Posted on 05/29/2010 6:25:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”
Carr and 809 other Virginia scientists and academics signed a petition launched by the activist Union of Concerned Scientists, protesting Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann. The American Association of University Professors likewise opposes Cuccinelli, who is seeking documents from UVA, to determine whether there are grounds to prosecute Mann for violating the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, by presenting false or misleading information in support of applications for state-funded research.
Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”
It’s time to clear a few things up.
Mann is the former UVA professor, whose “hockey stick” temperature chart was used to promote claims that “sudden” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming “threatens” human civilization and Earth itself. The hockey stick was first broken by climatologists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, who demonstrated that a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly reflected in historic data across the globe, but redacted by Mann. Analysts Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick later showed that Mann’s computer program generated hockey-stick patterns regardless of what numbers were fed into it – even random telephone numbers; that explained why the global warming and cooling of the last millennium magically disappeared in Mann’s “temperature reconstruction.”
The Climategate emails revealed another deliberate “trick” that Mann used to generate a late twentieth-century temperature jump: he replaced tree ring data with thermometer measurements at the point in his timeline when the tree data no longer fit his climate disaster thesis. During his UVA tenure, he employed other sly statistical tricks to generate a purported, and truly unprecedented, CO2-driven warming of 2-4.5 degrees F per decade (1-2.5 degrees C). That extrapolates to as much as 45 degrees F per century!
Not surprisingly, he refused to share his data, computer codes and methodologies with skeptical scientists. Perhaps worse, Climategate emails indicate that Mann and others conspired to co-opt and corrupt the very scientific process that Carr asserts will ultimately condemn or vindicate them.
This behavior certainly gives Cuccinelli “probable cause” for launching an investigation. As the AG notes, “The same legal standards for fraud apply to the academic setting that apply elsewhere. The same rule of law, the same objective fact-finding process, will take place.” Some witch hunt.
There is simply no room in science, academia or public policy for manipulation, falsification or fraud. Academic freedom does not confer a right to engage in such practices, and both attorneys general and research institutions have a duty to root them out, especially in the case of climate change research.
Work by Mann and other alarmist scientists is not merely some theoretical exercise that can be permitted to “play itself out” over many years, if and when the “academic arena” gets around to it. These assertions of climate crisis are being used right now by Congress, states, courts and the Environmental Protection Agency to justify draconian restrictions on energy use and greenhouse emissions. They would shackle our freedoms and civil rights and hammer our jobs, economy, health, welfare and living standards.
If the science is wrong – or far worse, if it is manipulated, fabricated, fraudulent and covered up – then grave damage will be done to our nation, liberties and families, before the truth gets its boots on.
As to “scientific debate” over global warming, there has been virtually none in the academic arena. The science is viewed as “settled,” debate has been squelched, and those who seek to initiate debate are attacked, vilified, harassed and shipped off to academic Siberia.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, another former UVA climate researcher, was fired as Virginia State Climatologist by then-Governor Tim Kaine for raising inconvenient questions and facts on climate science. When Greenpeace demanded access to Michaels’ emails, UVA promptly acceded – before contesting AG Cuccinelli’s request for Mann’s.
The 810 protesters and their UCS and AAUP consorts were silent. Their principles and objections do not seem to apply to shrill activist groups infringing on the academic and scientific freedom of “politically incorrect” researchers, even when there is no suggestion of dishonesty. Other “skeptical” climate researchers have met with similar fates. The pungent scent of hypocrisy fills the air.
No surprise there. The massive US government climate change research gravy train alone totaled some $9 billion in grants during 2009, courtesy of hardworking taxpayers. IPCC, EU & Company climate grants – plus billions more for renewable energy research – fatten the larder still further. Now that money, prestige and power are threatened.
Climategate and other revelations about the lack of evidence for the “manmade climate disaster” thesis have sent belief in AlGorean gloom and doom plummeting. Global warming consistently comes in dead last on any list of environmental concerns. Three-fourths of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $100 a year to prevent climate change. China, India and other developing nations properly refuse to sign a carbon-cutting economic suicide pact.
The public is rightly concerned that in-house investigations by Penn State University (Mann’s current institution), East Anglia University (home of Phil Jones and the Climategate emails) and the IPCC have the patina of a Tom Sawyer whitewash. Independent investigations like Cuccinelli’s are absolutely essential, to ferret out fraud and misconduct – which may be rare but must be dealt with when it happens.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified studies to create a connection between autism and trace mercury in vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella. Britain stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But meanwhile, a lingering stench remains over double standards; World Wildlife Fund press releases and rank speculation masquerading as peer-reviewed science; computer models enshrined as “proof” of looming climate disasters; and billions being squandered on research purporting to link global warming to nearly every malady and phenomenon known to man.
