# 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:** 4
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/61 "2010-05-05T19:27:00Z")
I think I established the fact that Penn State has not cleared him of all charges yet. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/62 "2010-05-05T19:28:30Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > 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… So I see an inaccurate attack against somehow who richly deserves another, accurate attack. And I should shut up. Because that fights ignorance. And by speaking up, and arguing for the correct attack and against the incorrect attack… that makes people question my motives? How about this? How about the proposition that motives are irrelevant? How about the concept that on a messageboard that claims it wishes to fight ignorance, the chief goal should be accurate information, and not political purity? In this very thread, in fact, it’s understood that Cuccinelli’s position is fundamentally wrong, because he’s letting his political bias outweigh the science. The accurate, technical results speak for themselves, right? Cuccinelli’s action is wrong on a fundamental level because he doesn’t accept that; he seems to believe that global warming exists, or doesn’t, based on how popular opinion can be swung. And he is rightly reviled for it. By people who do the same fucking thing when it comes to criticizing him. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/63 "2010-05-05T19:28:51Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > 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. > > [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? Cuccinelli is not looking at what you are reporting here, but his past work and grant requests when he was at Virginia. ---
**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, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/64 "2010-05-05T19:31:02Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I think I established the fact that Penn State has not cleared him of all charges yet. IOW, there’s nothing there, but the crusading investigator there can’t force himself to admit it any more than you can. ---
**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, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/65 "2010-05-05T19:33:32Z")
> [@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. > > 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. And you know what’s hilarious? Back when Patrick Kennedy was accused of driving drunk and getting preferential treatment from Capitol Police, I said this: > [@Abysmal judgement gene rears it's ugly head again-Kennedy stupidity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/115): > > I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… _but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part._ > > There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation. > > If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict. > > Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not. And I seem to remember getting praise for my fair-minded approach. Gee. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/66 "2010-05-05T19:44:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Cuccinelli is not looking at what you are reporting here, but his past work and grant requests when he was at Virginia. I am certainly aware of that. The question remains - why is it right and proper for Penn State to investigate grant requests (so much so that this is not remarked upon) and somehow eeeevil for Cuccinelli to do the exact same thing for those grant requests under his jurisdiction? ---
**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, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/67 "2010-05-05T19:47:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I’m not sure I agree that he has no evidence. What is his evidence, because I’ve seen nothing that would justify starting an investigation into possible criminal or civil actions. Maybe you have some that I’ve missed that would indicate what this “fraud” that Mann supposedly might have done, but I have yet to see it. The ONLY thing even close is the trumped up “climategate” which has no actual evidence of fraud. So please, do share this “evidence” Cooch is using to justify this investigation. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m also sure that whatever his evidence is, it’s fig-leafy enough to cover his dick. Again, please share. Because there is nothing in Cooch’s history, nothing in the climategate, and nothing in his letter to indicate there is any evidence. ---
**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, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/68 "2010-05-05T19:49:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I see an inaccurate attack against somehow who richly deserves another, accurate attack. > > And I should shut up. > > Because that fights ignorance. > > And by speaking up, and arguing for the correct attack and against the incorrect attack… that makes people question my motives? > > How about this? How about the proposition that motives are irrelevant? How about the concept that on a messageboard that claims it wishes to fight ignorance, the chief goal should be accurate information, and not political purity? > > In this very thread, in fact, it’s understood that Cuccinelli’s position is fundamentally wrong, because he’s letting his political bias outweigh the science. The accurate, technical results speak for themselves, right? Cuccinelli’s action is wrong on a fundamental level because he doesn’t accept that; he seems to believe that global warming exists, or doesn’t, based on how popular opinion can be swung. > > And he is rightly reviled for it. > > By people who do the same fucking thing when it comes to criticizing him. Damn, **Bricker** your victim shtick is getting more and more tiresome by the minute. So if by “fighting ignorance” you mean “criticizing everybody who doesn’t agree with your narrow, legalistic standards of how I view the world,” then, smashing, you’re doing a bang-up job. Apparently if somebody you politically agree with gets Pitted, they must be Pitted “correctly”. That is, it’s not correct to say “So-and-so sucks,” we must do it right. But only in your eyes, since you apparently are the final word in these matters. The log in your eye is huge. I remember some time ago you pretended to consider voting for Barack Obama as long as he was “noble”. You said you’d consider voting for him if his politics and his campaign were clean. Notice that you’ve never made that consideration for a Republican–that you might think of not voting GOP because they ran “unclean”, un-noble campaigns. Apparently, the GOP can run as many dirty campaigns as they wish, and that will not stop you from voting for them. [And then you backtracked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=481694&highlight=noble+Obama), not because he didn’t practice clean politics, but because _some unnamed people on the internet_ “sullied” Sarah Palin. Wasn’t that unjustly accusing Obama? Of course it was. But you were letting your political bias show for you, weren’t you? Oh, and there was this: > [@](#): > > And when he wins, I am going to crow for a week. You think I crowed after 2000? I remember that, and I remember 2004 too, when you pussies whined about how shocked and hurt you were and begged me stop rubbing your pathetic faces in your loss. That will be a walk in the park compared to what’s coming up. I’ll fucking buy ad time on this board to crow about a McCain victory. So, if you don’t mind very much, shut the fuck up about our “dishonest” and “unfair tactics”. Your ass should be silent for years. Anyone as blaringly, massively wrong as you were should have hidden in a hole for at least a few months. Since you couldn’t hide your smug ass then, I suggest you do now. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/69 "2010-05-05T19:50:41Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I am certainly aware of that. The question remains - why is it right and proper for Penn State to investigate grant requests (so much so that this is not remarked upon) and somehow eeeevil for Cuccinelli to do the exact same thing for those grant requests under his jurisdiction? Cuchinelli has the power of the State to compel people and institutions to comply with his demands, and he has used that power to force UVA to provide information. I would think the misuse of governmental power to score political points would be something we could all condemn. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/70 "2010-05-05T19:56:14Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > I remember some time ago you pretended to consider voting for Barack Obama as long as he was “noble”. You said you’d consider voting for him if his politics and his campaign were clean. “Pretended?” I did vote for Obama. ---
**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, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/71 "2010-05-05T19:57:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Pretended?” > > I did vote for Obama. So, were you trolling when you said you’d rub our faces in his loss, or are you trolling now? ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/72 "2010-05-05T20:01:38Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Oh, and there was this: > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > And when he wins, I am going to crow for a week. You think I crowed after 2000? I remember that, and I remember 2004 too, when you pussies whined about how shocked and hurt you were and begged me stop rubbing your pathetic faces in your loss. That will be a walk in the park compared to what’s coming up. I’ll fucking buy ad time on this board to crow about a McCain victory. > > So, if you don’t mind very much, shut the fuck up about our “dishonest” and “unfair tactics”. Your ass should be silent for years. Anyone as blaringly, massively wrong as you were should have hidden in a hole for at least a few months. Since you couldn’t hide your smug ass then, I suggest you do now. Yes, I said that. > [@Duke](#): > > So, were you trolling when you said you’d rub our faces in his loss, or are you trolling now? Later in that same thread, I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, you’re right. > > What can I say? The whole weight of smug personal attacks on this woman just drove me over the top. It was a foolish post, a foolish thread, and I regret it. I’d ask for it to be closed. > > But I doubt it will be, because we have a tradition of letting idiot Pit posters reap their justly deserved rewards. > > I am still outraged at the one-sided bashing in this place, but I recognize my reaction was absolutely wrong. > > In fact, I recognized it while I was having it, but it didn’t seem to stop me. Interesting that you didn’t quote that one. I’ve already admitted that was a flash of temper, a crappy thing to say, and apologized for it. I did it in the same thread I posted the original, hateful screed. ---
**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, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/73 "2010-05-05T20:07:32Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Cuchinelli has the power of the State to compel people and institutions to comply with his demands, and he has used that power to force UVA to provide information. I would think the misuse of governmental power to score political points would be something we could all condemn. This investigative panel of Penn State - don’t they have the implicit backing of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania behind them? Penn State is a public institution, isn’t it? Again - I don’t support this move of Cuccinelli’s. I think he weakens his public case because of his rather clear biases. However, I won’t pretend that he doesn’t have the authority to do what he is doing or that there is no case there to pursue. After all, there is an open investigation still going on at an institution I generally respect despite my dislike for their football team. If that’s not a closed matter for them, why should I pretend that this should be a closed matter for me or others? Why should I pretend that it should be a closed matter for a state official here? ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/74 "2010-05-05T20:08:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I said that. > > And later in that same thread, I said: So, in other words, you let your emotion get away from you and you posted something angry about someone you didn’t agree with who didn’t deserve it, because of your long-held political stance. Think about that. Now think about this thread. Doesn’t the OP have a right to be angry at Cuccinelli? I mean, he actually did the thing that the OP is mad about, unlike your situation with Obama. The OP didn’t brag that he was going to rub Cuccinelli’s supporters’ faces in the mud when Cuccinelli lost–which is what you did in that thread. The OP didn’t even say that he was that mad–just that he was “embarrassed” by Cuccinelli and “wanted to turn him off”–again, revisit your own OP. Apparently with you hindsight is 20/20. You’re free to make an overly-emotional, partisan post, but oh boy, nobody else is going to get away with that mistake, even if it’s a tenth as cringeworthy as yours! “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”–now what nincompoop said that? ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/75 "2010-05-05T20:16:10Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > This investigative panel of Penn State - don’t they have the implicit backing of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania behind them? Penn State is a public institution, isn’t it? Penn State is not, if it is like every other university I know, empowered by law to force people to comply with their requests for information. Attorneys General are. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Again - I don’t support this move of Cuccinelli’s. I think he weakens his public case because of his rather clear biases. However, I won’t pretend that he doesn’t have the authority to do what he is doing or that there is no case there to pursue. He does have the authority to do what he is doing. It is the misuse of that authority to score political points that I am condemning. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > After all, there is an open investigation still going on at an institution I generally respect despite my dislike for their football team. If that’s not a closed matter for them, why should I pretend that this should be a closed matter for me or others? Why should I pretend that it should be a closed matter for a state official here? Because there is world of difference between “deviating from accepted practices within the academic community” and commiting fraud. Every official investigation into Mann and his actions has concluded that there is no fraud in his work. Yet, despite that, Cooch seems to think it’s OK to use the powers of the State to compel UVA to track down information to see if there is fraud. There is no valid comparison to be drawn between the two. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/76 "2010-05-05T20:24:18Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Cuchinelli has the power of the State to compel people and institutions to comply with his demands, and he has used that power to force UVA to provide information. Additionally, I want you to reconsider this statement. Forcing UVA to provide information is not a power limited to Ken Cuccinelli - I have that power as a citizen of Virginia. We have a fairly robust Freedom of Information Act here that applies to state agencies and local governments. In general you seem like the sort of person that would favor this - so I wonder why you implied in your statement that a public university should be permitted to keep information from the public. If I have misunderstood you, please set me straight. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/77 "2010-05-05T20:39:02Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Additionally, I want you to reconsider this statement. > > Forcing UVA to provide information is not a power limited to Ken Cuccinelli - I have that power as a citizen of Virginia. We have a fairly robust Freedom of Information Act here that applies to state agencies and local governments. > > In general you seem like the sort of person that would favor this - so I wonder why you implied in your statement that a public university should be permitted to keep information from the public. > > If I have misunderstood you, please set me straight. It seems you are bent on confusing individual citizens and institutions (Penn State and your FOIA requestor) and the Attorney General using his governmental power to compel action. I honestly don’t know whether everything that Cooch is demanding could be gathered by a FOIA, but I highly suspect they wouldn’t be (especially his source code, his emails, and his research work product). I would imagine that long before Cooch, someone would have filed such a FOIA request for this stuff if it were, in fact, authorized. But, again, you are attempting to conflate two separate things, requests by an individual or institution, and demands made under color of law by an AG with no evidence. If you still do not understand the difference, I fear we are at an impasse. ---
**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, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/78 "2010-05-05T20:42:03Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Forcing UVA to provide information is not a power limited to Ken Cuccinelli - I have that power as a citizen of Virginia. We have a fairly robust Freedom of Information Act here that applies to state agencies and local governments. Which is an interesting point, but totally moot, because you are comparing Penn State and AG Cuccinelli. Since Penn State is neither a citizen nor a resident of Virginia, it doesn’t enjoy that state’s FOIA rights. ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/79 "2010-05-05T20:48:31Z")
Not totally moot - the investigation being conducted by Penn State is because they are Prof. Mann’s current employer. Cuccinelli is investigating records of grant requests at the University of Virginia, where Mann taught from 1999-2005. As Mann’s employer, could Penn State investigate his work emails, work product, and source code? Bet they could. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/80 "2010-05-05T20:49:56Z")
What would be their probable cause? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=5)