Renewed energy: Cuccinelli reissues his demand for Mann docs

news-rotunda-cuccinelliUVA claims that Cuccinelli's action chills academic freedom.

A little over a month after losing a bid for a wider trove of documents, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has renewed his demand for emails sent and received by controversial climate scientist Michael Mann when he was at UVA, the Washington Post is reporting. This has been a hot topic

inside and outside the academy because Mann is the creator of the famous "hockey stick graph," which predicts a spike in global temperatures.

"Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick graph is based on suspect data," Cuccinelli says in a statement. "Others have shown that random numbers can be put into Mann’s algorithm, and they always produce a hockey stick graph."

The University has tapped into private funds to cover the $352,874.76 in legal fees it has thus far incurred, according to UVA spokesperson Carol Wood.

"University leaders are disappointed that the institution must continue to litigate with the Attorney General," said a statement arranged by Wood, "but will continue to stand for the principles the University has articulated since the C[ivil] I[nvestigative] D[emand]s were first put forward in April– and to support academic communities here and elsewhere."

–last updated at 7:46pm

Read more on: climategate


So if we don't know whether Mann is innocent, we should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate? We don't know whether you are innocent of murder or any crimes, so we should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate?

Cuccinelli has shown absolutely no evidence of fraud. Penn State found no fraud. United Kingdoms House of Commons and various independent panels found no fraud. Tell me, what new evidences of fraud Cuccinelli found that is different from all those prior investigations?

Cuccinelli, and guys like him, are the reason why some independent voters steer clear of the GOP in Virginia. Mr. Cuccinelli is an embarrassment to us all. He's a sideshow attraction, but thank God he'll never be governor.

Old timer”Š nobody is ââ?¬Å?wasting” your tax money on this. The people in the AGs office are salaried and the only real complaint you could make is that their time would be spent better elsewhere. (which is a legitamate beef.)
If the Attorney General's office has surplus lawyers and support staff to engage in frivolous investigations without merit, then they are obviously overfunded and should look to reduce their workforce.

Old timer... nobody is "wasting" your tax money on this. The people in the AGs office are salaried and the only real complaint you could make is that their time would be spent better elsewhere. (which is a legitamate beef.)

The AG asked for a broad scope because people hide things. Especailly words that can be hidden in emails.He also needs to see trends and context in his findings. If Mann had examined ALL the evidence he would not have had to revise his Hockey stick. (perhaps the AGs investigation will show that Manns behavior was flat and then accelerated like a hockey stick with the referenced grant)The judge rightfully forced the AG to be more specific and he is attempting to comply.

UVA on the other hand spent 352k on outsourced Lawyers to argue a "no brainer" in court for an hour. I suppose that since it is so open and shut they got ripped off by about 340k. Perhaps they should ask the AG for help with that obvious possibility of misuse of state funds.

I want to live in a state that protects the taxpayers from people who believe they are above the law which in this instance is UVA wanting to protect its grant system, not by being open honest and transparent, but by claiming that they have no obligation to prove they are acting with the utmost integrity.

You don't KNOW that Mann is innocent. You are just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt regardless of the allegations that have been made. You are not the AG. He was elected to his position to do whatever he feels is in the best interest of those who will reelect him and within the confines of the state Constitution and laws. The Judge has given him those limits and we will see if he complied.

Bill M,

"Evidence has come forth that shows probale cause that he may have committed a crime by misusing reasearch funds."

If that were true, then the AG would not have needed such a broad scope to try and find evidence.He would have been able to make the narrow request for exactly what he needed, and why.

The fact that he can't is because it's not there.

I resent that you want to waste my tax money on something like this, instead of using it to investigate things being done in the State currently.

The crux of the matter, and the reason that people are alarmed at Cuccinelli's actions is that he's using his office and Virginia's justice system to wage a political battle.

If you think Mann's science is wrong, then do the work and write a paper refuting it.

If you think he's committed fraud, then plainly state your reasons and evidence. (He was NOT able to this with the first CID, according to judge Peatross, so one wonders whether he will be able to this time. Apparently pointing at criticisms of Mann's prior work doesn't suffice.)

