UVa still fighting climate witch hunt, ups the rhetoric

By Phil Plait | October 21, 2010 12:00 pm

I’m happy to report that my alma mater, the University of Virginia, is not only fighting back against State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s witch hunt against climate scientist Michael Mann, they are also being pretty clear about their protest:

In its most strongly-worded court filing to date, UVA characterized Cuccinelli’s investigation as "an unprecedented and improper governmental intrusion into ongoing scientific research” and said that Cuccinelli is targeting Mann because he “disagrees with his academic research regarding climate change."

In other words, they’re saying this is a politically and ideologically motivated abuse of power, which I’ve been saying all along.

I’m thrilled to see the University standing firm. Cuccinelli’s actions, on purpose or otherwise, are sending out a message that academic research can be chilled due to political ideology, and that is something that must not be allowed. I fully support what UVa is doing, and hope they can stop Cuccinelli in his tracks.

The University’s court filing really is worth reading. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.


Related posts:

- Cuccinelli warms to his task of climate change denial
- Another climate scientist responds to Rep. Joe Barton’s false claims
- UVa will fight climate change attack
- Climate change followup


CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Piece of mind, Politics

Comments (67)

  1. Mark Bailey

    I am a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson… I agree, he’d be proud. Cuccinelli is clearly attempting to abuse his position in this ongoing witch-hunt. He is bringing his office into disrepute. And by using the same 15 pages which the court already found insufficient, he is demonstrably holding the court in contempt.
    Over here in the UK, he wouldn’t be in office (if we had the same office, which really we don’t) for long!

  2. Yojimbo

    Well, you know that Jefferson guy was a well-known moonbat liberal…

  3. Jeff

    I hope they can stop Cuccinelli in his tracks too. For him to use the FATA is such a ridiculous abuse of the intent of such acts. If the courts don’t stop this kind of stuff, they can bend any law into anything they want just because they’re in position to do so.

  4. I get the impression that Cuccenelli isn’t the best attorney on the block. Why repetition on the same grounds that you already lost?
    It really can be nothing else than persecution when there is no new information or evidence presented.

  5. Archangel

    Watch – this will all go away after Election Day.

  6. Trebuchet

    How about some taxpayers filing suit against this moron for wasting their tax dollars? Between the AG’s office and the UVA defense it would likely be far more than he’s going after Mann for.

  7. Daniel J. Andrews

    It is far more Trebuchet. If I remember even vaguely correctly, Mann’s grant was somewhere around 250,000, and the cost to UVa as of a month ago was about 350,000. This doesn’t include what the AG has spent on his side.

    Edit to add: the link in Phil’s article also uses the 350,000 number…I just need to confirm that grant amount now.

  8. jfb

    From the scope of the request (and the fact that it’s largely unchanged from the previous two), it’s clear that Cuccinelli is on a fishing expedition to find something, anything to hang Mann with whether it has anything to do with his research or not. He’s really hoping to find the equivalent of a stained blue dress in those emails so he can destroy Mann personally, not just professionally.

  9. JMW

    Is it just me, or isn’t there something about ex post facto laws being not allowed? If so, isn’t the attempt to gather information about possible fraud which may have happened (if it did) in 1999 and 2001, based on a law that was enacted in 2003, not legal?

    <incredulity>And Virginia’s own Attorney General doesn’t understand this?</incredulity>

    Of course he understands this. He just doesn’t care…

  10. The important part here is – whether or not you disagree with Mann’s findings or not, this is a gross misuse of Cooch’s power as state AG.

    This sounds so simple, yet so many anti-science Republicans and British homeopathy quacks don’t get it: if you don’t agree with someone’s scientific findings, use science to explain why. Don’t sue in civil court. To paraphrase Charles Pierce*, using legal means to challenge scientific findings is like using horticulture to refute Euclidean geometry.

    * – http://aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html

  11. JMW, that’s one of the (few) issues rectified in Cuccinelli’s latest filing. He is now only targetting spending that took place after 2003. Theoretically. But he still just needs to look at all the information related to Mann ever, just for completeness’s case.

  12. Actually, this whole filing is moot! UVa simultaneously filed a motion to stay this entire CID until such time as the appeal on Cuccinelli’s original CID is completed. I strongly suspect the stay will be granted, which means this filing will not be relevant for many, many months…..

    The daily progress has links to both documents. the links are broken but can be hand repaired by inserting a slash after .com.

    http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2010/oct/21/uva-seeks-dismissal-cuccinellis-latest-demand-ar-577737/

  13. gorcee

    Phil, I didn’t know you went to UVa! I’m not a student, but I do live and work in the Charlottesville area.

    Cuccinelli definitely does not represent the interests of the people in this area (although, C-Ville does, at times, cross over the crazy threshold on the hyper-liberal side of things). Still, between his action against Mann and his recent comments regarding protection of non-heterosexuals in equal opportunity clauses, I am embarrassed to have him as an Attorney General.

    *sigh* I can’t wait for this election nonsense to end.

  14. Paul in Sweden

    “In other words, they’re saying this is a politically and ideologically motivated abuse of power, which I’ve been saying all along.”

    …and the time to present that case in court is getting closer and closer.

    Global Warming alarmist “beliefs” will be confronted with evidence. A new concept for climate science.

    What is this fear that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming faithful have about a chance to prove their religion the only true religion?

    There are 90 complaints against the US EPA CAGW regulations and findings.

    The UK Science and Technology meetings continues the follow up hearings incited by the climategate whitewashes on the 27th of October.

    Rep. Barton will be holding Global Warming hearings next year in the house.

    There will most likely be Global Warming hearings in the Senate next year.

    The New Zealand courts are still baffled by NIWA’s claim that there is no official climate record in New Zealand and no reason to defend the 7SS & 11SS climate products that it produces which show a hundred year downward trend in temps as an upward trend.

