extended it to 1000.
From the NRC report
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:4, Informative)
This is simply untrue. While the original statistical approach that Mann chose was not ideal, and is subject to certain types of error, multiple subsequent studies have shown that his approach did not invalidate his conclusions.
The paper that you cite comes up with larger error bars using a different method of analysis which has not previously been tested or validated for this kind of data, so it logically cannot falsify the hockey stick. The authors do not compare their method to that used Mann or by others who have carried out reproduced his conclusions, and provide no evidence that their approach is in any way superior.
We also cannot say that the MWP was as warm as today, or even that the MWP was a global phenomenon rather than a regional one. It has been known all along that the error bars get large when you try to extend the analysis that far back, and this was acknowledged in Mann's work.
Cuccinelli is a partisan hack (Score:5, Informative)
It appears that Ken Cuccinelli is a partisan hack who's using his position as Attorney-General primarily to advance right-wing interests, and thus further his own political ambitions.
Last week he was going after abortion clinics [theatlantic.com].
This week it's Michael Mann.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The really scary part? In Virginia, the Attorney General usually has the inside track for his party's nomination for governor in the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
> This week it's Michael Mann.
Guess there is more then one Burning Man ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics aside (Score:3, Insightful)
As such a website that so often cries for "free information" - it is amusing to see "zomg good!" due to the motivations behind the request and why it was denied.
Re: (Score:2)
Occasionally there are legal reasons why *some* research records can't be released, particularly those containing subject information in human subject experiments. That's not likely to be the case there.
For other kinds of information, it can be an issue if people outside of broad academia try to jump in and play politics with the conduct of research - we already have peer review for that, done by people with a solid understanding of statistics and the standards of the field. We don't want our research popul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our long term survival and health as a species is far more important than your petty complaints over taxes. To whatever extent we can steer this, we must.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and as we all know, Mr. Mann refused to provide any actual climate data and advised some to destroy data.
You're talking about Phil Jones in the UK, not Michael Mann. Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" data and methods can be found here [psu.edu]. Please tell me what part of that is falsified. But Mann's work is a small, not terribly important in itself piece of a large body of data and theory. Even if you threw it out completely it wouldn't change a thing.
Re:Politics aside (Score:5, Interesting)
RTFA, it was not a FOIA request. That may have in fact been much more successful. It was a subpoena request for information based on trumped up(invalid) fraud charges. However a FOIA request would have been much less politically advantageous if it went through, which is all that this whole thing was really about, he wasn't looking for evidence he was looking to be able to smear the guys name with the fact that there may have been enough evidence against him to even start a full scale legally backed investigation.
You should be thanking this judge for setting this idiot in his place and not allowing him to abuse the legal system and your tax dollars purely for his own political gain.
It is also still left open for the guy to back up his trumped up fraud charges a little better and resubmit the subpoena request.
Sorry if I'm less than sympathetic towards the guy but his entire career reeks of abuse of power to push nonsensical politically advantageous policies while largely ignoring bigger problems. Global warming and its existence isn't even on my top TEN list of things for politicians to be worrying about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cucinelli should be charged (Score:3, Interesting)
He's abusing taxpayer money to fuel this religious right-wing witch hunt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True. But most self-proclaimed climate change skeptics are simply denialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Random variation as an explanation is currently outside of the 95% confidence interval, and quickly approaching the 99% confidence interval. In layman terms, this particular variation seems very extreme. Even so, if we had no other reasonable explanations I would think random variation was probable. But we do have other persuasive explanations.
Add that in with the fact that climate change was predicted before the data pointed to current warming and you have to start wondering why anyone is doubting man-made
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the God of the Gaps argument in scientific terms. Is there a satisfactory explanation for the medieval warm period, or the Roman Optimum? If not, does that mean it was AGW? It seems to me that for you any explanation, no-matter how implausible, is better than saying "we don't know".
skeptic != denialist (Score:2)
Let's see what does "skeptic" mean:
- someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
- someone who demands physical evidence in order to be convinced (especially when this demand is out of place)
Okay, "skeptic" shouldn't be pejorative.
Now let's see who are the true skeptics. It's a well known fact (accepted even by skeptics who took the effort to do the experiments) that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Therefore,
Re:If you're bothered by skepticism, it ain't scie (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew a guy in college who was a gravity skeptic. We were discussing the repeatable nature of science, and he said, "No, just because it's repeatable doesn't mean it's predictable." I slapped the giant pile of books and notebooks out of his hand. "See? Gravity works."
He shot back, "Just because you're pointing to one instance..."
Skepticism ends at some point. Skepticism ends when you get answers like, "The reason why WTC7 went down was because of damage from a large chunk of another building hitting it" or "All the evidence points to global warming" or "Obama was born in Hawaii and is currently a Christian." Skepticism doesn't continue after getting answers you don't like. That's paranoia and delusional thinking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Politics And Science Don't Mix (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, you don't. You can get it to turn up a bit at the end, but nobody has managed to reproduce the magnitude of Mann's hockey stick blade with red noise. So if you think that, you have yourself been the victim of a con. Reanalysis using other methods still yields a hockey stick. That's why the 2006 NRC peer review ended up concluding
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. And when neither side has any, then what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, but then you have to propose things that actually will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Banning nuclear power, and even LNG terminals really doesn't accomplish that goal.
Hint, natural gas comes off the top of oil wells. If the oil companies don't capture it and sell it, then they burn it off, and the extra reliance on coal burning because of it doesn't help things any, either.
Neither does Ethanol fuel help anyone but corn farmers.
Similarly "Carbon Offsets" mostly don't.
There is a raft of schemes and
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Yeah, that's extraordinary in elementary school.
If we were dealing with a jar in a lab you would have my vote.
Re:Who's your crack dealer? (Score:4, Insightful)
And given what has been known for many decades about the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2, it would indeed be extraordinary if we could increase CO2 by so much and not experience substantial changes in climate.
Re:Why fight it if you're innocent? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a couple reasons not to. This wasn't an open records request. This was a subpoena. When that happens the University lawyers get involved and their first instinct is to not comply. It's usually a good instinct, because someone serving a subpoena has an agenda which is probably against the interests of the University. Second, the professor in question is no longer at the University that was subpoenaed. It's likely, if not certain that he took is research records with him. The University of Virginia probably only has accounting records for the grant in question, and (probably) backups of emails. Penn State, on the other hand, doesn't have much to fear from a Virginia prosecutor with delusions of grandeur.
I don't have a problem with providing any information requested about my research, provided what is requested actually exists. But when it comes to my emails... show me the subpoena.
Re:Why fight it if you're innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)