Bishop Hill Cuccinelli on hold
Sep 9, 2011 Climate: Mann FOI From HamptonRoads.com:
An Albemarle County judge has put Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's latest demand for documents related to a former University of Virginia climate-change researcher's work on hold.
Circuit Judge Cheryl Higgins granted a stay today until the Virginia Supreme Court rules on a related case.
Cuccinelli is investigating whether Michael Mann defrauded taxpayers by using manipulated data to obtain government grants. A judge ruled last year that Cuccinelli was not specific enough about how Mann might have broken the law, and that he lacks authority to investigate federal grants.
Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic, appealed that ruling to the Virginia Supreme Court and filed a new, more specific demand pertaining to just one state grant. Higgins put that demand on hold.
Reader Comments (14)
"Waiting is a trap. There will always be reasons to wait...The truth is, there are only two things in life, reasons and results, and reasons simply don't count" Anthony Robert.
Not entirely unexpected but the truth will out.
'Albemarle Circuit Court closed for business today because the temperature yesterday "constituted a threat to health," according to a notice posted on the courthouse door signed by Judge Cheryl Higgins.'
http://www.readthehook.com/67703/hot-air-closes-court
Does this supersede the story (here) that says the hearing is scheduled for the 16th September?
Cuccinelli does not strike me as being an "on hold" type of person. Which maybe part of the problem, though it should not be, in getting his required court decision.
Always thought it was a "Kelly's Heros" type of mission.
Whose paying Cheryl?
The Team are not having a good week.
That this legal case is postponed, just means that the Team will have to endure another really "bad news weeks" in the future.
The Dessler 2011 farce was all about AR5.
Mann vs Cucinelli may also be all about AR5, what is more damaging, Mann's e-mails coming out before or after AR5?
gc
"all about Ar5", makes me wonder why we now have access to people who are involved?
Has the IPCC bowed to the 5th Estate or has The Estate gained in elevation?
Green Sand
Not quite sure about your references, but the AR5 is supposed to be an evaluation so AR5E should be fair as a reference
Genuine scientists, such as Richard Betts who posts here, believe the science is not settled.
Unfortunately, the masterminds behind ARS5 still think the science is settled,
Not so off-topic:
A case of flawed research in cancer therapy (http://www.economist.com/node/21528593) shows uncanny parallels with what has been going on in climate science (including withholding data and code, poor statistical methods, Nature Medicine journal reluctant to publish rebuttals or sharing background data and code, and more). At least in this case of scientific misconduct in medical science, errors were (or are being) redressed, but it is also interesting to note that it took about five years after the initial publication in 2006 to get things done, papers retracted and main wrongdoers resigning or fired.
Question , what the cut off dates for AR5?
"American judges are the best that money can buy"... (Old legal maxim).
In Virginai a circuit court judge is elected by a majority vote of both houses of the Virginia General Assembly. Higgins was elected, is married to a cop and is immensely hated by the left. She also is the presiding judge of the circuit and is purported to be a specialist in corruption and misconduct law.
With all the appeals surrounding Mann and the other grifters of climate wamring, why not kick the can over to the higher court, given her case load. Actually, the case will be decided quicker this way.
KnR asked "What [are] the cut off dates for AR5?"
According to this, a paper must be submitted by 31 July 2012 and accepted by 15 March 2013, in order to be cited by the IPCC WG1 report. The deadlines are no doubt later for WG2 and WG3.
We are in the midst of the IPCC's pre-AR5 paper shuffle gaming of science assessment. I think we need a few websites who are mainly focused on the parallels between the documented assessment misdeeds of the pre-AR4 paper shuffle to the non-transparent and non-open proceedings of the current pre-AR5.
Then, the assurances by Richard Betts to the contrary notwithstanding, we could actually have evidence that the IPCC has not changed its assessment manipulations and may even have gotten worse; hiding more in pre-AR5 because we (independents/skeptics) found out too much of the IPCC assessment gaming in pre-AR4.
John