    It is strange that the faithful in the global warming movement would not welcome an official forum in which to show the atheists that CAGW is real and based on science.

    Temper tantrums and hissy fits cannot stop the fact that climate changes or the fact that the legislation based on the beliefs of the CAGW activists will see courtrooms in many nations over the next year or so.
    ————————-
    In related news….

    It turns out that Bradley of the Hockey Stick Team was less concerned about possible incorrect citing of Bradley’s book by the Wegman congressional report that exposed the numerous errors in the MBH hockey stick which Bradley freely copied and my be subject to copyright violations by the publishers of the Fritts textbook that Bradley pillaged. Hey… copyright law doesn’t care if you cite a source, if you have no license to use the material in a commercial publication it really doesn’t matter. As I quoted in the past, if you are going to shoot yourself in the foot you should remove it from your mouth first. It seems it is too late for Bradley and Mashey…

    It looks like Bradley was trying to suppress evidence in the upcoming court cases.

    At Lucia’s, Steve Mosher asks: -http://tinyurl.com/3x3qda2

    did bradley make the charges to further a different goal?

    As indicated in the email sent by Bradley to a third party shown below, Bradley’s actual objective in filing the complaint against Wegman may not have been a concern over alleged plagiarism, but an effort to get Wegman’s criticisms of MBH98-99 (criticisms which North and Bloomfield conceded under oath) removed from the Congressional record. Bradley writes as follows:

    I filed a complaint with George Mason University (where Wegman is a Professor) & they have set up a committee to investigate my complaint. I[A] recent letter from their Vice-Chancellor indicates that they expect the committee to report their findings by the end of September.

    That’s the long & short of it. I have told the University that I am prepared to drop this matter if Wegman makes a request to have his report withdrawn from the Congressional Record. No response on that.

    Thanks
    Ray [Bradley]

    If you are going to attempt to pervert the course of justice in upcoming court cases by claiming someone used your text book which you copied from someone else as background in a United States congressional report you should realize what the consequences will be. When all is said and done, Wegman will most likely be found to have followed the citation procedures of the US congress and Bradley may be subject to US & international copyright laws as well as possible findings of academic plagiarism of Fritts textbook.

    The truth is stranger than fiction in the religion of Global Warming.

  15. MarcusBailius

    Paul, what does this have to do with the Virginia case, at all? Apart from allowing you the excuse to get in a dig at the alleged “believers” in the alleged “global warming religion”? (Which is in its entirety an ad hominem in any case, and not an argument against the science. The Bradley stuff is just padding, says nothing, again, about the science at all.)

  16. Luke

    Friends, let us all bow our heads in solemn prayer to the Climate Science gods. Oh Warmist Lords! Please takest from our wealth to give–

    Oh noes, Sir Valiant Paul of Sweden is here! He’s on to us and our faith! Let’s escape to the Socialist Windmill Factory where we can further implement our worldwide conspiracy of climate science! Curse you Paul and your Galloping Steed of Gish, we shall return!

  17. Paul is off-topic (and wrong as well, but I won’t be drawn into it). This is a terrible case, and I really hope Cooch gets sanctioned by the court and subject to an ethics investigation by the VA bar.

  18. Paul in Sweden

    14. MarcusBailius Says:
    October 21st, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Paul, what does this have to do with the Virginia case, at all?

    The attempts by the Global Warming Industry to suppress the findings of the Wegman Report and Richard Notrh’s NAS findings in the court of public opinion will have little effect in the court of law.

    People just do not listen to the tin foil hat, polar bear suit crowd.

    My comment seems almost unnecessary. The huge costs involved in the adaptation of the religion of global warming in modern society demands hearings. The Cuccinelli CIDs will most likely go through, UVa will provide the documents and North will have the opportunity to place his statements under oath as he did when he stated his characterizations of Mann’s statistics and findings in the past. Should North’s statements under oath differ from his congressional statements of the past as they seem to differ in recent Global Warming Advertisements, there will be additional questions.

    My pointing out the flaws of previous posts would be overkill if not for the fact that there are still posters like yourself that ignore science and evidence.

    The upcoming court cases will prove your case regarding the religion of CAGW for all to see MarcusBailius and eliminate the need for a constant three ring global warming circus to sell the public on your carbon trading schemes.

    Welcome the opportunity to present the religion of global warming to the legal establishment.

    Let the prosecutions begin :)

  19. Michael Swanson

    What do you get out of this, Paul?

  20. Impulse

    You’d be a more effective troll if you could make some sort of minimal amount of sense, Paul.

  21. Derecho64

    P.I.S. is just a troll – ignore him.

  22. Paul in Sweden

    “19. Michael Swanson Says:
    October 21st, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    What do you get out of this, Paul?”

    OMG Michael, don’t you know, everyone that is not a follower of the religion of global warming gets a huge check each and every month from the oil industry….

    Sweden, just built the world’s largest phrenology clinic or offshore wind farm in the UK(functionally it is difficult to determine the difference). This will bring the Swedish state run power company huge profits for decades. Unfortunately the UK citizens and rate payers will be severely hosed.

    Back in America, in New England where I own property, a home and pay significant taxes, my state evaluated renewable energy projects. They determined that it would be a bad thing to follow the lead of Spain as Obama suggested. So for now on a state and personal level I am ok.

    What I want to see this November, is the California Jobs Initiative(prop 23) fail in the election and California’s punitive Global Warming measures(AB 32) are put in place. It is my belief that it will not take AB32 very long to dramatically effect the California economy. A green victory in California this November will show the entire nation what happens if a state or a the nation goes green in the brain.

    The USA needs good examples of Green Thinking. The sooner the better. Sacrificing the left coast is fine by me.

    After that individual cases regardling the rape of tax rolls by Big Green and it’s co-defendants can go as swiftly as the courts can provide. The EPA will have it’s hands full as well as the various corporations and carbon indulgence based pension funds that are creating another bubble out of thin air – literally.

