Physics Today slams “blatantly political move”; State Senator labels it “ludicrous and frivolous.”
Cuccinelli’s actions against Mann hark back to an era when tobacco companies smeared researchers as part of a sophisticated public relations strategy to raise doubts over the science showing that tobacco caused cancer, and delayed the introduction of smoking curbs for decades. Researchers found themselves bogged down in responding to subpoenas and legal challenges, which deterred others from the field. Climate-change deniers have adopted similar strategies with alacrity and, unfortunately, considerable success.
The prestigious science journal Nature has a must-read editorial today, “Science subpoenaed” (subs. req’d), which I excerpt below:
On 23 April, Cuccinelli filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over, by 26 July, all available documents, computer code and data relating to Mann’s research on the five grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails “” from 1999 to the present “” between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics. The order stated that Cuccinelli was investigating Mann’s possible violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act “” although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain invoking the law, which is intended to prosecute individuals who make false claims in order to access government funds.
Mann is the co-author of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which shows estimated global temperatures over the last millennium to have been relatively constant until a drastic rise in the twentieth century. Mann has long been a target of climate-change deniers, and the scrutiny intensified last autumn when his e-mails were among those stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK. But Mann’s research has been upheld by the US National Academy of Sciences, and an investigation by Pennsylvania State University into the e-mails also cleared Mann of any misconduct. Given the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, it’s hard to see Cuccinelli’s subpoena “” and similar threats of legal action against climate scientists in a February report by climate-change denier Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) “” as anything more than an idealogically motivated inquisition that harasses and intimidates climate scientists.
Certainly Cuccinelli has lost no time in burnishing his credentials with far-right ‘Tea Party’ activists, many of whom hail him as a hero. In March, he instructed Virginia’s state university presidents that they had no legal authority to protect homosexuals under their non-discrimination policies. He has also filed lawsuits challenging health-care reform and the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to issue greenhouse-gas regulations….
Cuccinelli has insisted that he is not “targeting scientific conclusions”. But even several climate sceptics who count themselves among Mann’s fiercest critics have publicly condemned the attorney general’s move. Thankfully, so have many academic bodies. One of them was the University of Virginia’s faculty senate, which on 5 May declared that Cuccinelli’s “action and the potential threat of legal prosecution of scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer-review standards send a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate and indeed to scholars in any discipline.”
You can read the University statement here, Caldeira slams anti-scientific witchhunts: “Are American politicians following in the footsteps of Stalin?”
Well said. Scientific organizations must respond quickly and forcefully any time political machinations threaten to undercut academic freedom. And, rather than complying, the University of Virginia should explore every avenue to challenge the subpoena.
Physics Today puts it all this way:
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in a blatantly political move to help strengthen his support among the right wing for his bid to become the next governor, is causing uproar in the science community by investigating climate scientist and former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann.
PT adds that
The University of Virginia was originally going to succumb to Cuccinelli’s request. In a statement released to the press last Thursday the university said it was “required by law to comply.”
But they appear to have been moved by all of those urging them not to comply (see, for instance, “WashPost: University of Virginia should fight AG Cuccinelli’s faulty investigation of Michael Mann“).
State Sen. Donald McEachin issued a statement, in which he stated he will submit a bill so that in the future the AG cannot issue a subpoena without also issuing a lawsuit.
“This is not only ludicrous and frivolous, wasting more taxpayer dollars and trampling on academic freedom, but the Attorney General has deprived Mr. Mann of his constitutional rights,” said McEachin.
Kudos to everyone who is pushing back against this McCarthyite witchhunt.
Related Posts:
- Virginia AG mocks dangers of CO2, telling Tea Partiers to hold their breath and make the EPA happy
- Refuting state AG’s anti-science petition, Virginia climate scientists see “great risk” from greenhouse gases
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
It really is outrageous. Is he not accountable some how?
To Scientists and Scientific Organizations
At this point, regarding climate change, I think scientists should also engage energetically, visibly, and loudly with The New York Times and other mainstream news media regarding their generally dismal and insufficient coverage of the problem, all things considered.
As one example, as of yesterday (Science day), The New York Times had not even covered the amazing letter from over 250 scientists, regarding climate change and science in general, published last week in the journal Science.
Nor did The New York Times cover that amazing letter, by seventeen leading scientific organizations, regarding climate change that those organizations (including the AAAS) sent to all members of the U.S. Senate late last year.
All things considered, and given the public confusion that the media organizations themselves often note, those letters should have gotten excellent front-page coverage.
