# Cuccinelli vs Science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307 "2010-05-04T18:05:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/21 "2010-05-05T00:02:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t see anything in the article to suggest that the basis for the investigation is that he doesn’t like the conclusions or that the conclusions are wrong. Well, there was this– > [@](#): > > The actions by Cuccinelli (R) – who has sued the federal government over its regulation of greenhouse gases and has become a leading national voice in alleging that scientists have skewed data to show evidence the Earth is warming – were cheered by those on the right, who have long targeted Mann as a leading proponent of the theory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/22 "2010-05-05T00:11:50Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Well, there was this– That line suggests that the action is in his political interests, and consistent with his beliefs. It is silent on what the basis for the action is. That is, does he have some good-faith basis for investigating fraud here? I don’t know. I have a guess, but I can’t adduce any evidence, other than “everyone knows.” And despite my snark of a moment ago, I’ll share my guess: there’s probably some razor-thin discrepancy, along the lines of, “The grant application clearly requires that the original and two copies be provided, and Dr. Whosis failed to provide the original.” And based on that, some de minimis technicality, he’s taking the opportunity to launch this subpoena, hoping he’ll find something juicier. But guessing that, and KNOWING that, are quite different. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/23 "2010-05-05T00:17:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Asshole. How utterly typical. You can’t even use invectives in an original or entertaining way. You should know, as well as everyone else, what this is; just another example of Cooch’s using his position to further his political party’s position. Yet, despite common sense, despite his history smacking you in the face, and despite the already completed investigation into Mann’s actions, you insist on defending Cooch. If it wasn’t so completely like you being an apologist whore, I’d be sad. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/24 "2010-05-05T00:52:17Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > How utterly typical. You can’t even use invectives in an original or entertaining way. > > You should know, as well as everyone else, what this is; just another example of Cooch’s using his position to further his political party’s position. Yet, despite common sense, despite his history smacking you in the face, and despite the already completed investigation into Mann’s actions, you insist on defending Cooch. If it wasn’t so completely like you being an apologist whore, I’d be sad. You see what you want to see. I have done two things here: (1) Acknowledged that the clear probability is that this is politically motivated and without any but a pretextual basis; and (2) pointed out that this is supposition and not proof. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/25 "2010-05-05T01:00:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > How utterly typical. You can’t even use invectives in an original or entertaining way. And of course I could have composed a long paragraph full of “goat felching;” accusing you of sexual congress with barnyard animals and rodents, suggesting that your parents met only briefly at a Chicago house of prostitution, claiming that you suffered from permanant erectile dysfunction, and that these disadvantages somehow rendered your opinion on this subject less than fully reliable. But you don’t really deserve any of that garbage. But you did deserve a single appellation of ‘asshole,’ and that’s what you got. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/26 "2010-05-05T01:30:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You see what you want to see. The “funny” thing is that we actually see the same thing. There is a “clear probability” (I would go further, because, well, I’m in touch with reality) that the investigation is politically motivated and without any but pretextual basis. Cooch’s past actions, the prior investigations into Mann’s conduct, and common sense all tell us that. But you insist on further proof, as if he’ll admit it or that there’s a top secret super information that will come to our attention any day now. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have done two things here: (1) Acknowledged that the clear probability is that this is politically motivated and without any but a pretextual basis; and (2) pointed out that this is supposition and not proof. And called me an asshole. You left that out. It’s the same old thing with you. Deep, deep, deep inside of you is a rational human being, unblinded by politics, that was, and could be again, a very interesting person to debate issues with. But that being has been strangled and tied up, bound by the chains of political bias, contrary-ness, talking points, and perceived SDMB victimhood. That Bricker wouldn’t immediately come to the defense of Cooch, wouldn’t ignore the evidence to assert there isn’t any reason to Pit him for this. Oh for the halycon days of old… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/27 "2010-05-05T01:44:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …And despite my snark of a moment ago, I’ll share my guess:..But guessing that, and KNOWING that, are quite different. Basically, you think pretty much the same thing as we do, but you are fiercely anxious to keep the cognitive and phenomenological distinctions sharply in focus? And you offer us a good solid scolding for failing to recognize that precise distinction? Really? That’s it? Whats got a burr under your saddle is that somebody said “know” when they should have said “guess”? OK, look, if you tell me that’s it, that’s what this is about, and its that damned important to you…I’ll pretend to believe it, out of respect. But you’re pushing the limits there. Guys I don’t respect that much, I’d be loading the snark cannon with unseemly glee. 'Cause, cousin, this is a big fat snark target, and self-restraint is not one of my favorite virtues. Modesty. That’s my favorite… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/28 "2010-05-05T08:29:53Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And called me an asshole. You left that out. > [@Bricker](#): > > But you don’t really deserve any of that garbage. But you did deserve a single appellation of ‘asshole,’ and that’s what you got. No, I didn’t. > [@](#): > > It’s the same old thing with you. Deep, deep, deep inside of you is a rational human being, unblinded by politics, that was, and could be again, a very interesting person to debate issues with. But that being has been strangled and tied up, bound by the chains of political bias, contrary-ness, talking points, and perceived SDMB victimhood. What you call “SDMB victmhood” I see as an implicit demand that I behave reasonably while my opponents are free to do as they please. I must fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the other side gets to do whatever the hell they want. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/29 "2010-05-05T08:32:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Basically, you think pretty much the same thing as we do, but you are fiercely anxious to keep the cognitive and phenomenological distinctions sharply in focus? And you offer us a good solid scolding for failing to recognize that precise distinction? > > Really? That’s it? Whats got a burr under your saddle is that somebody said “know” when they should have said “guess”? Not exactly. The burr comes from the fact that attacks on the left are met with “prove it,” and a response of “everybody knows” is laughed at. But, hey, the moment it’s a target on the right, then suddenly “everybody knows” is plenty good enough. And I guess it is, if “everybody” is “the SDMB.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/30 "2010-05-05T10:46:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not exactly. The burr comes from the fact that attacks on the left are met with “prove it,” and a response of “everybody knows” is laughed at. > > But, hey, the moment it’s a target on the right, then suddenly “everybody knows” is plenty good enough. And I guess it is, if “everybody” is “the SDMB.” Well, as his main target (Michel Mann) has been exonerated several times of wrongdoing regarding his work, I’m of the opinion that the evidence is against Cuccinelli, when one realizes that, one has to conclude that a fishing expedition is afoot. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the\_republican\_war\_on\_science.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/the_republican_war_on_science.php) > [@](#): > > Cuccinelli isn’t just asking for documents relating to his research grants but all correspondence Mann had with Caspar Ammann, Raymond Bradley, Keith Briffa, John Christy, Edward Cook, Thomas Crowley, Roseanne D’Arrigo, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, David Douglass, Jan Esper, Melissa Free, Chris de Freitas, Vincent Grey [sic], James Hack, Malcolm Hughes, Eystein Jansen, Phil Jones, Thomas Karl, Otto Kinne, A.T.J de Laat, Murari Lal, Stephen Mackwell, Glenn McGregor, Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Michaels, Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, Roger Pielke Jr, Benjamin Santer, Gavin Schmidt, Stephen Schneider, Olga Solomina, Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth, Eugene Wahl, Edward Wegman, Thomas Wigley, Vincent Gray [again!] and all RAs, secretaries, and administrative staff at the University of Virginia. As well as all correspondence that references anyone in the list above. > > Eli Rabett picks up comments from Chip Knappenberger, who is appalled, and S Fred Singer who is gloating. See also Coby Beck. > > Update: To his credit, Steve McIntyre separates himself from Anthony Watts with a forthright condemnation of Cuccinelli. Commenters at Climate Audit seem disappointed. > > Update 2: Tom comes up with some, err, interesting spin: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > while skeptics and lukewarmers are defending Mann, those on his side seem ready and willing to throw him under the bus > > > > ``` > > You see, Mann hasn’t posted about the matter on RealClimate, so obviously Mann must be throwing Mann under the bus. Fuller pretends that I’m the only one on Mann’s side posting in his defence even though this post links to posts from Eli Rabett and Coby Beck. Fuller also missed posts from PZ Myers, Mike the Mad Biologist, Chris Mooney, Thers, Ben Hale, Steve Benen, Phil Plait and Ed Darrell. Back in 2006 the National Research Council did look and even then there was no evidence of anything fraudulent. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas\_report\_on\_hockey\_stick\_rel.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel.php) > [@](#): > > David Appell: > > > [@](#): > > > > This should finally put an official end to the silliness that’s gone on for the last few years. I don’t doubt that McIntyre will continue to bloviate, but journalists especially now have no reason to give him any traction. > > Roger Pielke Jr.: > > > [@](#): > > > > My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. > > Coby Beck: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Well, the report is out and it seems to be a fairly strong vindication of Mann et al. There is some more fuzzy language that will surely be seized apon by some but there is certainly nothing to support the allegations of errors, omissions and frauds that had been thrown around. The main conclusion is that many other studies support these same findings and that this is not a central issue in the present and future of climate change. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/31 "2010-05-05T12:53:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Back in 2006 the National Research Council did look and even then there was no evidence of anything fraudulent. > [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas\_report\_on\_hockey\_stick\_rel.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/nas_report_on_hockey_stick_rel.php) I’ll happily accept correction on this impression, but this link seems to indicate that the result of Mann’s research are proper, and confirmed. My understanding of what Cuccinelli claims to be asking for now is evidence of fraud in Mann’s grant applications, as opposed to the end product of his work. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/32 "2010-05-05T13:33:44Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > He has some tenuous evidence to suggest that the evidence to secure the funding was false or misleading. The article gives no indication that any such evidence exists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/33 "2010-05-05T13:51:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’ll happily accept correction on this impression, but this link seems to indicate that the result of Mann’s research are proper, and confirmed. > > My understanding of what Cuccinelli claims to be asking for now is evidence of fraud in Mann’s grant applications, as opposed to the end product of his work. That is at best just a fig leaf offered by him. From the article in the OP: > [@](#): > > In an interview, Cuccinelli said the request is part of an “open inquiry” into whether there were “knowing inconsistencies” made by Mann as he sought taxpayer dollars to fund research. By the time Mann was asking for grants, there was a need to expand what by then were very incomplete reconstructions of past climate, so this accusation is baseless; one also has to use some common sense, it is very unlikely that anything fraudulent will be found as several investigations did not found any issues with the science or his past work. But just as soon that fig leaf of “just looking for inconsistencies in grant application” is offered, Cuccinelli reveals where he is coming from: > [@](#): > > “In light of the Climategate e-mails, there does seem to at least be an argument to be made that a course was undertaken by some of the individuals involved, including potentially Michael Mann, where they were steering a course to reach a conclusion,” he said. “Our act, frankly, just requires honesty.” I have to conclude that this nincompoop does not know how to use google. Climategate was the most dishonest effort by deniers to change public opinion, idiots like Cuccinelli did swallow the lies hook line and sinker. > **[Climategate investigations, round 1: CRU exonerated](https://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/)** > > As most readers who have been following the “climategate” controversy will know by now, the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has released its report entitled, The … > [@](#): > > As most readers who have been following the “climategate” controversy will know by now, the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has released its report entitled, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. > > The findings are crystal clear on the most crucial points: The committee found absolutely no evidence to support accusations of scientific dishonesty, even going so far as to state that there “was no case to answer”. And it also rejected accusations that Phil Jones and other CRU scientists had attempted to pervert the peer review system. That was now, but even early science reporters had figured out that the ones bringing charges of dishonesty brought by the email scandal were being dishonest themselves. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7nnVQ2fROOg/hqdefault.jpg "6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/34 "2010-05-05T13:56:46Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The article gives no indication that any such evidence exists. It must, though. Va Code § 8.01-216.11, relating to the civil investigative demand filed by Cuccinelli, states in pertinent part: > [@](#): > > Each civil investigative demand issued under this article shall state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation of a false claims law that is under investigation, and the applicable provision of law alleged to be violated. So either the civil investigative demand omits this section, an omission that would be fatally defective and would permit the demand to be ignored, or it contains it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/35 "2010-05-05T13:59:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is at best just a fig leaf offered by him. Agreed. The question, if I may be so crude, is: does the fig leaf cover his dick, or not? As I said above, i am personally convinced that this is motivated by something other than neutral desire to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth concerning fraud. But can I prove it? Not with what I know. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/36 "2010-05-05T14:19:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, Bricker has to be honest and fair-minded, while his opponents can engage in whatever tactics they please. > > I have to honestly admit that the chances of this being a neutral, good-faith exercise of his office are about 1 in 50? > > Why is that? I didn’t participate in the thread you’re referencing, so I don’t know if they’re fair comparisons, but assuming they are: [ul] [li]Because if you know it’s the case, you should stand for what you think, instead of devil’s advocating from a political soapbox[/li][li]Because other people being transparent in their political biases to the exclusion of logic, right, justice, and fairness doesn’t give you a pass to be that way. Far from popular opinion, behaving that way doesn’t help you win debate, it just makes those of us who might not participate but observe, that your opinions have as little value as the fakes we can already see. If you want to throw your cards in with them then, then so be it.[/li][li]Because every time you stand up for your party in the face of reality, you lessen the chance that your voice will be listened to when you have something genuine to say.[/li][li]Because despite what the political parties want you to believe, and what the media wants you to believe, this isn’t a game with points. It’s about people and ideas that are good for the country (or the local constituents). There’s nothing wrong with Democrats being right, just as there’s nothing wrong with Republicans being right. You don’t lose by standing up against a person with bad ideas in your party.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/37 "2010-05-05T14:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > When the chips are down and the decisions are made as to who the candidates will be, then the 11th commandment prevails and everybody goes to work, and that is: **Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.** [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/61782e.htm](http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/61782e.htm) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/38 "2010-05-05T15:39:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Agreed. > > The question, if I may be so crude, is: does the fig leaf cover his dick, or not? Your honor.. [Quote=Venkman from Ghostbusters] Yes, it’s true.. that man has no dick. [/quote] 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/39 "2010-05-05T15:46:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It must, though. > > Va Code § 8.01-216.11, relating to the civil investigative demand filed by Cuccinelli, states in pertinent part: > > > [@](#): > > > > Each civil investigative demand issued under this article shall state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation of a false claims law that is under investigation, and the applicable provision of law alleged to be violated. > > So either the civil investigative demand omits this section, an omission that would be fatally defective and would permit the demand to be ignored, or it contains it. The statement “Glenn Beck raped and murdered someone in 1990, which is illegal under thus-and-such section of the criminal code” meets that description. The statement does not, however, contain any evidence that Glenn Beck did in fact rape and murder anyone. It’s time to remember the first law of holes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/40 "2010-05-05T16:13:59Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The statement “Glenn Beck raped and murdered someone in 1990, which is illegal under thus-and-such section of the criminal code” meets that description. The statement does not, however, contain any evidence that Glenn Beck did in fact rape and murder anyone. Not exactly. That would not, for instance, be sufficient to indict Glenn Beck, because it doesn’t allege the place the crime was committed, which is necessary to establish venue. In order to be effective, the document would have to allege, with some specificity, the nature of the allegedly fraudulent conduct. But you’re right. It doesn’t have to allege the evidence, just the conduct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=3)