If this is allowed to go forward, then any Attorney General can dig up any 'evidence,' however flimsy and trumped up, to investigate and harass his political enemies. An abuse of office if ever there were one.

The internet is full of people who claim all manner of thing like say that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth II are members of a "secret" group called the Babylonian Brotherhood.

That brotherhood is supposed to be composed of reptilian humanoids who come from a planet located in the constellation Draco. The are claimed to have control of numerous earth governments. Oh, and they are from the fourth dimension too!

Here's a whole website full of "proof!" Must be true then, right?

Did you know that the problem of perpetual motion had been solved long ago? Just goggle "alternative physics" to read about how mainstream science and media conspire to keep those secrets hidden. Thank God we have alternatives to that awful MSM these days!

Don't forget to drop back by when you're done and lets talk about that bridge I still have for sale. Real cheap, but for a limited time only and just for you!

The internet is full of people who make claims that Mr Mann has committed fraudulent acts.
Well, if people make a claim on the internet, then it MUST be true. I think that we can also safely assume that the Holocaust never happened and that the moons landings were hoaxes. After all, plenty of websites make those claims.

Not everyone who disagrees with him is a charleton.
Yes, but very few of them can spell "charlatan."

The internet is full of people who make claims that Mr Mann has committed fraudulent acts. A lot of scholars did not find his errors "technical" they found them severly flawed. Simply google his name and read all of the entires. Not everyone who disagrees with him is a charleton.

deleted by moderator

Charlie, I would completely support an investigation if credible evidence of fraud, deception, manipulation, or even excessive secrecy existed. It doesn't. Mann's work has been examined by numerous expert committees. They have found minor technical errors in his work but have found his research and conclusions to be reasonable. Other scholars may have somewhat different opinions than Mann, but the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that Cucc's investigation is inappropriate.

I'm still waiting for anyone to show evidence that a crime has been committed.

Pretty simple request and every single one of Cuccinelli's supporters have failed to comply.

It's odd that they would support an investigation when they cannot provide a scintilla of evidence that a crime has even taken place.

This is America and I, for one, do not believe the government should be allowed to investigate American citizens if no crime has been committed. It is sad that there are Americans that do not agree with this and will investigate a scientist because they find the results of his research to be inconvenient.

Thank God for the Constitution of the United States of America!!

I think the point is that perhaps Mr Mann has a bias and an agenda when he should not. The evidence should be the determining factor and it should not be "hidden" or "manipulated" to achieve self serving results as has been alleged by some of Mr Manns peers.

Manipulating the results would be a fraudulent act and thus a crime.

If Mr. Cuccinelli wants to see all of the emails (for context,I imagine) then I thihk it is not a bad thing.

I think the "case closed" reference should have been "settled science" and I think that while global warming is less in dispute the "man made" portion is still up for debate.

@Bill ââ?¬Å?knew or should have known” that driving while texting could lead to an accident”Š”Š".

What an incredibly obtuse thing to say. You really can't draw a distinction between errors in a scientific paper and common sense every day life situations?

I'm sure that studies and papers are improved upon, made more specific, corrected or even disproven all the time as new studies, methodolgies and evidence come to light. But by your rationale (and Cuccinelli's), someone who published a paper which was later proven to be incomplete or have an error has committed fraud, regardless of intent. He/she simply "should have known."

Did you list that paper in your resume for a job application years ago? Sorry, you're fired, and you're lucky we don't press charges.

Did you apply for a state grant in 2001? Well, you published a flawed paper years before, so you're obviously a criminal. Let's get the State Attorney General's office to investigate this Very Serious Crime. What? You didn't use that paper in the grant application process? Well, details, details. You don't understand. We are not following evidence to a conclusion. We already have our conclusion and are looking for supporting evidence.

If a new drug helps 70% of the patients it is not the ââ?¬Å?Cure” it is a treatment.
What bizarre thinking. If most new drugs help 70% of patients, then they are usually considered to be incredibly effective. I have never heard of your distinction between "cure" and "treatment" in scientific discussion. Drugs with 100% success rates are virtually nonexistent.