    Hey where the heck is that check from big oil? :)

  23. @ Micheal Swanson

    Probably the same as any conspiracy theorist. The knowledge that he is one of the few who “really” know what’s going on. That he was just too smart to be fooled by the global warming conspiracy. That he is a bastion of reason and knowledge in an ocean of deluded sheep. To be the Galileo of our time standing up to an unholy priesthood who have declared global warming as infallible dogma. That’s what he gets out of it, in his mind at least. Just like any other denialist/conspiracy theorist.

  24. ND

    Paul, you’re so full of hate, you can’t think straight. Do you know that you’re just mumbling to yourself repeating the same stuff over and over?

    ps. I don’t think “useful idiots” get a paycheck.

  25. Michael Swanson

    Good god, Paul, maybe you want to take it down a notch or two. I wasn’t asking if you receive compensation, I was wondering what kind of personal satisfaction you get out of incessantly littering the comments thread with belligerent remarks and snarky ad hominems.

    The “Left Coast.” Nice. Nothing like pat phrases and vitriol to soothe the soul, eh? You just go on and have yourself a nice, hate-filled life, Paul.

  26. Paul in Sweden

    @ 23. Michael Swanson Says:
    October 21st, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I am sorry that these Global Warming threads here at BA as well as the discussions in the media at large are are so littered with belligerent and snarky ad hominems also.

    Big green has been placing ads in the media designed to make children cry. Claims which are not based on science but based on political goals. The far left global warming faithful & bankers have advocated the executions of atheists to the Global Warming faith. Has this not gone far enough Michael?

    It needs to stop. Stop it Michael!

    The “green” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement has stepped across the line of reality. Recognize it and denounce it.

  27. Daffy

    Antone who throws around the term “religion” in this argument is a dolt and should be ignored. Debate is one thing; childish ranting is, well, just that: childish ranting.

  28. Luke

    Green is just the new Red for some people.

    Now excuse me while I seclude to the renewable energy rectory…

    *eyes roll back in his head as his green religious fervor takes over*

  29. Bruce

    Sorry Phil, you got it backwards. Global warming activism is the politically and ideologically motivated abuse of power.

    Hey Paul, don’t you just love the warm-mongers on this blog? When confronted with facts, all they can do is yell “hate-filled”, “dolt” and “troll”. Chapter 1 of the liberal playbook: if someone disagrees with you, ridicule them.

  30. Paul in Sweden

    “25. Daffy Says:
    October 21st, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Antone who throws around the term “religion” in this argument is a dolt and should be ignored. Debate is one thing; childish ranting is, well, just that: childish ranting.”

    I am sure this Daffy comment does not pertain to the numerous individuals at BA that refer to creationists, 6000 year old earth, flat earthers etc, etc, etc…

    As regulars know, here here at Bad Astronomy faith placed on matters not backed by science and taken on faith alone can only be condoned with regards to the Religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    …some animals are more equal than others.

  31. Daffy

    Paul, I find the debate on this topic interesting. You should try it sometime. Schoolyard tactics are idiotic. Stick to facts and I will be happy to pay attention to you.

    And, for the record, I have ALWAYS objected to disparaging name calling such as “woo woo,” even dealing with creationists. Such tactics contribute nothing to a debate.

    Your use of such nonsense convinces me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Want to convince me otherwise? Show me the science.

  32. J

    Never intrude. Just pay.

  33. D C

    Global Warming alarmist “beliefs” will be confronted with evidence. A new concept for climate science.

    You’re right. That would be a new concept. We await any one who actually produces evidence instead of snarky ad hominems with baited breath.

    Getting back to Cooch. I thought republicans were for small government. I guess there’s an exception if your research doesn’t meet their approval.

  34. Lorem Ipsum

    “UVA characterized Cuccinelli’s investigation as “an unprecedented and improper governmental intrusion into ongoing scientific research””

    Improper, certainly, but hardly unprecedented.

    In a unanimous vote of 355 to 0, the 106th Congress passed RES. 107 which states, in part:

    “Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress– (1) condemns and denounces [a particular scientific study that they objected to on political grounds]… Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1999.”

    It’s a fairly safe bet that some political condemnation of science is perfectly acceptable to most of the people reading this blog, if that science dares to question the sacred cows they believe in.

  35. Zetetic

    Bruce @ #29:

    Global warming activism is the politically and ideologically motivated abuse of power.

    Translation: “Them dem commie pinko eggheads with their facts, evidunce, and their fancy-pants edumacation. They can take away my SUV when they pry it from mah cold dead hands!

    When confronted with facts, all they can do is yell “hate-filled”, “dolt” and “troll”.

    Perhaps you are confused about what “facts” are. This might explain why you are supporting a position that 97% of the scientific experts in the relevant fields think is either ignorant of the evidence, of ideologically motivated self-delusion.

    Chapter 1 of the liberal playbook: if someone disagrees with you, ridicule them.

    When dealing with someone that refuses to accept the scientific evidence because it conflicts with dogma, what else could be a better response than to laugh at the absurdity of their position?

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    @ Paul in Sweden the fundamentalist disciple of The Church of the Divine AGW Denialism. (Brought to you by ExxonMobil™!):

    Still waiting on that credible supporting evidence that will show us that 97% of the scientific climate research community is wrong.

    P.i.S. @ #14:

    Global Warming alarmist “beliefs” will be confronted with evidence. A new concept for climate science.

    Just like a Young Earth Creationist, there’s always that evidence “just around the corner”. I’ve asked you in two different threads for credible supporting evidence, but you still haven’t provided any. Why not?
    Just keep telling yourself “any day now”, Paul…

    What is this fear that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming faithful have about a chance to prove their religion the only true religion?

    Not fear, just a realization that if you, Barton, and Cuccinelli were actually interested in the evidence then you wouldn’t be denialists.
    Again behaving just like creationists, asking why won’t all of the scientists put aside their work and spend their time in endless “debates” that the denialists have no intention of ever listening to the evidence?

