Senator and Delegate Square Off Against Attorney General Over Climate Change Research
Two Virginia representatives are raising bills to prevent Ken Cuccinelli from continuing his investigation into a research project
Sen. Don McEachin (D-Richmond) and Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) are patrons of a bill which would repeal sections of the Virginia code of law pertaining to the rights of the attorney general.
The sections grant the commonwealth’s attorney general—currently Ken Cuccinelli (R)—the right to issue civil investigative demands. These demands are frequently compared to subpoenas and require civil offices to provide specific information related to an investigation the attorney general’s office is conducting.
Cuccinelli’s office has sent out these civil investigative demands to the University of Virginia (UVA) to support his fraud case against former professor Michael Mann. Mann, during his tenure at UVA, used grants provided from taxpayer funds to research climate change and provided ways to determine shifts in global temperatures over time.
In the past, Cuccinelli has spoken out against the existence of climate change and says Mann's study falsely gave justification to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s increased regulation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Cuccinelli, Mann committed fraud while using state grants for his research because of questionable findings, data, and statistical analysis. He issued investigative demands to UVA about the study in order to find proof.
UVA appealed to the Albemarle County District Court, which threw out Cuccinelli's request. The attorney general countered by re-filing the demands, leading UVA to immediately appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
In a press conference earlier this month, Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) spoke in support of Toscano and McEachin's bill.
“I was very disturbed that we would have a situation which, what I would regard as a matter of academic inquiry—whether or not climate change exists, whether or not global warming exists —would be politicized to the extent that our attorney general would be issuing what are in effect subpoenas to individual professors and individual departments to try and collect their research notes, their emails, and other things that have to do with their research as academics," Petersen said.
"To allow the attorney general to have something we [civil lawyers] don't have, which is the subpeona power, I think is wrong," McEachin said at the same press conference. "My bill repeals that power."
Allowing Cuccinelli to continue on his path would inhibit other researchers in the future, McEachin said.
McEachin's bill was presented to the Senate Courts of Justice’s Civil Subcommittee on Monday. The subcommittee consists of five Democrats and two Republicans. Two of the Democrats have indicated support for the bill already, making its presentation before the General Assembly likely.
Cuccinelli’s office has not released a statement regarding the bill.
John C. Springer
12:03 pm on Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Yes I think Ken Cuccinelli is using his authority inappropriately to do political things which are fundamentally wrong and a waste of taxpayer funds. He should drop the case against UVa immediately. Mr. Cuccinelli should find more productive ways to execute the duties to which he was elected for the benefit of Virginians in general and not as a means to foster his obscene political ambitions. It might help him in the long-run to abandon unsupportable conclusions about climate studies. God save the Commonwealth from errant excursions into the extremes of political folly.
Renee Adams
5:15 pm on Thursday, February 3, 2011
Yes, I read an article (in the Washington Post, as I recall) that Cuccinelli had a personal interest in improving the way our society deals with mental illness. I was surprised to hear of his interest and hoped he would pursue that worthy goal that desperately needs to be addressed, though I then wondered what his thoughts were on the issue. I do find that individuals who are completely out in left field (as Anonymous in his/her reply to your comment) do have very reasonable ideas on some issues, so I hoped Cuccinelli's would be on the mental health issue.
No humans are perfect... no group of humans are perfect, but I do find that scientists have a pretty good system of policing themselves. Much better than most other groups, but not perfect, as we've seen in the past. In this case, climate change is supported by the bulk of climate scientists across the planet. There is so much evidence that other than a slight reasonable scepticism that one should have toward everything, no reasonable person should doubt it... unless it goes against their political ideology or their political pundits. All this polarization makes me wonder how we'll ever address the mental health issue... or improve our health system overall so that it doesn't bankrupt us.
Anonymous
2:48 pm on Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Maybe Mr. Springer should consider the insupportable conclusions about climate change made by the people that Mr. Cuccinelli is trying to investigate! Talk about your "inconvenient truth!"
As Attorney General, Mr. Cuccinelli would indeed be abandoning his duties for which he was elected if he turned a blind eye to the state monies allocated to fund bogus, padded and exaggerated scientific data! God save the Commonwealth from the self righteous climate change community who embellish scientific studies and then call anyone who questions their methods, obscenely political!