If Manns work implies global warming is man made but only ââ?¬Å?almost” it means that it is not ââ?¬Å?case closed”
As CookieJar suggests, you really don't understand the scientific process. Scientists generally deal with probabilities and discard theories that are improbable. Many of the claims that you have presented have been discredited in the scientific literature, but you don't seem to be acquainted with the scientific literature.

Bill, the argument presented in that link is that Mann's conclusions were incorrect. That is in no way an argument that he committed fraud. The author doesn't even hint at that.

You admit to not being a lawyer. It doesn't seem that you are a scientist either or even understand what they do. I think it's a rare scientist that would say "case closed." Mr. Mann has analyzed data and found certain tends were indicated by that data. He may (or may not) have chosen irrelevant data, collected it in error prone ways, made errors in calculation, drawn insufficiently well thought out conclusions, or more, all without having once committed fraud.

The test for those faults of methodology or thought in the scientific world is to publish and have one's work considered by one's peers. It is proper and expected that one might encounter criticism when one does that. The fact that such criticism exists is not evidence of fraud, rather it is evidence of a healthy system that allows each side to present the argument it wishes to make. The Attorney General's suit is an attempt to silence through intimidation one side of this particular debate. The University is right to resist allowing him to establish such a chilling precedent for the damage that it would do to the University's primary function, which is to foster thought and debate.

Your reference to "political agendas" is a curious one since this whole Cuccinelli show is based on a purely political agenda which doesn't seem to bother you. On the other hand, if political agendas determine how grant money is distributed, why would it have even been necessary for Mann to engage in fraud to get such a grant? Why then is the Attorney General not pursuing those who give the money rather than one who got it?

Here is a comprehensive argument that is worth reading but I am sure that the close minded among you will call it prejudiced because it does not agree with your opinion.

to yes:but "almost all of them supported the IPCC" notice the word "almost" How many times does an experiment have to fail to be be proven inconclusive? If a new drug helps 70% of the patients it is not the "Cure" it is a treatment. If Manns work implies global warming is man made but only "almost" it means that it is not "case closed"

I want the AG to look into Grants. This is an issue that has been going on for a long time. I and many friends have heard of anctecdodal evidence and the circumstantial evidence is all around showing grants based on politcal agendas. (which is what all the naysayers are so upset about)

Not all Preiests molest little boys but that does not mean that it should not have been investigated on the rumors we have all heard about out entire lives.

We will see what happens. I am not a lawyer. I just believe that if the IRS can ask any question they want about what I did with my money than the AG should be able to ask Mann what he did with his share of my money.

Bill, I think you are confused. Mann is not accused of distorting results with grant money. As far as I know no one disputes the paper produced by the grant. Cuccinelli is investigating whether or not Mann engaged in fraud in order to procure the grant money itself. He does so by a rather convoluted process, which makes me question his motives.

I also doubt your claim about the hockey stick as being debunked. I believe the NAS re-affirmed the graph a couple of years ago. I'm open to new information, but please, no type blogs.

There is indeed a reason UVA is resisting the CID, and it's very simple: you don't give in to a bully's demands. Did you read the scope of the demand? Does that seem like a reasonable request? It's a grant from 2001 (2 years before FATA), and has nothing at all to do with the Hockey Stick. It is interesting how this whole affair compliments Cuccinelli's political ideology and aspirations however, which of course is what's really driving it.

Again, Bill, can't cite a credible source but just assumes that the "hockey stick graph" has been debunked. It hasn't.

"More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century. There have also been disputes about the use of Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine tree rings as temperature proxies ââ?¬â? the National Research Council report recommends that ââ?¬Å?strip-bark” samples be avoided for temperature reconstructions[9] ââ?¬â?? but the same "hockey stick" graph is found in studies which do not use tree ring proxies."

"knew or should have known" that driving while texting could lead to an accident........

I believe that Mann is not above attempting to enhance his reputation. Regardless of some of the people on this blogs point of view his hockey stick has been debunked many times over. The simplest debunking is that his original hockey stick was based on tree rings in North America, which has two obvious flaws. North America is not the world and tree rings are reflective of the annual growth season and available moisture and light, NOT year round temperatures.