    Rep. Barton will be holding Global Warming hearings next year in the house.

    Gee, I didn’t know that Rep. Barton had a degree in climatology.

    Please let us know when you decide to stop acting like a YEC crying “Piltdown Man” as though it undermines all of evolution.

    ———————————————————————

    P.i.S. @ #18:

    People just do not listen to the tin foil hat, polar bear suit crowd.

    Translation: “As long as we keep lying enough the public won’t listen to the 97% percent of international scientists that say the Earth is warming.

    My pointing out the flaws of previous posts would be overkill if not for the fact that there are still posters like yourself that ignore science and evidence.

    Too bad that your failure to provide the repeatedly requested credible supporting evidence doesn’t qualify as us ignoring it.

    —————————————————————————–

    P.i.S. @ #22:

    It is my belief that it will not take AB32 very long to dramatically effect the California economy.

    Yes the “Draconian” bill that wants to reduce CO2 emissions for the state down to the distant dark age levels of 1990 by 2020, and you accuse the IPCC of being “alarmist”. How convenient that Prop 23 sets an unemployment condition that has only been met 3 times in forty years.

    —————————————————————

    P.i.S @ #26:

    Claims which are not based on science but based on political goals.

    Still projecting there Paul…or did you finally find that credible supporting evidence yet?

    The “green” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement has stepped across the line of reality.

    Translation: “ I don’t like what the evidence gathered by multiple independent experts from around the world says since it violates my precious dogma.

    ———————————————————————

    P.i.S @ #30:

    I am sure this Daffy comment does not pertain to the numerous individuals at BA that refer to creationists, 6000 year old earth, flat earthers etc, etc, etc

    Well Paul as long as you keep using the same “logic” and evidence free faith of those same groups you’ll continue to fit right in with them.

    As regulars know, here here at Bad Astronomy faith placed on matters not backed by science and taken on faith alone can only be condoned with regards to the Religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Except as I’ve already point out to you it’s the AGW that has all of the credible supporting scientific evidence, it’s you denialists that that are consistently lacking such evidence. Tell us P.i.S why can’t the fossil fuel sponsored sites you keep copy and pasting from provide that credible supporting evidence for you to show us?

    ================================================================================
    Now for Paul, Bruce, and any other denialists in the peanut gallery here are the simple questions that your side needs to answer if you really want to convince the scientific community. Yes Paul, this a slightly modified copy of what you still haven’t answered in the other two threads.

    Denialists still seem to not be able to understand what credible “positively supporting evidence” actually is. So assuming that you’re not trolling and actually are just blinded by faith in an ideology, I’ll explain further what it would take to convince anyone motivated by actual evidence that AGW is incorrect.

    In other words I’m telling you how to make a viable case for your position, since you don’t seem to understand what that entails….

    Do you think that the Earth isn’t warming?
    If so then what is the credible evidence that actually shows that the average global temperature has not been rising over the last several decades?
    Easy, right? So where is it?
    After all, several independent attempts at measuring the Earths temperature from scientific groups around the world, often using different techniques show that it is warming.
    So were is the evidence that it’s not? Where is the credible evidence that the long term average temperature of the planet has ether been stable or gone down? Please note, not short term drops in temperature, ignoring the previous and subsequent rise again, and not a local drop in temperature in one area, but average global temperature.

    ————————————————————————

    Maybe though you think that the Earth is warming,but that humans aren’t at fault? Let us assume that your position is “Earth is warming, but it’s not because of human activity”.

    Do you have credible evidence that shows that the Earth’s warming is contrary to what would be expected if the warming was due to greenhouse gasses? In other words warming that doesn’t fit that pattern?
    Again several independent groups all show a atmospheric warming pattern consistent with warming caused by GHGs.
    Were is the credible evidence that shows an long term atmospheric warming pattern inconsistent with GHGs causing warming?
    Were is the credible evidence that clearly shows increasing average global temperatures being caused by another source besides GHGs?

    Also satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping the Earth has showed changes over the last few decades consistent with increasing GHGs causing global warming.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows that it’s not happening, that the Earth’s infrared emissions are not showing a change consistent with increases in GHGs?

    Maybe you think that the GHGs are caused by nature, and not by human activity.
    Multiple independent measurements of rising CO2 levels show changes over time of the isotopic ratios of C12 to C13, this indicates increased CO2 produced mainly by human activity.
    Where is the credible evidence that shows any increase in CO2 is coming from natural sources, and if so what natural sources?

    ————————————————————————-

    Please note that in each of the above cases I’m not asking for you to try and nitpick at what ever flaws you imagine (or were told) are in a specific study that supports AGW (as a YEC would do), especially since each of the above items of evidence for AGW are backed by multiple sources (often using different techniques) arriving at the same conclusion. What I’m asking you for is, what credible evidence do you have that actually shows each of the above as being contradicted by other and better credible evidence?

  36. Zetetic

    Lorem Ipsum@ #34:
    Respectfully, there is a big difference between the largely symbolic act of Congress that you cited and an actual witch hunt. Granted such a “condemnation” is stupid and absurd, but it lacks any real teeth. It’s just scumbag politicians grandstanding for the cameras.

    It’s a fairly safe bet that some political condemnation of science is perfectly acceptable to most of the people reading this blog, if that science dares to question the sacred cows they believe in.

    QFT

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    For any one that’s interested here is what Cuccinelli has been up to regarding Mann…
    Timeline of the Virginia Attorney General’s Misguided Investigation

  37. Paul in Sweden

    @ 34. Lorem Ipsum
    October 21st, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Yes, the sooner the issues get in court the better. Buddy-review in climate science has been a disaster that has spilled over resulting in a lack of confidence in science as a whole.

