Judge puts Cuccinelli's quest for glo...

Judge puts Cuccinelli's quest for global warming records on hold

There are 13 comments on the Richmond Times-Dispatch story from Sep 9, 2011, titled Judge puts Cuccinelli's quest for global warming records on hold. In it, Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that:

CHARLOTTESVILLE -- The protracted legal battle between Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the University of Virginia over access to documents produced by a former climate change scientist might take a long, cold winter to resolve.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#1 Sep 10, 2011
Clearly the judge agrees that Cuccinelli is on a fishing expedition, not investigation a fraud.

I suspect it is more about re-election and creating the 'perception' that something is wrong with Michael Manns work, even though the people that UNDERSTAND the science have cleared him.

Problem is that even if Cuccinelli obtained the documentation (and he probably could if he just used a FOI request, so why didn't he?) he would have no way of knowing if there was any problem with the data or analysis. He does NOT have the education to evaluate such matters.

The judge is right to restrict action to RELEVANT issues and demand a specific allegation before subjecting the scientists and the university to the cost and bother of defending themselves ONCE AGAIN on matters that are really not in the public domain.
Fun Facts

Apopka, FL

#2 Sep 10, 2011
Another instance od scientists and their sponsors hiding documentation. If it's real show it, when in doubt hide it.

Actually this isn't about the science it's about the money. The university doesn't want to be sued. Who can blame them?
Fun Facts

Apopka, FL

#3 Sep 10, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Clearly the judge agrees that Cuccinelli is on a fishing expedition, not investigation a fraud.
I suspect it is more about re-election and creating the 'perception' that something is wrong with Michael Manns work, even though the people that UNDERSTAND the science have cleared him.
Problem is that even if Cuccinelli obtained the documentation (and he probably could if he just used a FOI request, so why didn't he?) he would have no way of knowing if there was any problem with the data or analysis. He does NOT have the education to evaluate such matters.
The judge is right to restrict action to RELEVANT issues and demand a specific allegation before subjecting the scientists and the university to the cost and bother of defending themselves ONCE AGAIN on matters that are really not in the public domain.
Less, the public paid for it. The information is absolutely in their 'domain'.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#4 Sep 10, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
Another instance od scientists and their sponsors hiding documentation.
Bogus. As mentioned, another group used FOI forms to obtain all the raw data. But THEY were not on a legal witchhunt. Their objectives were the data itself for real analysis.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#5 Sep 10, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Less, the public paid for it. The information is absolutely in their 'domain'.
And the raw data they paid for is clearly available, not only under FOI but from the original data repositories. The AG is not after the SCIENCE. He is after 'fraud' yet cannot show any EVIDENCE to support his suspicions. In other works, the issue is NOT the 'ownership' of the data but the legal witch hunt being promoted.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#6 Sep 12, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
And the raw data they paid for is clearly available, not only under FOI but from the original data repositories. The AG is not after the SCIENCE. He is after 'fraud' yet cannot show any EVIDENCE to support his suspicions. In other works, the issue is NOT the 'ownership' of the data but the legal witch hunt being promoted.
He seemed to think he has the evidence and after all he is a lawyer. What your upset about is what would happened if he won the case.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#7 Sep 12, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
He seemed to think he has the evidence ...
His delusions are not interesting. Show that he is an 'expert witness' for climate science. Otherwise he's irrelevant.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#8 Sep 13, 2011
NobodyYouWantToKnow wrote:
In other works, the issue is NOT
What other works, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#9 Sep 13, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
His delusions are not interesting. Show that he is an 'expert witness' for climate science. Otherwise he's irrelevant.
FInd, lets start with the fact he has a law degree and is currently a practicing lawyer not to mention the Attorny General of Virginia.

ANd what do you have to counter other than your opinion and the fact that his "digging" just might uncover something you wish to remain hidden.
NobodyYouKnow

Nepean, Canada

#10 Sep 13, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
FInd, lets start with the fact he has a law degree..
I have yet to find a single physical fact that responds to a law degree. Doesn't change AGW in the slightest. Nor is it important to weather analysis.

Since: Sep 11

Charlottesville, VA

#11 Sep 13, 2011
Obviously they call him "KOOKinelli" for a reason. This man needs a lobotomy!!!!!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#12 Sep 14, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to find a single physical fact that responds to a law degree. Doesn't change AGW in the slightest. Nor is it important to weather analysis.
Well according to peer reviewed publications AGW isn't a fact either. Yet that dosn't seem to stop you in believing in it.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#13 Sep 14, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to find a single physical fact that responds to a law degree. Doesn't change AGW in the slightest. Nor is it important to weather analysis.
Also the fact that he is trained in the subject of law also means he is an expert in what can and cannot be called evidence. So if he says he has evidence then the only place that can be disproved is in a court with a judge.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Virginia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
italians are fake Nov 28 anonymous 5
News No holiday for political talk, social media pos... Nov 25 FaithlessElectors... 2
News Wall Street supports Bush, Clinton for sake of ... (Oct '15) Nov 16 ECI 11
News Columbus lawyer sees old classmate named Don be... Nov 11 Joe 2
News Charlottesville Man Charged with Rape (Jul '13) Nov 5 Voice of Reason 14
News Police Investigate Reported Abduction, Assault ... (Feb '13) Oct '16 Missinglink 115
News What We Know About the American Held in North K... (Mar '16) Sep '16 bobby 4
More from around the web