I believe that the AG is of the opinion that Mann distorted results for these very reasons and if he did so with grant funds that is a crime.

I still believe the bigger issue is accountability for people who suck the government teat for grant money and then want to be above reproach when asked for details about whether or not they used the funds as promised. There is a reason UVA is witholding and protecting a guy that left there years ago.

Bill, are you being deliberately obtuse? Mann's methods, data, and code are readily available.

The burden of proof of the one remaining grant is astoundingly weak.

The grant named in the CID is "Resolving the scale-wise sensitivities in the dynamical coupling between the climate and biosphere." The two Mann papers that Cuccinelli uses as evidence of fraud, MBH98 and MBH99, are not referred to within nor used in application for the grant in question. Mann was not even the Principal Investigator.

So it seems in order to allege fraud, we have to believe the following is worthy of suspicion: Mann authored two controversial papers, which increased his reputation as a climate scientist. His reputation then assisted in the grant application process, which led to the grant. So if there was fraud perpetrated in the MBH98 & MBH99 papers, it led to the fraudulent award of $214k.

Also, the purported fraud is defined by the fact that Mann "knew or should have known" that his original papers were misleading. "Should have known"? We can now equate intentional fraud with unintentional mistakes? (I'm not claiming there were errors, by the way, but fraud would seem to imply intent to deceive, not sloppy work or inadvertent errors).

Simply amazing.

" The government has to prove you guilty. The constitution protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures. "

The key word here is "unwarranted"

The AG believes his search is warranted and UVA thinks not. THe Judge agreed with UVA but left the door open for refiling which the the AG has done.

If the Judge allows it to go forward based on the law will I still be wrong or will your "understanding" of the law make you right?

An innocent person accused of rape is under no legal obligation to give an alibi. If he simply chooses not to and then is investigated because of some hearsay evidence then that is the way the system works. If he would simnply give an alibi it could all go away. If he wants to stand on principal then taking the heat is part of living in a democratic society.

I guess one question is what research Mann cited to get that one grant. Regardless, the judge made clear that Cucc had no right to ask for all of the emails between Mann and other climate scientists that had no relation to the grant.

BM: "UVA can possibly prove him innocent but chooses not to."

Obviously you don't know how the law works in the United States of America. In America you do not have to prove your innocence. The government has to prove you guilty. The constitution protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures.

Don't like it? Take it up with the founding fathers.

It's not a difference of "opinion". It's a difference in knowledge of both the facts and the law. Your opinions appear to be based on a limited and erroneous understanding of the law and no knowledge of the actual facts of the case.

This explains why you are on Cuccinelli's side on this issue.

No, Bill, everyone including the judge believes that the attorney general has the authority by statute to investigate potential fraud involving state funds.

Most people including the judge realize, however, that no evidence of fraud has been presented. Why don't you present some from a reputable source (any one of the numerous expert committees that has looked at Mann's work, for example)?

If the one Virginia grant dealt only with the report on the grasslands in Africa's effect on ? (global warming?)(just skimming over the D.P. newspaper article so I could be wrong on what this one report is) C would have to show Peatross obvious fraud from this one Va. funded report. If the the hockey stick graph etc is not in this one Va. funded report I doubt if Peatross will spend much of his time going over the hockey stick talking points again.

Bill Marshall,

"He did not show the public his methods"

That is not true. His methods were available to the public, through the standard methods that all scientific jounrals make them available.

But I know you are a business person who thinks the development of Albemarle County is great, because all those fictitious half acre businesses paying 50k a year salaries are collecting lots of withholding, so everyone else should subsidize the water.

Why am I not surprised you want to excuse a witch hunt for another bunch of fictitious claims?

It's as if Cuccinelli and his team didn't even read the first ruling. In it, Peatross clearly states that:

"If the CIDs were allowed to go forward, this request would be limited to correspondence, emails, messages, etc. to or from Dr. Mann that relate to any information, materials or documents contained in the application for the 2001 U.Va internal grant and any information, materials, or documents provided by or to Dr. Mann that relates to approval or payment of any funds to him at any time under the grant until it ended."