    On Bradley: Blackmail or Let’s Make a Deal.
    -http://tinyurl.com/2azcnf9

    “Jim-”I’m not a criminal lawyer” Edwards frames the issue nicely

    “That would be amazing because, if so, it may be evidence of an honest-to-goodness crime [not the imagined crimes AGW-debaters are constantly crowing about].

    It looks like Bradley is threatening to ruin Wegman’s career unless he alters his prior Congressional testimony.

    That smacks of post-facto extortion or witness tampering. [both potential felonies]

    I don’t practice criminal law, but it does not look good to me.”

    Or we can be charitable and suggest that Bradley is a Burro for even contemplating bringing this pressure to bear on Wegman. Finally, Wegman’s University is in Virginia, my sense is that Cuccinelli might take notice of it, were it brought to his attention. ”

    “In a comment at CA Donald Rapp tells us

    “The issue is not whether Wegman committed plagiarism as a technicality, but rather, who cares? Obviously, Wegman had nothing whatever to gain from using words written by Bradley in reviewing Bradley’s work. Lost in all this is the question of whether Wegman was right – and I believe that he was. If Wegman was right, then the various hockey sticks prepared by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Esper Cook and Schweingruber, Mann and Jones, and Mann et al. are all bogus. While dozens of people continue to file their comments on whether it was plagiarism or it was not, that is akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Meanwhile, the hockey stick continues to spread through our schools and textbooks like a plague, while Bradley desperately tries to protect his turf from the truth by discrediting Wegman personally. Proof of this is that Bradley has offered to stop his prosecution (persecution?) of Wegman if Wegman will remove his report from the Congressional Register. It is like a burning of the books. Farenheit 451 all over again.”

    Steve McIntyre quotes from Bradely’s mail.

    “I filed a complaint with George Mason University (where Wegman is a Professor) & they have set up a committee to investigate my complaint. I[A] recent letter from their Vice-Chancellor indicates that they expect the committee to report their findings by the end of September.

    That’s the long & short of it. I have told the University that I am prepared to drop this matter if Wegman makes a request to have his report withdrawn from the Congressional Record. No response on that.

    Thanks
    Ray [Bradley]“”

    Yes it is time the courts are involved.

    If the earth is in crisis and the goal is reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions why are we raping the taxpayers to propagate solar & wind farms? How much, if any CO2 emissions are reduced by solar & wind farms? Who is profiting from these environmental boondoggles?

    If carbon taxes are needed to save the plant how does New York State’s use of Green Taxes to bolster the general budget do anything GREEN?

    This is a farce. Put the whole load of non-sense in front of the courts.

    Yes, it would be nice if global warming “beliefs” could be confronted with evidence in court.

    What are the global warming faithful afraid of?

    The court room is the Global Warmists chance at vindication.

  38. Skeppy

    Paul in Sweden said:

    “Yes, it would be nice if global warming “beliefs” could be confronted with evidence in court.

    What are the global warming faithful afraid of?”

    It would be even nicer if you’d confront your own beliefs by providing us with some evidence. What are you afraid of Paul? I’ll tell you if you won’t admit it to yourself; you’re
    afraid of science.

  39. gss_000

    Put it in front of the courts? Is that because you know the science favors climate change proponents?

    It’s funny how many times the denialists claim proponents are irrational or “true believers” yet never provide any evidence that does not crumble when examined. They try to attack the facts and failed, try to cherry pick minute details and come out wrong time and time again, so now I guess they are so desperate they have to go to areas outside of the actual science.

    And Paul, you just continue the tactic of not answering the questions you are asked. Is there something not clear here? I have found others also have trouble comprehending what they are reading, as evidenced by the way they assume papers prove global warming is disproven even when the authors clearly state the opposite.

  40. Muzz

    I wonder if Paul would ever use the flounderings and half measures of government to argue against the basic tennents of capitalism in the same way.

  41. Dawn

    @Paul in Sweden: what on earth do the courts have to do with Global Warming issues? As has been said many times before, scientific truth is not determined by the courts, but by testing from other scientists that either confirm or deny the original findings. Science is not determined by popular vote.

    And why can’t you reply to Zetetic’s questions that he re-posts at #35? Seems to me they are very clearly written and easily answered if you have the information.

  42. Sir Craig

    As much as I love a good slap-down, it is clear Paul in Sweden and Bruce have little to nothing to offer by way of actual proof that there is some kind of grand conspiracy, perpetrated by nearly all of the world’s climate scientists, and that continually addressing them asking for their alleged “proof” is only encouraging them to continue with more evidence-less rants.

    I would therefore kindly request that, until such time Paul in Sweden and/or Bruce come up with a cogent and credible response to any of the questions put to them previously, either here or on other threads, we cease to feed their egos by acknowledging their existence?

    Thank you.

  43. Nigel Depledge

    Paul in Sweden (14) said:

    Global Warming alarmist “beliefs” will be confronted with evidence. A new concept for climate science.

    I’ve trimmed out all the grandstanding, BTW.

    Paul, several points:

    (1) AGW is real.
    (2) Your use of the word “Catastrophic” is a strawman. Only some of the experts are really regarding it as catastrophic.
    (3) AGW is a conclusion arising from the evidence.
    (4) It doesn’t matter how many politicians the oil industry has paid to “argue” against AGW, there is still a real phenomenon to address.
    (5) Get over the stolen emails from UEA already. They genuinely don’t mean anything apart from some frustrated academics letting off steam.
    (6) Please don’t post here again until you are prepared to back up your snide assertions with actual evidence.

  44. A

    Comment threads without a moderator are about as useful as ID “science”.

    Color me shocked. This blog supposedly has a moderator and they’re *still* letting trolls in.

  45. Gary Ansorge

    My feeling is that some individual should file a personal suit
    against Ken Cuccinelli for flagrantly wasting tax payers money. I don’t know for sure but I think if the suit is for defamation then Ken has to use his own money to defend himself, rather than the states(read; citizens money).

    He’s such a schmuck.