I had the luck and privilege to have a brief discussion, last night, with one of the signatories to the recent letter and one of the most active and energetic scientists involved publicly on the matter. He was not happy about the media’s coverage of climate change or about the media’s lack of coverage of the recent letter.
I don’t think that the only problems are those organizations that are obviously doing everything possible to “deny” or ignore or white-wash the problem of climate change. In fact, I think much of our present problem involves those organizations that think of themselves as being responsible, or presume to serve the public good, but that are dropping the ball, big-time, on the matter. For example, The New York Times.
I think that the scientific organizations should approach people like Bill Keller, Andrew Revkin, Paul Krugman, and etc. directly. I know that Paul writes energetically, in his own column, about the problem. Bravo! And I know that Andy “tries hard”, although I disagree with quite a bit of his approach. But, the problem I’m talking about is The Times itself. What is Bill Keller thinking, doing, and not doing? Why can’t The Times give excellent coverage to letter signed by over 250 scientists, or to letters send by seventeen leading scientific organizations, when they happily and frequently run confusing advertorials from ExxonMobil nearly every week — on the front page?
If you are a scientist, and if Andy or the folks from the Green blog want to interview you next time around, why not tell them, “I’d be happy to talk to you, IF you’d first tell me what you are doing to encourage and prompt The Times itself to do a much more responsible job, in the paper. Otherwise, no interview.”
At this point, I think that the media are a huge part of the problem — perhaps even a larger part of the problem than the coal and oil companies themselves. After all, information is power.
The scientific community is going to have to get much more active, publicly, I believe.
Cheers,
Jeff
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in a blatantly political move to help strengthen his support among the right wing for his bid to become the next governor…
Unfortunately, the same susceptibility to being bamboozled over climate change works to make Cuccinelli’s political attack attractive to his base. No critical thinking skills, or at least they’re dormant.
(Sorry for the several typos in my Comment 1)
Cheers,
Jeff
Nor did The New York Times cover that amazing letter, by seventeen leading scientific organizations, regarding climate change that those organizations (including the AAAS) sent to all members of the U.S. Senate late last year.
Not only did the NYT fail to cover the letter, the NYT editors declined to print it after Peter Gleick approached them with it. That’s right — the NYT declined to print a letter signed by over 250 National Academy scientists!
From the Physics Today article cited by Joe above:
According to Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a research center in Oakland, California, who spoke with New York Times reporter Sindya N. Bhanoo, before they gave it to Science, the group had first submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all of whom declined to to run it.
Folks have been asking, “Why was that important letter buried behind a scientific journal paywall?”. Well, now we know.
It is inconvenient to Corporate Media for the public, consumers, and well-informed utility maximizing agents calculating Pareto optima to have this information.
Best,
D
Dano (6) — Huh?
Oh, you mean the letter in Science…
If the University refuses to comply with the request it seems likely the traditional media will turn their bright lights on the matter. Hopefully it will not be the beam of faux balance but a glaring spotlight exposing Mr. Cuccinelli as the worst kind of pandering wing-nut.
It is unfortunate that there is no scientist in the USA today with the public stature that Einstein had back at the time physicist came to realize that an atomic bomb was possible, and Germany might be working on one. Then-unknown scientists like Szilard were able to enlist Einstein to get Roosevelt’s attention.
We need such a scientist today to get not the President’s (attention I feel confident he’s as upset by these trends as we are) but the public’s attention about the danger of these witch-hunts. Cucinelli and Inhofe’s threats need to be publiziced by the most trusted voices available. If 250 members of the National Academy of Sceinces can’t do that, who can?
But the media rushes to cover 1 pop-eyed loopy lord who knows nothing but how to get attention.
> “According to Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a research center in Oakland, California, who spoke with New York Times reporter Sindya N. Bhanoo, before they gave it to Science, the group had first submitted the letter to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and the Washington Post, all of whom declined to to run it.”
What reason did they give?
FYI, from the NYT Green blog, “[Update: the piece was submitted to The New York Times Op-Ed section and was not sent as a letter to the editor.]”
Would that make a difference? Maybe they should resubmit as an LTE, to see what happens.
(Presumably the NYT has no reason *not* to run it as an LTE, since it’ll still be news to their readers, even if isn’t to the rest of us)
“It is unfortunate that there is no scientist in the USA today with the public stature that Einstein had back at the time …”
You’re right. Feynman came close, and now … no one. I’d venture that the number one living science *communicator* in the US might just be Alan Alda.