But what does Cuccinelli do? He requests the exact same set of documents spanning an eight-year period including emails sent to/received by Mann to/from/about 40 or so people, without regard to the relation to "information, materials or documents contained in the application." In fact, the only difference I can see between the two "Documents to be produced" sections is that the plural "grants" has become the singular "grant."

This is the Commonwealth's foremost legal official? This is an embarrassment.

We can only hope that one day the AG will have to explain (FOIA perhaps?) how much of Virginia's money and time he spent on his political fishing expedition.

I don't care if Mann was studying Global Warming or the mating habits of ex presidents from arkansas. Evidence has come forth that shows probale cause that he may have committed a crime by misusing reasearch funds. The Judge threw it out as too broad and the AG has refiled hopefully within the letter of the law.

I think the difference of opinion here is whether the AG has the right (responsibility?) to root out fraud. I think he does. If he does so in a partisan way then don't vote for him. What he is doing is certainly within the scope of his job.

UVA is apparently of the opinion that they should not be accountable or have to answer for the people who use taxpayer money under their watch. I believe that they are mistaken and I hope the AG proves them wrong.

If a busnesss owner has to show his books to the irs both state and federal and account for every penny then so should a researcher. If the resercher was given the money to do honest research and manipulated the data in any way while using taxpayer money he misused the funds. That is a crime.

UVA can possibly prove him innocent but chooses not to. I think they are trying to protect a much larger misuse of funds and are afraid of a gigantic nationwide scandal that would cut out millions of dollars in grant money.

Anybody with a lick of common sense knows that misuse is out there. Why should these researchers get a pass?

Sam, they sneakly have people employed as "clerks" in the court that help the activist, biased judges understand the cases in front of them. The packet you viewed may well have been prepared by one of these gummint burrowcrats!! Heavans to Betsy I smell a rat!!!

I had to file something at the Courthouse and the C. vs. Uva file was sitting next to the file date stamper. Before the first ruling someone sent the Judge (and no copy to the attorneys of either side) a big packet of Mann's published works with Cliff notes written off to the side "and you need to understand" "and here's the hockey graph" etc. Peatross is going to rule if its legal to issue this CID he doesn't need 3rd outside parties sending in Cliff notes on Mann's work.

Oh, and Bill, you can keep saying that random numbers produce the hockey stick pattern, but your claim has been repeatedly disproved:

Bill, you have no idea what you're talking about. Mann's data and code are readily available. His work has been repeatedly examined by expert committees and they have never found evidence of fraud. Why don't you cite material from a reputable source such as the National Research Council report?

It is a real shaun. I mean "shame" that UVA buries their head and does not support the South Rising Again like Herr Doktor Cuccy desires.
I am sure that you all are real americans like me and hate intellectuals and such. "I went down to the crossroads GPS"...

It is easy to claim the AG is a bully. It is a little harder to explain why Academics feel they are above the law. There is nothing wrong with asking for accountability. Mann was not exonerated by submitting proof; he was exonerated by a university that wanted the problem to disappear and received a direct benefit from that disappearance. He did not show the public his methods and has never explined how when random numbers from a phone book were entered into his program the results always came up the same.

Probable cause contains evidence that a crime "may" have been committed. The emails and the lame explantions meet that standard.

We will see what happens.

The AG is not a bully. Mann is the one who took taxpayer money, came up with a conclusion and then doesn't want to show his work except to people who have a vested interest in continuing the money flow. Mann is the one who claimed he has 4 aces. Show the cards. A real Scientist would see the benefit of proving things in the court of public opinion since it would be public opinion that would force the politicians to pass laws to save the planet.

Accountability should have been put out there as soon as the email scandal broke. The AG shouldn't have even had to get involved. Unfortunately UVA prefers to bury their head in the sand while lacrosse players commit murders, women are raped, the endowment loses billions etc.