    Gary 7

  46. Dan I.

    @ 45. Gary

    Unfortunately, taxpayers do not have standing to sue public officials in U.S. Court for how tax money is spent except in very specific cases involving establishment clause issues.

    The argument is that the expenditure of any one individual’s tax money on something that individual disagrees with is too attenuated and difficult to determine to make it possible for that individual taxpayer to say “This is MY money” and not the money of any of the other millions of taxpayers.

  47. Zetetic

    @ Paul in Sweden:
    Still waiting for the credible positively supporting evidence there Paul.

    Three threads so far and still not one teeny tiny little shred of credible evidence that actually contradicts AGW. Heck, Paul, you even seem to be going out of your way to avoid saying what your position actually is, only that you don’t like all of these pesky climatologists. Is the Earth warming, or not? If not then where is the credible evidence that positively supports the idea that the Earth’s climate is stable or cooling?

    Face it P.i.S., if it wasn’t for an ideologically motivated denial of reality, your position wouldn’t even exist and we’d instead be focusing on how to fix the problem while causing the least disruption to society.

    It’s amusing how you seem to naively think (assuming that you’re not just trolling) that you can change the facts as determined my multiple lines of evidence from multiple independent sources from a couple of alleged scientific “scandals”, even if they are true. Just like a Young Earth Creationist running around crying “Piltdown Man!” every time someone brings up the subject of evolution. Acting as though one minor scandal that effected only a few scientists undoes the entirety of the modern synthesis of evolution, is foolish. So is your emulating that behavior.

    It’s already been explained to you what is need to actually make your case, yet strangely you still haven’t been able to provide it. What’s that matter Paul? Hasn’t Exxon gotten back to you with what to say yet? :D

    If carbon taxes are needed to save the plant how does New York State’s use of Green Taxes to bolster the general budget do anything GREEN?

    Are you really that stupid, or just that dishonest?

    It’s very simple P.i.S…Science is science, and politics is politics.
    What some politicians do in regard to taxes does nothing to change the facts about the state of the climate. Stop acting like a YEC.

    The court room is the Global Warmists chance at vindication.

    Still just like a creationist bleating for “debates”. The fact is that the denialists have been loosing fairly consistently in the courts. Of course even more losses still won’t stop you from calling for more court cases just like Cuccinelli has been. Because as your silence when asked for supporting evidence shows, people that act as you do are driven by dogma and not facts.

    If you still can’t answer such simple questions Paul then at this point I think that it’s safe to conclude that either you’re a troll, or you haven’t just “drunk the Koolaid” but you bought enough stock to have a controlling interest in the company! :D

  48. Mike G

    Phil, have you considered a disemvoweling plugin for trolls and spammers like P.i.S?

    Rendering his posts [more] unreadable would eliminate the temptation to reply to his idiocy and hopefully allow for some on-topic discussion.

    Anyone who actually cares what he has to say would still be able to reconstruct it, which also serves as proof of just how idiotic and off-topic the comment was when he tries to claim that he’s “being repressed!”

  49. ND

    Paul,

    Creationists got their rear-ends handed to them in the Dover case by a church-going Bush-nominated judge because their arguments didn’t hold up. But that trial did not decide the science of evolutionary biology. It reinforced what was already known and established, the science of evolution is sound and creationism/ID is not science and creationists need to stop bullying their dogma into science classes.

    Your arguments that AGW is not validated by science haven’t held up on this site. Are you sure you want to go to trial as well?

    The validity of scientific evidence is not judged in a courtroom.

  50. me

    if courts decisions on the fundamental nature of reality were a useful tool for advancing science then the church would have probably achieved space travel sometime in the middle ages

  51. Chris Winter

    Paul in Sweden wrote (#22): “It is my belief that it will not take AB32 very long to dramatically effect the California economy. A green victory in California this November will show the entire nation what happens if a state or a the nation goes green in the brain.”

    I’m in complete agreement, Paul. Surprised? Don’t be; our state badly needs an effective economy. I’m confident clean energy can make a substantial contribution, in much the same way as the personal computer revolution did back in the 1980s.

  52. Chris Winter

    Bruce wrote (#29): “Hey Paul, don’t you just love the warm-mongers on this blog? When confronted with facts, all they can do is yell “hate-filled”, “dolt” and “troll”. Chapter 1 of the liberal playbook: if someone disagrees with you, ridicule them.”

    No, that’s more like chapter 27. The preceding chapters are attempts to explain why we regard the broad outline of AGW as well established by a large and growing body of evidence. But faced with obdurate refusal to listen, most anyone will run out of patience at some point and make some intemperate comments.

    On the other hand, there are those who make intemperate comments without any provocation. You’re looking like one of them.

  53. Chris Winter

    What P.I.S. has posted in #14 and later is basically a red herring thrown out by McIntyre, I learned last night.

    The gist of it is that McIntyre charges Bradley with plagiarizing a particular book by Fritts. By doing so, he apparently hopes to discredit Bradley, or at least to distract the investigators of the Wegman report.

    But the fact is that in all the passages McIntyre lists, Bradley cites Fritts’s book. However, he cites the original 1971 edition. McIntyre bases his charge of plagiarism on the fact that Bradley fails to cite the later 1976 edition, in which the passages are the same or similar.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/tit_for_tat.php

  54. AJ in CA

    @Zetetic: Thanks for taking on the morons so others (like myself) don’t have to. I just can’t handle it right now. The stupid, it burns.

    And Paul, I’m not a liberal, and I still think you’re a deluded narcissistic ignoramus. Stick that in your liberal playbook and smoke it.

  55. AJ in CA

    @50: “If courts decisions on the fundamental nature of reality were a useful tool for advancing science then the church would have probably achieved space travel sometime in the middle ages”

    Hehe. I lol’d :D
    Maybe if I use the Chewbacca defense, I can have gravity declared unconstitutional and fly to the moon in a submarine!

