# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/41 "2010-05-05T16:19:04Z")
**Bricker,** you do not believe for one moment that Cuccinelli did this for anything other than the most obvious political reasons. You are an intellectually dishonest sack of shit and a disgrace to the legal profession. ---
**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, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/42 "2010-05-05T16:36:13Z")
[Here’s](http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_Attorney_General_Letter.pdf) what appears to be a copy of the CID (Civil Demand Letter), Cooch sent to the University. (warning .pdf) He demands a great many items, the first of which is all correspondences Mann had with about 45 other scientists. I wish I could be surprised that the very first thing Cooch demanded would be what the far right has tried to use to prove Mann is a bad guy. How utterly surprising! And nowhere in the letter could I find any allegation by Cooch about the reason or the basis for his launching this investigation, only that he is investigating. Another shock!! Once again, I’m certainly thrilled that cooler heads will prevail and this abuse of power by Virginia’s AG will swiftly be brought to an end. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/43 "2010-05-05T16:43:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Bricker,** you do not believe for one moment that Cuccinelli did this for anything other than the most obvious political reasons. You are an intellectually dishonest sack of shit and a disgrace to the legal profession. Wow, you are good. > [@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… > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. What gave you the clue, genius? Maybe the fact that I SAID AS MUCH, three different times? Actually, given your demonstrated inability to read, I suppose I should be happy that a point I made only three times has permeated your awareness. usually, that’s not nearly enough. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/44 "2010-05-05T16:58:35Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Virginia_Attorney_General_Letter.pdf) what appears to be a copy of the CID (Civil Demand Letter), Cooch sent to the University. (warning .pdf) Out of curiosity, who’s going to pay for this crap? A quick read of the demand letter indicates that it’s going to be the work of months if not years to satisfy. Mann is no longer an employee of the University of Virginia – can he be legally obligated to undergo what appears to be several hundred hours of busywork? Or will some drudge at the University have to wade through 11 years of email and research notes at state expense? I’m guessing that the administrative costs of satisfying the demand letter are going to be as high or higher than the costs involved in the original grants (the sum total of which was about $450,000 – a pretty piddling sum even from an academic grant point of view). ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/45 "2010-05-05T17:49:08Z")
**Bricker** , I realize you are playing devils advocate here, and indeed you have indicated that you are “personally convinced that this is motivated by something other than neutral desire to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth concerning fraud.” However, you are still arguing in this thread on behalf of Cucinelli. Are you just being “lawyerly” here, and making sure that the “defendant” Cucinelli has good representation, so he can wiggle off on a technicality? Because I find myself in strong agreement with **Eonwe** when he/she says: > [@](#): > > 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. Here, you are standing up for Cucinelli, in the face of reality, and in the face of **your own convictions** that his motivations for his actions are poor. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/46 "2010-05-05T17:52:22Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Out of curiosity, who’s going to pay for this crap? A quick read of the demand letter indicates that it’s going to be the work of months if not years to satisfy. Mann is no longer an employee of the University of Virginia – can he be legally obligated to undergo what appears to be several hundred hours of busywork? Or will some drudge at the University have to wade through 11 years of email and research notes at state expense? The wonderful taxpayers of Virginia are going to get double dipped on this one, because both the AG and the University are supported by their tax dollars. As to what the actual cost is going to be will depend on how U of V responds. They could easily acquiesce and have some flunkies spend time to slog through everything the demand letter asks for. I have no idea how much that would amount to. They could also file suit seeking a court order that says they don’t have to respond to the demand letter, which would lead to, most likely, a long, drawn out legal battle, which could be expensive for both sides (which will be paid for by your tax dollars). Or they can simply refuse to respond, and put the ball back in Cooch’s court to decide if he wants to go to war over it. > [@Finagle](#): > > I’m guessing that the administrative costs of satisfying the demand letter are going to be as high or higher than the costs involved in the original grants (the sum total of which was about $450,000 – a pretty piddling sum even from an academic grant point of view). I’m pretty sure a monetary cost/benefit analysis didn’t really enter into Cooch’s deliberations. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/47 "2010-05-05T17:59:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow, you are good. > > What gave you the clue, genius? Maybe the fact that I SAID AS MUCH, three different times? > > Actually, given your demonstrated inability to read, I suppose I should be happy that a point I made only three times has permeated your awareness. usually, that’s not nearly enough. You remain intellectually dishonest. You never **did** believe it and yet you’re still beating the drum; and **not** in the way one might honestly pose even a preposterous hypothetical for reasonable discussion. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/48 "2010-05-05T18:02:14Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > **Bricker** , I realize you are playing devils advocate here, and indeed you have indicated that you are “personally convinced that this is motivated by something other than neutral desire to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth concerning fraud.” > > However, you are still arguing in this thread on behalf of Cucinelli. > > Are you just being “lawyerly” here, and making sure that the “defendant” Cucinelli has good representation, so he can wiggle off on a technicality? > > Because I find myself in strong agreement with **Eonwe** when he/she says: > > Here, you are standing up for Cucinelli, in the face of reality, and in the face of **your own convictions** that his motivations for his actions are poor. Not exactly. Look, if someone said in this thread, “…and therefore we can see what a piece of shit Cuccinelli is. Hell, he’s probably an arsonist!” would you really condemn the respondent who said, “Now, wait a second – he’s a piece of shit, but there’s nothing in here about any arson!” Or would you just nod, because, after all, why should anyone defend Cuccinelli? His motives are almost certainly political, rather than based on a good-faith belief in fraud. I agree with that. But I’m not sure I agree that he has no evidence. As I said above, 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.” I’m also sure that whatever his evidence is, it’s fig-leafy enough to cover his dick. That, too, I said above – if pressed, I’m quite confident he’ll be able to point to some half-assed justification for all this. And I suspect, if you’re honest with yourself, that you probably agree with that point too. So – are you saying that I shouldn’t worry about exaggerated attacks – that he deserves it, and a little more won’t hurt? Or what? Frankly, my position here strikes me as the LEAST biased – I acknowledge the obvious overwhelming likelihood of Cuccinelli’s actions being improper, but also acknowledge that there’s likely some pretext scintilla of evidence he’s relying on. The other side seems content to hang him as a witch, distinctions of evidence be damned. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/49 "2010-05-05T18:03:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You remain intellectually dishonest. You never **did** believe it and yet you’re still beating the drum; and **not** in the way one might honestly pose even a preposterous hypothetical for reasonable discussion. OK. So identify my preposterous hypothetical. What, exactly and specifically, am I claiming that is preposterous? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/50 "2010-05-05T18:20:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So – are you saying that I shouldn’t worry about exaggerated attacks – that he deserves it, and a little more won’t hurt? > > Or what? No. I’m saying that you are acting as his defense lawyer (which is understandable, as it’s a professional hazard). The attacks on Cuccinelli are not THAT exaggerated. I"m not saying that you should say nothing, or join in with “the usual suspects” that we are. You might just realize that your strong, technically correct defense of him (in the face of your realization that he’s not exactly motivation-free), leads others to the conclusion that you, in actuality, agree with what he is doing. We don’t see you as his lawyer in this thread - if you were, we’d realize that the lawyer does not agree or sympathize with the crimes of his client. We see you instead as his apologist. ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/51 "2010-05-05T18:43:30Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > No. I’m saying that you are acting as his defense lawyer (which is understandable, as it’s a professional hazard). The attacks on Cuccinelli are not THAT exaggerated. I"m not saying that you should say nothing, or join in with “the usual suspects” that we are. > > You might just realize that your strong, technically correct defense of him (in the face of your realization that he’s not exactly motivation-free), leads others to the conclusion that you, in actuality, agree with what he is doing. > > We don’t see you as his lawyer in this thread - if you were, we’d realize that the lawyer does not agree or sympathize with the crimes of his client. > > We see you instead as his apologist. So I failed to sufficiently condemn him before meekly pointing out my technically correct defense? My technically correct defense only has merit if I first express my moral outrage? And this, to you, is “fighting ignorance?” Listen: this is a fucktard move on Cuccinelli’s part. His bias is obvious and to the extent that there is any evidence of fraud, it will never be successfully prosecuted because of the taint from that bias. Everyone here already knows that, though. There’s another thread going on right now in which it’s asserted that conservative bloggers tend to use a single-writer model, without collaboration, and liberal bloggers a more collaborative approach. Some commentators in that thread have suggested this means liberals don’t require the reassuring agreement of others, but welcome opposing viewpoints. Um… yeah. Based on this thread, I can totally see that. “Don’t give us your technically correct defense until you show us you’re our side, Mister!” ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/52 "2010-05-05T18:51:23Z")
If your defense is only technically correct, why do you fucking bother? Is this what you went to law school for, to offer sophistry to the great unwashed? ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/53 "2010-05-05T18:54:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If your defense is only technically correct, why do you fucking bother? Is this what you went to law school for, to offer sophistry to the great unwashed? Actually, I went so I could defend the unjustly accused. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/54 "2010-05-05T18:58:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, I went so I could defend the unjustly accused. That’s great, but you’re not his lawyer. You are defending an admitted fucktard on a technicality, here on a messageboard. That makes people suspect your motives. I suspect that you love the law, and you love a good argument. If you see an opening, you just can’t HELP but to dive in. I’m not all that wound up about it - I think we need your take on things. I’m just not surprised at the reactions of others about your take. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/55 "2010-05-05T18:58:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I failed to sufficiently condemn him before meekly pointing out my technically correct defense? My technically correct defense only has merit if I first express my moral outrage? The opposite of agreeing with someone on a message board is not necessarily to loudly disagree. It’s sometimes as simple as keeping one’s mouth shut. Nobody forced you to post here. Nobody said to you, “Hey, someone is disparaging a Republican, you have to man the keyboard!” If you really didn’t think Cuccinelli was in the right here, nobody forced you to come in here and start sliming posters you agreed with. Your problem is, and has always been, that you wank all over this board. You’re so desperate to prove that you have a sharp legal mind that you have to weigh in on everything. Earth to **Bricker** : there are dozens of legal minds on this board as sharp as yours, many of whom still actually practice law. Just as I don’t have to post in every thread about Excel and VBA in GQ, you don’t have to post in every thread that might contain legal content. And the truth is, if you hadn’t opened your trap in this one, nobody would be condemning you now. Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and… ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/56 "2010-05-05T19:00:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, I went so I could defend the unjustly accused. [Slight hijack]Does ‘unjustly’ modify the accusal itself, or the person accused? Not a loaded question, just curious whether you have the passion to defend when the suspect is guilty but the accusal process is tainted.[/Slight hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/57 "2010-05-05T19:05:23Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Nobody said to you, “Hey, someone is disparaging a Republican, you have to man the keyboard!” [I’m not so sure…](http://xkcd.com/386/) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/58 "2010-05-05T19:18:46Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > That’s great, but you’re not his lawyer. You are defending an admitted fucktard on a technicality, here on a messageboard. > > That makes people suspect your motives. That, and the fact that his Atticus Finch impersonations are reserved \*exclusively \*for hard-right Republicans and the occasional pre-Vatican-II-type Catholic. > [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, I went so I could defend the unjustly accused. Then why are you not jumping in to defend the scientist here instead? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/59 "2010-05-05T19:19:21Z")
Hold on a minute. This notion that Mann has been totally exonerated isn’t exactly true. The report from Penn State cleared him on charges of email and data deletion, information suppression, and misuse of privileged or confidential information. Fair and good - but on the question of deviating from accepted practices of proposing, conducting, or reporting research, Mann has not yet been cleared - in fact Penn State has expanded the inquiry into this question. > [@](#): > > Finding 4. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. > > …In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research. The committee that wrote the report on surface temperature reconstructions found that Dr. Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice. What has changed since that time is that private emails have come to our attention and that of the public at large, and these give us a glimpse into the behind the scenes workings of Dr. Mann and many of his colleagues in the conduct of their science. > > Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation. [From here.](http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf) Now, I’m not terribly impressed by Cuccinelli’s actions either - but I am interested to know why it is so damned important for numerous posters to stress that Mann has been cleared of certain charges - yet the important fact of this open inquiry is not mentioned at all. Especially considering that these allegations track pretty closely with what Cuccinelli is investigating in Virginia. Why is it okay for Penn State to conduct an inquiry but not Ken Cuccinelli? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/60 "2010-05-05T19:23:27Z")
Your quote sounds pretty much exculpatory, don’t it? As in fact-free? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=4)