Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is continuing his investigation into climate research conducted at the University. Photo by Elizabeth Weihmann
The Virginia House of Delegates blocked an attempt last week by Democratic lawmakers to remove the attorney general’s power to issue subpoenas for academic research at state universities.
The proposed bill came as a response to the ongoing investigation launched by the office of Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli, demanding the University surrender papers and e-mails related to the work of Michael Mann, climate scientist and former University professor in the department of environmental sciences.
Cuccinelli has filed multiple civil investigative demands to review Mann’s e-mails and documents. The attorney general is accusing Mann of using manipulated or deceitful data pertaining to climate change to obtain taxpayer-funded research grants, and hopes to acquire documents that will enable him to prosecute Mann under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Colloquially dubbed Climategate, an internet leak in 2009 released thousands of stolen documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that implied a manipulation of data in support of the global warming hypothesis.
Some members of the academic community say they are outraged by the House’s action.
“What we have here is a political actor seeking to intimidate scholars,” Law Prof. Richard Schragger said, ”That is quite dangerous to the entire concept of academic freedom.”
Some Democrats in the General Assembly have responded to the issue by arguing the investigation has taken place only because of the political implications of Mann’s research. Bill 831 was introduced as a revision to FATA to prevent the attorney general from issuing subpoenas for academic research and inquiry.
“I wonder if someone who was supporting a conservative-backed theory would face this kind of scrutiny,” said the bill’s patron, Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax. “Political partisanship should not be a matter in academic research. The attorney general shouldn’t be able to threaten or intimidate.”
The office of the attorney general, however, maintains the nature and scientific conclusions of the study are not at question and argue state university employees who apply for public funding ought to be subject to the same scrutiny as any other government official.
“The attorney general’s office is investigating whether a false claim was presented to the university, nothing more and nothing less,” Cuccinelli’s spokesperson Brian Gottstein said in an e-mail. “The attorney general’s office is not investigating Dr. Mann’s scientific conclusions.”
Gottstein added the proposed bill would have sought to exempt University employees from public scrutiny, creating “two classes of citizens: universities and their employees … and everyone else.”
Howard Epstein, associate professor of environmental sciences, said he agrees that University employees should not be exempt from legal action in cases of misconduct, but he doesn’t believe this is one of those situations.
“It’s an incredibly convoluted issue,” Epstein said. “Academic freedom should not protect scholars from committing wrongdoings and fraud, but the investigation into Mike Mann is not really about that. If it were, you wouldn’t see that bill proposed. It’s a political maneuver in response to a political maneuver.”
Pennsylvania State University, where Mann now teaches, released a report in 2009 after reviewing his academic conduct concluding, “Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community.”
Cuccinelli said he will continue to pursue the issue, while opposing members of the Assembly have expressed skepticism that Cuccinelli’s political agenda regarding climate change is separable from the legal aggression.
“We should be about scientific inquiry, not a political litmus test the attorney general wants to place on someone’s research,” said Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville. “He wants to dispute the science of thousands of researchers across the world that believe based on their research the climate is changing because of human activity. This is about politics, not fraud.”
Penn State released their report in 2010. See Steve McIntyre’s latest post at climateaudit.org for something special that the Penn State inquiry missed. Go look, please; it is a good one.
====================
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
39 
11
Sooner or later, adults in the University of Virginia community are going to realize that what Michael Mann and the other ClimateGate actors did was completely indefensible. When they do they are also going to realize that defending The Piltdown Mann is counterproductive to the defense of academic freedom. Tenure, and academic freedom are not supposed to help conceal fraud.
========================
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
36 
11
Good. It is more and more evident that Mann et all put their collective fingers on the scales of science. Andrew Montford’s excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” details the dogged efforts of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to reproduce ( remember scientific method? ) Mann et al’s now discredited “hockey stick” graph.
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
29 
8
UVA has not been a science university for over 20 years. They replaced the honest and open pursuit of science long ago, and instead adopted an agressive campaign of partisan political indoctrination instead. This can be seen quite clearly in the the several cases of medical misinformation me and my colleagues have detailed here:
http://www.uvalies.org/initiative
With regard to the subpeona regarding Mann’s state funded research, UVA is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars as we speak – which they’ll be happy to pass onto their student’s families with yet ANOTHER tuition increase – in an effort to reverse hundreds of years of open review of scientific data and methodology.
Try as they may, they are not going to ultimatley be able to take the scientific tradition of Currie, Pasteur, Salk, etc. and reverse them while hiding behind their ludicrous claimn that they arfe ‘academically free’ to make science a secret all of sudden.
One of the first project’s that Mr. Jefferson’s new university undertook after they built the Rotunda and the Lawn was to build the Anatomical Theatre in 1827 and start a School of Medicine. The spot where it used to stand may just be a great place to hols a news conference soon. UVA is not going to escape into a dream land of scientific secrecy any sooner than it is going to be able to escape from the beliefs regarding science as expressed by its founder.
I applaud the Attorney General for sticking to this, and forcing UVA to change its ways. Me and my colleagues, for our part, will be doing the same. It’s going to be a game changing Spring semester at UVA. Bet on it.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
3 
1
“This is about politics, not fraud.” So says David Toscano.
I think the point is that we do not know whether it is about fraud or not, which is why the emails have been requested.
Greenpeace’s request for Pat Michaels’s emails was readily dealt with. How come the U are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars defending this. Trying to amend legislation specifically to avoid giving them up must be some kind of a first as well!
It is all a bit strange. Cuccinelli’s actions may not be pure as the driven snow…but I am not sure the actions of the U are all about “academic freedom” etc either!
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
11 
2
The University’s actions are disturbing. There must be a ‘skeleton’ hiding in Mann’s closet, else why would the University be so adamant about keeping Mann’s files locked in the dungeon — the University’s legal expenses must be considerable. So the real question becomes: “Is the University genuinely concerned about protecting Mann’s papers under the guise of academic freedom, or is the University actually concerned about protecting Mann’s income flow from government grants should a review uncover a ‘skeleton’?”
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
8 
2
Today, the Department of Commerce Inspector General released a(nother independent) report confirming that there was no mishandling of data by NOAA scientists.
The report can be found at the OIG official website and it concluded:
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16)
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
2 
6
As a life alum and annual donor, I am embarrassed by the U’s behavior and incensed by its use of funds to resist a lawful and proper inquiry by the Attorney General – an inquiry that seeks to determine whether improper use of State funds occurred, and that would be unnecessary if the U had complied with a lawful and proper FOIA request (whereas the U apparently had no reservations about complying with a request for the same information when submitted by an NGO).
Report this comment
High-rated - Agree/Disagree:
10 
0
The climate scientists should be criminally investigated by Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
This is the email real data of some of the climate scientists’ behavior. We do not have their telephone conversations, nor the possibly many deleted emails. This undermines the value of published peer review science. It should be considered scientific misconduct.
“From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
… I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004
Mike,
… Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
May 29, 2008-
Phil Jones, director of East Anglia’s CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line “IPCC & FOI,” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . .”
In this email Dr. Michael Mann points out to their conspiring peer group where the names of editors of the Climate Research Journal are located. Why? So all the conspiring scientists Drs. Mann and Jones and cronies can reject any papers co-authored by editors of Climate Research.
Dr. Mann to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003
“I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal [Climate Research] at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”………The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors: [1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0