They always circle the wagons and do nothing else until it is too little too late. Now they are wasting money instead of cooperating. I think when the truth gets out they are hiding something. It may not even be Manns work. It might be the tip of the iceberg with all the other grants.

Time will tell.

Bill Marshall is back with the same arguements which mainly boil down to the University should just give in. That's like the bully telling the kid he is beating up to just lie down and take it. If the bully doesn't damage the victim seriously, that proves the victims point that there should not have been a fight to begin with.

This is not the society we live in nor should it be the society we live in. We've brought these comments to Mr. Marshall several times, but he just ignores them and repeats the same argument. It seems he doesn't want to think through what he advocates on how others should act. Fortunately he is not the one to decide and the University will again defend itself against the Attorney Generals baseless attacks.

The link he provides many snarky comments and unsubstaniated opinions. It might go hand in glove with the Attorney Generals argument, but it falls way short of an argument for probable cause. Probable cause contains evidence a crime may have been committed, not speculation that one may have been committed. Nothing in this article supports the former and most in this article supports the later.

I read the account of the judges ruling. He quite pointedly said the Attorney General failed to provide evidence a crime was committed that the University could provide documents to support or deny. Fairly bluntly he said there was no probable cause.

Eli - Seems there is a scandal brewing at George Mason. Another example of an uneven hand in the administration of the law under the Attorney General. The Attorney General seems to be playing a game of cowboys and indians were he gives a pass to those on his side (who are likely cowboys) and goes after the other team (who are likely indians). This game might be interesting sport if he were not elected to administer the office of Attorney General with the responsibility to oversee enforcement of the law for all citizens of the state.

Frankly, why AG Cuccinelli is doing this is beyond Eli, especially when there is a real scandal at his alma mater, George Mason University, where multiple PhD theses contain plagiarized sections and it has been shown that a senior academic plagiarized in a report to Congress which DID have policy implications. The administration at GMU has stuck its head firmly into the sand.

Eli refers, of course, to Edward Wegman, who simply copied sections out of a book by Ray Bradley (one of the people he was trying to trash) and then twisted Bradley's conclusions. You can get details at

Bill, why don't you cite credible sources such as the National Research Council report on subject?

Hey that's "American Thinker", so you know it's a reliable source of knowledge. Man there's even stuff about scientific method in that hamfisted pedantic presentation style that tells one that this author has read a thing or two. And he references articles by Science Daily, where "Hostess Cakes" are advertised. This is heavyweight intellectual stuff. Back off.

The article cleary points out that there was deception and misreprsentation. His cohorts came to aid and said his lies were irrelevant to what they purport to be the "fact" of global warming.

THe AG is unwilling to take their word for it and wants to see for himself. UVA is stonewalling instead of showing the proof.

The AG is going back to court to try and secure the info within the confines of the law. We will see if he accomplishes that when it gets back to court.

This is about global warming for some and partisan politcs for others when it really should be about accountability from those who receive taxpayer money regardless of the issue.

If UVA just gave in and proved him wrong he would be disgraced and learn his lesson. (unless of course they are collaborators and helping hide malfeaseance)

I would like to see the legislature force UVA and all Universities to be more transparent with grant money. The Freedom Of Information Act was enacted for a reason.

here is a good link that shows some reasonable probale cause..

that article presents absolutely no evidence of a crime having been committed, nor does it purport to. what is its relevance?

Indeed. Why didn't the AG simply send an email to the judge with the link embedded? That appears to be good enough for billmarshall.

Oh wait, I know! The difference is that the judge actually has to rule on the law while billmarshall is free to have whatever crackpot opinion he wants based on some webpage somewhere.

Looks like my advice to not be fooled was too late. billmarshall was fooled long ago and, as a result, is solidly in AG Kookinelli's corner.

Oh wait, I know! The difference is that the judge actually has to rule on the law while billmarshall is free to have whatever crackpot opinion he wants based on some webpage somewhere.
Ha, ha, ha! The other funny thing is that the judge repeatedly asked the attorney from Cucc's office for some evidence of fraud during oral arguments and the attorney kept pointing to the type of information cited by billmarshall and presented by the AG's office in their brief. And the judge kept saying that he had read and considered all of this information but none of it suggested any indication of fraud.