  56. Gary Ansorge

    55. AJ in CA

    “Maybe if I use the Chewbacca defense, I can have gravity declared unconstitutional and fly to the moon in a submarine!”

    LOL.

    Too bad the nuc power plants only crank out about 140 Mw. It would be so cool to fly one to the moon.

    46. Dan I.

    I realize suing a politician is nearly impossible in the USA. They can always invoke the “just doing their job” defense.
    I wonder why that defense didn’t work in the Nuremberg trials?

    Gary 7

  57. Shunka Warakin

    Paul in Sweden, I hereby award you with the Lonny Eachus Award for not realising when you’ve had your ass handed to you on a plate, and for your lack of scientific understanding in previous posts.
    Now please read up on AGW science before posting here again. It will save you looking like a total buffoon, again.

  58. Chris Winter

    Dan I wrote (#46): “Unfortunately, taxpayers do not have standing to sue public officials in U.S. Court for how tax money is spent except in very specific cases involving establishment clause issues.”

    Well, that isn’t entirely accurate. There’s a legal principle called qui tam, from English common law, which allows a private individual to sue (or join a suit) for fraud in government. In the U.S. it’s embodied in the False Claims Act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tam

    I’m not at all sure it would apply to Cuccinelli, though. Its usual application is in cases of medical fraud, or wasteful government procurement like the C5 Galaxy wing root case.

  59. Taz

    Paul in Sweden sounds just like a creationist crowing about how the Theory of Evolution will be rejected “any day now”.

  60. Messier Tidy Upper

    @48. Mike G Says:

    Phil, have you considered a disemvoweling plugin for trolls and spammers like P.i.S? Rendering his posts [more] unreadable would eliminate the temptation to reply to his idiocy and hopefully allow for some on-topic discussion.

    What turning into something like hebrew? ;-)

    Nah. I disagree with censorship & I believe in the free exchange of opinions and information, in people being able to express diverse and even absurd views at times provided they do so reasonably &, ideally, politely. :-)

    I especially believe in rational, polite reasoned discussion of the issues

    No one is beyond redemption, people can learn and benefit from these sort of arguments and even if person X doesn’t then others who lurk or read or participate can still learn something.

    Paul-in-Sweden’s views are also held by a wide number of people out in the broader community. Many more people heard about “Climategate” breaking
    via Fox news than heard about the scientists later being cleared and heard that the “Climategate” beat-up was, well, just that, a cherry-picked, out of proportion storm in a teacup.

    We do need to deal, I think, with a lot of wrong impressions and misunderstandings that are widespread out there beyond this blog. When misinformed people argue misinformed claims, insults and censorship won’t work too well changing their minds but engaging them in rational conversation and providing the facts and different perspectives just might possibly do so. :-)

    Many posters have come to this blog driven by and espousing particular anti-science beliefs and issues. Many of them have gone away wiser and better informed and with their opinions changed.

    I am one of those myself – I used to argue that AGW wasn’t real and discussions here have been a big factor (not the only one but a big one) in changing my mind. I now argue that AGW is real and we should try to find ways to slow or stop it.

    Let’s keep ourselves open for discussion and for learning from each other shall we? :-)

    Let’s not get into censoring those whose opinions we find disagreeable or false or annoying & hard to put up with and just remember that “there but for the grace of [ God /the FSM /pure blnd luck] go I!”

  61. Zetetic

    @ Dawn (post #41) and AJ in CA (post #54):
    Thank you both very much for the kind words! :)

    Amazing isn’t it? Just look at how quickly the AGW denialists get quiet when pressed for supporting evidence? Threads going on for hundreds of posts, but when asked for little supporting evidence they can’t leave the thread fast enough. :D

    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    @ Mike G #48:
    I’ve got to agree with Messier Tidy Upper here, censorship is what the denialists do, asking the AGW denialists to actually provide credible supporting evidence is what we evidently need to be doing more often.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    @ Messier Tidy Upper:
    I’m in full agreement with you there!

    I too used to disagree with AGW until I started to pay attention to the debates online and started to actually research the other side. I don’t like the idea of AGW being real and I certainly don’t like the potential implications, but reality doesn’t care about what we want to be true.

    When I’ve been replying to Paul’s posts, I don’t usually think of it as “replying to P.i.S”. Instead I think of it as countering P.i.S for the benefit of those reading that are still undecided on the issue.

  62. Lorem Ipsum

    @36: “Respectfully, there is a big difference between the largely symbolic act of Congress that you cited and an actual witch hunt”

    Yes, and respectfully, the blog post used the term “witch hunt” in reference to denialists opposition to global warming and climate change science findings (followed ironically by “ups the rhetoric”), yet there is a “big difference between [the actions of global warming denialists] and an actual witch hunt”.

    When millions of scientists are justifiably afraid for their health, property, freedom, and even their lives if anyone should discover that they are scientists, THEN you can call it a “with hunt” without being ridiculous. The resolution passed by Congress that I cited was not a witch hunt; I never said it was. It was just one stone thrown in a much larger ACTUAL witch hunt, in the non-ridiculous sense.

  63. TheBlackCat

    When millions of scientists are justifiably afraid for their health, property, freedom, and even their lives if anyone should discover that they are scientists, THEN you can call it a “with hunt” without being ridiculous.

    Did you notice what this discussion is about? The attorney general is trying to send someone to jail over this. So yes, this most certainly is a case where scientists need to be afraid for their freedom.

  64. Zetetic

    Loren Ipsum @ #68:
    My apologies. I misunderstood your intention in your last post. I didn’t realize that you were making an attempt to whinge about tone.
    I had thought that you were merely intending to compare a wholly symbolic act of congress (without any penalties, fines, or dragging people before a court) as some sort of precedent to an State AG wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars by dragging a scientist into court to face charges of an alleged misuse of public funds and trying to make the accused pay the money spent on the research back to the state, since Mann dared to come to a conclusion that the AG doesn’t like. A position that while incorrect, is at least somewhat reasonable.

