In another disturbing instance of politically-motivated intimidation of climate scientists, last week Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a new civil investigative demand (CID) to the University of Virginia for emails and documents related to Dr. Michael Mann. This follows on an earlier demand issued by Cuccinelli that was fought by the University and rejected by an Albemarle County Circuit Court judge for being unfounded. Cuccinelli's latest demand is a revised version of his first, unsuccessful CID, and attempts to work around the judge's prior ruling.
To anyone that reads Cuccinelli's demand, it looks more like a fishing expedition designed to smear scientists than a real fraud investigation. Cuccinelli demands documents related to 39 people, but many of them are unrelated to Dr. Mann's research grant that is nominally the focus of the investigation.
For example, one of the 39 is Dr. Murari Lal, an Indian glaciologist featured in news reports about an error in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) latest report. It is completely unclear how Dr. Lal's work is relevant to an investigation of Dr. Mann's research grant. Notably absent from the list are Dr. Mann's two co-investigators on the research grant in question. Instead, the list reads like a Google search of "climate," "emails," and "IPCC." Cuccinelli casts his net so wide he can't decide whether to ask for information relating to Dr. Vincent GrEy or Dr. Vincent GrAy and instead lists them each separately as targets of his request.
Cuccinelli's broad definition of suspected fraud would make nearly every scientific enterprise subject to a similar investigation. That is the type of behavior one might expect of Renaissance-era inquisitors or Soviet-era commissars, but is not what Americans expect from a state attorney general.
Technological innovation has been critical to the success of America. Officials should be supporting science, not silencing it. The academic community agrees: in response to the earlier CID, more than 900 Virginia scientists sent a letter to Cuccinelli stating that his demand for documents was unfounded and a form of intimidation.
Cuccinelli's justification for the latest document demands rest on claims that two of Dr. Mann's papers lacked scientific rigor. However, the National Academy of Sciences and numerous research teams have upheld the basic conclusions in Dr. Mann's papers. Further, Penn State University has already exonerated Dr. Mann in response to similar allegations.
In fact, all of the climate scientists whose emails were stolen in November of last year have been cleared of any wrongdoing by numerous panels, including the UK House of Commons and independent inquiry panels led by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell. These reviews indicated that there was no real substance to this manufactured scandal.
Knowing that their scientific arguments are not persuasive, those that have an interest in keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels have turned to attacking the scientists themselves - but, as the email hacking incident showed, these personal attacks don't stand up to scrutiny either.
What is perhaps most appalling is that Republican leaders in Washington are pledging more Cuccinelli-style intimidation tactics, if they take control of the House. For example, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who hopes to chair the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, promises to make it a top priority to further investigate climate scientists.
The right wing assault on science poses a threat to academic freedom and open scientific inquiry. As Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, I held a hearing in May on the harassment of climate scientists and its chilling effect on the scientific enterprise. All of the witnesses decried attacks that hinder scientific research and the communication of the results to the public. Even Dr. William Happer, whose testimony was highly critical of mainstream climate science, agreed with Rep. Jay Inslee that Attorney General Cuccinelli should "knock it off".
Dr. Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told the Select Committee that "powerful forces of unreason" are attacking him for scientific findings that they don't want to hear. "I firmly believe that I would now be leading a different life if my research suggested that there was no human effect on climate. I would not be the subject of congressional inquiries, Freedom of Information Act requests, or e mail threats. I would not need to be concerned about the safety of my family," said Dr. Santer. The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, an early and influential voice on climate change, described a troubling shift in the climate dialogue since he first testified to Congress in the 1970s: "It was always civil. It was always bipartisan. And it has now gotten to the point where things have become accusatory and highly ideological, and that is very unfortunate."
Scientists should have the freedom to follow the science where it leads and not have to fear the consequences of sharing their results. Preserving this freedom to explore new ideas and technologies is critical to understanding our world and meeting society's great challenges. Attorney General Cuccinelli's misdirected, anti-science fishing investigation doesn't help us understand the truth of climate change or the urgent need to develop clean energy solutions.
Follow Rep. Ed Markey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markeymemo
"Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009)"
scrogginsfarms fails to point out that said article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm
is in reference to the 11-year solar cycle, which as the article notes varies by only 0.1 percent of total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun. The Sun's 11-year cycle is also far too short of a cycle to drive the multi-decadal global warming observed over recent decades, over which time the Sun's linear total radiative output trend has remained essentially flat.
"NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
August 14, 2007"
scrogginsfarms doesn't say where the headline is from, perhaps because he knows it's not from a reputable news source but instead from some unknown science denier:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html
Said science denier deceptively does not point out that, in fact, per NASA 2005 is the warmest year on record (2009 is tied as the 2nd-warmest year).
[ The science denier also fails to inform the reader that per NASA 1934 is the warmest year on record *in the United States*, with 1998, at 1/100th of a degree less via the revised calculation, still in a statistical tie. ]
"Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
LiveScience
12 March 2007"
From the article:
"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species. "
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Instead of thinking ahead to fulfill the needs of the 21st Century, they spend all their time and energy trying to keep on doing the same old thing. Even at the expense of the lives of their own descendents.
ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009)
NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
August 14, 2007
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
LiveScience
12 March 2007
December 11, 2008
WorldNetDaily
• WASHINGTON – A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming – labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
• "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
• Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
• "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
Each scientific claim must stand on its own, and be confirmed or disproved on its own. Each hypothesis, analysis, proposal, or summation is produced and circulated, then stands (on its own) for confirmation or disproval by scientific rigor.
If you care about the results of a vote, run for prom queen.
does a degradation in the magnetosphere affect warming on the surface of the earth?
does the south atlantic anomaly represent a degradation to you?
could a geomagnetic pole reversal affect the climate on earth?
why is mars, warming? and the other planets?
why is the ipcc still using hansen's false data about the warmest year on record in the u.s.a.?
what happens if this system is in fact a binary star system as nasa stated in the 80's and spanish astronomers conclude currently?
most importantly why the need for global government?
you know here in the republic of texas we are the world leader in green energy. without any government legislation or loss of our freedoms. so again i ask you, why the need for a global government when texas proves we can reduce our dependency, without self imposed pain.
but hey what do i know i am just a right wing nut job holding on to my god, guns, and gold.
go lemming go!
I feel for UVA and GMU Law what I felt for Yale and HBS during the Shrub years: Contempt, shame, embarrassment, and sadness.
--- Ruth Hurmence Green
1 Timothy 4
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
• Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires. John Adams
I do not understand why the good people of Virginia aren't up in arms about this appalling waste of their tax dollars.
In my view, one of these two men, Mann and Cuccinelli, deserves to be investigated for fraud and misuse of state funds.
It's not Mann.
The attorney general is despised in Virginia, and has been made a laughing stock by his silly lawsuits. He has his eye on the governor's seat after O'Donnell; Kenny would do and say anything to remain in the limelight and suck up to big business.