Bill, FOIA only applies to a federal agency. A state university or its researchers are not a federal agency no matter how many grants they get.

It's amusing that Cucc's followers continually believe that obviously crackpot and/or ideologically driven websites are more reliable sources of information than NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Science, or the National Research Council.


did the AG issue a FOIA request? What this article is about is a CID.

So you're of the opinion that a government official should be able to investigate whomever he/she wants without having to present any evidence that an actual crime has been committed?

And where do you get the idea that Cuccinelli would be "disgraced" if he were proven wrong? You really believe this isn't just posturing on his part?

The Attorney General's case was dismissed a month ago. Was he "disgraced" by that?

Don't be fooled.

DW: "This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults."
He's able; he *chooses* not to.

HS: "The University has tapped into private funds to cover the $352,874.76 in legal fees it has thus far incurred..."
UVA doesn't have its own legal staff? It spends over a third of a million on outsourced lawyers? At least it's a more useful expenditure than 47,000 T-shirts...

At what point do the guys with white coats come take to a more comfortable room where he can avoid injuring himself?

But it advances Cucc's political career by impressing his reactionary base.

How much money does this man need to waste on things that don't help Virginia advance at all?

I suppose with the same lack of evidence he presented at the last court hearing...

This CID law is a bad law in the hands of someone unable to see its faults. Such a combination inevitably leads to an abuse of power. The law should be repealed as quickly as possible.

It is not just this bad law that is to fault. The Attorney General again goes too far and enforces the law with an uneven hand. Speaking as a taxpayer, we deserve better.

Several investigations of the e-mails show no illegalities related remotely to the Commonwealths tax laws, yet the Attorney General goes after them. These e-mails were made public by individuals who stole them from a private e-mail system. The Attorney General makes no effort to prosecute these individuals for this theft commonly referred to as "hacking".

Enough is enough. It's time the Attorney General represent the people of Virginia rather than his own personal opinions. Time for him to drop this case, end the politically motivated witch-hunts, and serve all the people in Virginia, not just the ones who agree with him.

Cucc is an embarrassment.

....perhaps Penn State, and the UK don't have access to the records from UVA.... perhaps they didn't ask for them because they were uninterested in a negative outcome (for them)......

So charlie, you are saying that to satisfy your doubts (despite proven investigations and panels), the state of Virginia should waste hundreds of thousands of dollars? Should the state of Florida demand NASA records and emails in order to satisfy their doubts about the moon landing?

"Oh, the UVA emails MIGHT show something... oh you never know... things could happen... Penn State?... right they don't have the scientific knowledge and expertise clearly... I mean the UK government had access to all the East Anglia Records... but not the UVA RECORDS!!!! FRAUD!!!!"


And then: Where is Cuccinelli finding his basis for fraud if there is no corroborations from the other panels that had already investigated these incidents thoroughly? Sure, if Penn State disciplined Mann, Cuccinelli can go for it. If UK found evidences of fraud, Cuccinelli can celebrate and pounce on the case. Except... there has been no findings of fraud anywhere.


Public servants using the the time of salaried employees to make a second run on something that has already been thrown out of court IS wasting taxpayer money.

We have banks committing fraud in home foreclosures. It's out there, and it's big. If those homes are in Virginia, Cucc has something he really can go after to protect Virginians for something FAR more immediate to their wellbeing.

Let's see if he does. Or if he just ignores it, because the right wing loves to protect big banks that commit fraud.

Edward Wegman lawyers up As they say about glass universities


I wasn't calling the Attorney General a bully, although I see how You came to that conclusion. I am glad you at least acknowledged the comment which is more than you usually do.

I was drawing a paralel between your advice to the University to "just give in" and a bully's advice to just give in. Some might say I was calling you a bully, but it is not you who brings pain to the University. I recognise the paralel does not fit for this reason. In the sense that you encourage the Attorney General to misuse a bad law. I think you can be, in some way, taken to task.

To my critic,

Earlier I said this was a bad law in the hands of someone who is unable to see its' faults. Someone responded that he chooses not to see its faults. I leave few comments about this exchange.

I ask the Attorney General to act within the context of evidence. I will do the same in my critique of his conduct in office. So far I haven't seen any evidence he examined the law in any kind of thoughtful manner. Therefore I will remain with the statement he is unable, likely because of his personal biases, to see the faults of this law. I will grant if all the facts were in, there remains a significant possibility my critic had the correct interpretation.

Jay-J points out part of the ruling that states the very limited scope a CID could carry forward if allowed. The judge also said the Attorney General did not present any evidence a crime was committed that the University may or may not have documents that confirm or deny. There you have it: very limited scope, but no probable cause. It's the no probable cause part the Attorney General did not read.

Maybe it's his personal biases, maybe it's his vanity, but the Attorney General is unable to see his efforts are at a dead end. He might try investigating the hackers and get the e-mails that way, but the trail of evidence might not be direct and he likely does not have jurisdiction. Seems time to drop the case and go on to something else, but the Attorney General seems unable to do that either.

I do not dispute that the AG may be pushing the envelope to fit his agenda. However, I believe his agenda is two fold. First, is to make sure Mann did not defraud the WORLD with deceptive and self serving conclusions as have been alleged by some people with strong credentials, and secondly to make it so the academic community is held properly accountable to the taxpayers when living off of taxpayer money. Acceptable Peer review of the conclusions does not mean there was not abuse of the grant money. I don't think that a researcher has to stuff money in the freezer to be a crook. If they activly and knowingly made claims based on their tests while ignoring other facts in order to satisfy their personal bias then they have committed fraud. If they did so in cohorts with others then that is conspiracy.

If person A commits a crime and askes person B to be his alibi in an email then that email is relevant. That is why police ask judges for subpena power. It is up to a judge to determine whether or not probable cause exists.

I am content to let the judge rule. The last hearing defined the scope that he would allow. We will see if the Ag managed to stay within thise restrictions. If he has then good for him.

I want UVA to start being acountable for something. They stonewall about rapes too. If the AG wanted emails to find out who at UVA knew what with regard the lacrosse murder would everyone hate him so much?

Bill Marshall,

Let's address the two agendas that you believe Cuccinelli has (besides the pandering to the neoconservatives base... but I digress)

1. Cuccinelli has the authority to use Virginian taxpayer money to ensure that Mann's results satisfy his beliefs? Let us be clear here. Mann's techniques and results have been cleared of any fraud by both scientists and laymen in the United States and the United Kingdom. Cuccinelli does not have any basis of fraud besides claims by "experts on the internet" that have been debunked. You can certainly argue about Mann's ways of using the data, but you cannot claim fraud on his techniques.

2. So via your second claim, you believe that scientists have to address taxpayers' beliefs when they conduct their research? Somehow, because 30% of taxpayers believe in global cooling, 40% believe in global warming, the scientist has to fit his paper into this category? There are plenty of reasons to keep politics out of science.

Who are you to say what are facts and what aren't? Copernicus did not consider the facts from the church when he made the claim that the Earth rotated around the Sun. You are making very bland conclusions about scientific facts when so much are still unknown, especially in the field of climate science. The truth of the matter is that the facts in science are always in flux. You accuse Mann of using personal bias in writing the paper, but do you not also have personal bias in accusing Mann of fraud? Would that not satisfy your convictions and beliefs about global warming? Should science be forced to follow the conscious of the ruler, or in this case the attorney general? Should the University of Virginia be banned from doing climate science, simply because they know that Cuccinelli would be dogging them if they try?

UVA certainly has certain grounds to improve upon. Relinquishing academic freedom to the force of politics is not one of them.

Cuccinelli is wasting a lot of tax dollars on the persuit of a anti-science balloon inflated by some media egos and "skeptics" with dubious links to the fossil fuel industry.

This is not about the science of global warming at all. It's a farce. It's just about Cuccinelli playing politics, showing a growing group of anti-science populous that he is "doing something about these scientists".

Very concerning development..