    BTW it was a “nice touch” from you to use a resolution by Congress condemning a psychological study that concluded that many children weren’t as adversely effected by child molestation as was previously thought, and trying to compare it to a prosecutor issuing subpoenas for AGW research. Oddly I don’t recall the scientists of the psychological study being dragged into court, or a State AG trying to force them to pay back the research money.

    I apologize that I didn’t realize that your point was that we had to wait until “millions of scientists are justifiably afraid for their health, property, freedom, and even their lives if anyone should discover that they are scientists” before we had your approval to use the term “witch hunt”. Since you’re so concerned that such a term might hurt some denialist’s pweccious wittew feelwings.

    Apparently, according to you, we need to wait until all scientific research is completely, brought to a halt before any one can object to politicians abusing their power in an effort to try and bring science to a halt, in order to spare the denialists little ego’s while they are issuing death threats and filling law suits. It’s nice to know where your priorities are Lorem Ipsum.

    I suppose then that we shouldn’t mind the death threats that climatologists (Mann included) have already been getting since apparently we can’t call it a “with hunt” yet. Nor should we take into account that, according to Ken Cuccinelli’s own suppeona request, that what he is trying to force Mann to return to the state come to several hundred thousand US dollars. To be precise Ken Cuccinelli wants to “recover” $484,875 from Mann for arriving at a conclusion that Cuccinelli (and his biggest campaign contributors) don’t like.

    Just for the sake of clarification…. do the denialists actually have to be burning scientists at the stake, or is bringing back the Inquisition for the heresy of conducting scientific research a sufficient cause to use the term “witch hunt”? I just want to make sure since we don’t want to hurt your feelings anymore with too unfriendly a “tone”, Lorem Ipsum.

    Nor do we want to further hurt the feeling of denialists by using unflattering comments about them while they are busy sending death threats, inciting violence, and dragging scientists into court to squeeze money out of them.

  65. Mike G

    @ 60 Messier Tidy Upper
    “Nah. I disagree with censorship & I believe in the free exchange of opinions and information, in people being able to express diverse and even absurd views at times provided they do so reasonably &, ideally, politely. :-)
    I especially believe in rational, polite reasoned discussion of the issues”

    I wholeheartedly agree. If Paul or any other denier wants to engage in a two-way discussion, I have absolutely no objection to that. In fact, I probably wouldn’t even bother reading blog comments if it weren’t for the differences of opinion; they would be quite boring without them. However, there’s that pesky conditional clause you used- “provided they do so reasonably &, ideally, politely.” When someone like Paul doesn’t want to fulfill that condition by addressing points brought up by other participants, but instead copies and pastes blog posts, press releases, and opinion polls, and repeats the same claim thread after thread, despite multiple demonstrations of their falsehood, that person ceases to be a contributor to the discussion and becomes a distraction from it- i.e. a troll.

    @61 Zetetic
    “censorship is what the denialists do”
    Censorship as practiced by deniers is deleting posts that contain disagreeable ideas. Censorship in the form practiced by moderators across the blogosphere, deniers or otherwise, is based on posting behavior- lack of relevant content or attempts to disrupt the discussion. Most blogs simply employ post deletion for this purpose, but I much prefer disemvoweling since the information is not lost. It’s still there and is relatively easy to read if you want to put in the effort. Anyone who takes the time to read the offending post would be able to tell whether it was censored due to content or lack thereof.

    “asking the AGW denialists to actually provide credible supporting evidence is what we evidently need to be doing more often.”
    Yes, but when you ask the same denialist 30 different times in 10 different treads and still don’t get an answer, asking again serves no purpose except providing another opportunity for the troll to repeat their talking points. Don’t feed the trolls!

  66. Zetetic

    @ Mike G:
    You are of course correct that dis-emvoweling isn’t censorship in the same sense as what they tend to do on denialist sites.
    The problem with dis-emvoweling (aside from the risk of starting up another “Bible Code” :D ) is that they still get to claim “persecution”, and play the role of the poor embattled martyr for the cause. Yes, I know that it’s ridiculous, but so is everything else about denialism. To avoid trolls playing crying “persecution” is why on some sites (such as Pharyngula for example) they tend to usually reserve dis-emvoweling for comments that are highly racist, sexist, homophobic, or encourage violence, to ensure that it doesn’t become a “badge of honor” among the trolls.

    Yes, but when you ask the same denialist 30 different times in 10 different treads and still don’t get an answer, asking again serves no purpose except providing another opportunity for the troll to repeat their talking points. Don’t feed the trolls!

    If done incorrectly you are of course correct. The problem though (IMO) is that for the most part we’ve been playing their game, by responding to them rather than challenging the basis of their position more directly.

    Notice the change in their behavior since we started to change the questions, as above? Long running threads have gotten quiet real fast since the posters here have started to ask for credible positively supporting evidence for the denialist’s position, instead of just arguing the points of one study or another back-and-forth.

    The denialists want to attack the merits of the science behind AGW by nitpicking and misrepresenting it, and conjure up scare stories about what may happen if we try to stop AGW. It’s a game that they know they can keep playing until the glaciers and poles melt completely away.

    What the denialists don’t want to do, is to be forced into a position where they have try and prove that the Earth isn’t warming or that any warming has a natural cause. They seem to avoid this since deep down inside they know that the science is against them.

    That is why, even though I sympathize with your position, I suggest a change in the debate tactics instead of giving them the opportunity to “play the martyr”. It’s also why I’ve been revising and “fleshing” out my above challenge to the denialists so that it provides more info for those that are still undecided .
    Best of all, a direct challenge provides an opportunity for those still “on the fence” to see how vacuous the AGW denialist position really is. I for one certainly don’t have any illusions about changing the mind of a true denialist, but I welcome the opportunity to openly reveal the fallaciousness of their position to others.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »