I'm just pointing out that this is the liberal/progressive cash cow from government, and though this Cuccinelli guy is most likely overstepping, there is a great deal of fraud within today's climate science where bad models are being used to justify draconian and asphyxiating economic policy.
The conservative cash cow tends to be defense contracts and federal land leases. Their bogeymen are terrorists and whoever may have a nuke with plans to hit us. This thing with Mann and Cuccinelli has nothing to do with defense or drilling, so I didn't include conservatives. If Dr. Mann was taking the opposite side and had inverted his hockey stick, screaming that we weren't doing enough to boost greenhouse gas emissions or nuclear detonations, I'd want him to be investigated, too.
Dr. Mann cherry picked his proxy datasets to flatten out well-documented prior high temperature periods, wed those to recent instrument data when the proxies diverged, and groomed them with bogus filters to make the recent half century look like a run-away freight train of increasing temperatures. He hid his data and process from any and all that sought to recreate his research and verify his results. That in itself is scientific fraud, paid for by the taxpayers of the US and the commonwealth of Virginia. After this, he had this graph planted prominently in the IPCC summary for policy makers, where it became the banner and clarion call for all of the environmentalist left, since the beginning of this last decade.
I love how moderation tends to run far amok on political threads. I guess I didn't contribute in the appropriate way by heaping scorn on the republican AG of VA, therefore getting an overrated and off-topic scoring. How exactly are you supposed to check misguided vitriol, itself off-topic, that paints with a large brush, but gets moderated as insightful?
-- Len