We the taxpayers are paying for this work. We the people will pay the price – in soaring energy bills, fewer jobs, lower living standards and lost freedoms – for draconian energy and emission laws enacted in the name of saving the planet.
We have a right to insist that the research be honest and aboveboard. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics. That those who violate these fundamental precepts forfeit their access to future grants. And that our tax dollars no longer fund bogus acne-and-climate-change studies and alarmist propaganda. (Talk about budget cutting opportunities!)
It’s certainly understandable that scientists, academics, eco-activists and the AAUP and UVA would line up behind Mann and against Cuccinelli. There’s a lot of power, prestige and cash on the line. But it is essential that the attorney general and law-abiding citizens insist on transparency, integrity, credibility and accountability in the climate change arena.
We should support what Ken Cuccinelli is doing – and demand that Eric Holder and other state AGs take similar action.
It may be shocking for these academics to learn this...but they are state employees. They rank just like the guy at the state troopers division, or the state parks division, or the state forestry department. I don’t think they’ve grasped this. And if the state ever gets in serious money woes trouble...they will cut academics just as much as the state troopers.
Course, if the Attorney General wanted the football coach to hand over his ‘play-book’....we might be in a pretty good argument here.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute will bestow the Julian Simon Award on Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick for their efforts in debunking Mann's hockey stick at CEI's 2010 Dinner, June 17 at Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill 400 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001.
Cuccinelli is a great American! I’m proud to say that I worked on the McDonnell/Bolling/Cuccinelli campaign.
Public institution, public dollars, public information.
Puck the UVA!
Science has become intensely political, at all levels. Science and universities have sown themselves to be non-meritocracies incapable of policing themselves while receiving and spending public money. So, yes, it makes sense that a politician is involved in the oversight.
“Cuccinelli is a great American! I’m proud to say that I worked on the McDonnell/Bolling/Cuccinelli campaign”
Thank you for your service to Virginia, and thank you for your service to America!
Bump! ;-)
The lead: “Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr.
But the same folks keep telling me there is no debate - the science is settled.
So why appeal to “scientific debate” as an excuse for evading an investigation of Michael Mann when we’ve been told over and over again that the science is settled, there is no debate?
“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena”
True enough, but this is an irrelevant diversion here.
We are talking about economic fraud-for-pay in the criminal arena.
Thank you!
"environmental sciences", "women's studies", "black studies": who wins the prize for the most politicized, subjective area in academia? (note: I use the term "area in academia" rather than the usual, but totally inaccurate "academic discipline")
Later in 2004 they came out with another paper that totally put Mann on the defensive.
Mikey Mann is a fraud! He can't explain away a 45 degree F per decade increase seen in these graphs. Cuccinelli has him by the balls.
Let him and his ilk explain this:
NASA accused of 'Climategate' stalling
Global Warming on Free Republic
The problem with this is that the law isn’t about scientific malpractice but billing fraud. I find it very hard to believe that Mann or his secretary made any serious billing mistakes. The scientific malpractice case needs to be sorted out some other way.
Just to be precise, AG Ken Cuccinelli is Virginia’s elected official whose job is to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is not now “a politician.” Therefore, his interests are not political. They are economic.
His investigation is warranted by his mission as Attorney General to protect Virginians from unwarranted incursions into freedoms, from illegal laws passed by Congress, and from taxes and increased cost mandated by EPA, if the data upon which they are justified is deemed to be faulty.
Based on the inability of the scientific community to police its own, the protests of these “810 academics” is laughable.
And I’m a Virginian with a Ph.D. Many “scientists” I’ve known are unbelievably arrogant, and adhere to the notion that only other scientists are qualified to critique their work.
if they were true to their word, they would put every file on their server read only on the web.
The billing fraud issue applies. If Mannn billed the state or federal govt for work to develop predictive models and they are revealed to be “shams”— i.e., the contractual obligations to develop models based on parameters derived from scientific data, then there is criminal intent to defraud the government.
The science could be flawed and no laws broken. The question is deliberate misleading or not using the funds as the contract required.
Whoops! Decade should be century.
Carr claims Cuccinelli is attempting to “drown out” scientific debate.” Others have accused the AG of conducting a “witch hunt,” engaging in “McCarthyite” tactics, and “restricting academic freedom.”
- -
I see they’re projecting again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.