Climategate Minority Report

While the Met Office announces a “do over”, the much anticipated report from Environment and Public Works (EPW) minority leader Senator Jim Inhofe has been announced in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works” hearing.

SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY

Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science

Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, “‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy.” The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN’s IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

- Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

- Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

- Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and

- Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

“This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

“The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline.”

Link to EPW Minority Report on CRU Controversy

Link to a Sampling of CRU Emails

Link: IPCC Gets the Science Wrong

Link: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed Science

###

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Climategate Minority Report

  1. Curiousgeorge says:

    Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.

  2. JonesII says:

    Will have to wait a few months to be a majority document…

  3. Mike Davis says:

    At least one government group sees this for what it actually is. If a Senate hearing can be forced then maybe some more truth will come out with legal consequences due to misappropriation of government funds.

  4. John Diffenthal says:

    It’s a brave commentary but there are a lot of people who will need convincing before they wind back the EPA’s Endangerment position. I wonder how many of them will discount their reading of this by saying to themselves “It’s just from Inhofe …”.

  5. Rhys Jaggar says:

    An admirable use of democratic due process.

  6. Skepshasa says:

    He began by addressing Sen Boxer who stated in December that Climate-gate should be called “E-mail theft gate”.

    The timing is perfect with the UK MET Office surface data “do over” announcement.
    If, as Boxer said, “it is a crime” then I guess the “crime” is paying off as this would not have happened without the Climate-gate emails…

    OT:
    Global Weirding Is Here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html

    What kind of unscientific drivil is global weirding? It’s unfalsifiable and sets people up with terrible critical thinking skills on the issue.

  7. kim says:

    Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media reports that Senator Inhofe has called for a Department of Justice investigation into the matter, and for Al Gore to return for Congressional hearings.
    ===============================

  8. Nigel Brereton says:

    This should assist Lord Lawson in his meeting Monday!

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/23/oral-evidence.html

  9. AEGeneral says:

    Not expecting any response to his request, but nonetheless, I have a lot of admiration for Inhofe.

  10. Thank you, Senator Jim Inhofe, for having the courage to call a spade a shovel!

    From the next state East of Oklahoma, I am

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  11. kim says:

    Yep, AEG @ 8:51:54, just raising the stakes a little, and howling that Gore’s gone to ground.
    ======================

  12. Curiousgeorge says:

    In a related item: EPA’s response to Sen Rockerfeller about the Endangerment Finding and their expected phase in timeline. She drags up all those other agencies that have relied on the bogus IPCC and AlGore reports, totally ignoring any dispute over the actual science behind it all. http://epa.gov/oar/pdfs/LPJ_letter.pdf

  13. Herman L says:

    Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science.

    As proof I offer exhibit one: his document “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The document has been proven wrong at so many levels yet Inhofe has refused to correct it.

    How has his document been proven wrong? He cites scientists as global warming “doubters” who are not.

    Exhibit two:

    George Waldenberger. But this is what Waldenberger wrote to Inhofe when he discovered his name on last year’s list: “Take me off your list…. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.” But, when last check, his name was still there.

    Exhibit three:

    Anja Eichler, Senior Scientist at the Switzerland’s Paul Scherrer Institute. Regarding the way Senator Inhofe characterizes her research study: “our conclusions were misinterpreted”

    Inhofe cites people as scientists who have no natual science credentials.

    Exhibit four:

    Alex Robson (p. 203 on Inhofe’s report). Ph.D. In economics. Economics is not a subject that makes one knowledgeable about the science of climate change. Robson writes about risk management, a valid topic for an economist. He is not, however, qualified to speak on the science of global warming.

    here are more: http://650list.blogspot.com/

    When Inhofe at least acknowledges obvious errors in his previous work, then we can begin to address his current work as credible.

    REPLY: Oh Herman, just get over yourself, I’m tired of your whining. Senator Inhofe is just as qualified as Al Gore to speak on the issues of climate. He’s just as qualified as Boxer, he’s just as qualified as Lisa Jackson.

    Gore never acknowledged errors in his work, and his audience is huge compared to Inhofe’s, so your point is one sidedly moot.

    There’s no perfection is science or in politics, get over it. Besides, Inhofe’s request was shot down anyway, so I’m sure you are thrilled. -A

  14. sensorman says:

    Just read the report. Is this evidence of the existence of an “urban sanity island”?

  15. Henry chance says:

    Judges on Algore

    Drama 9.9
    Artistic form (power point) 8.45
    Originality 2.3
    Technical scores 3.85

    He is going for the gold.

  16. sensorman says:

    After reading a little more about Mr Inhofe, I may have to retract my last comment…

  17. Pedro says:

    Curiousgeorge @ 8:36: “Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.”

    Interesting? Perhaps.

    Expected response? Of course. They’re totally in bed with the AGW movement.

    Another expectation: Senate leadership will similarly “totally ignore” it, and they will deep-six Sen. Inhofe’s efforts … upon non-transparent instructions from the WH.

  18. NickB. says:

    John Diffenthal (08:40:49)

    Now that this is an EPA regulation, it is subject to legal challenges on top of Inhofe’s request for an IG review. Someone has been keeping track in the comments here on the various legal challenges presented already – I believe at least 2 states have filed suit amongst a host of other parties.

    If it came from Congress there would be less leeway to legally challenge, going the EPA route actually makes it much more difficult to pull off in a practical sense.

  19. Tim says:

    I’m watching this live on-line. Unfortunately Mr. Inhoe was unable to persuade Mrs Jackson. She firmly believe’s the “science is in” and she is standing tall.

    If these folks really believed in the science, there would be Cap and no Trade. Cap and Trade really means your can spend as much as you can afford to pollute, which does absolutely nothing for the environment. So what doe that get you?

  20. paullm says:

    Once again I call for national recognition and perhaps a “real” Nobel Prize for Sen. Inhofe. How about the senator being awarded Gore’s prize? His work to confront this “HOAX” in the Congress has provided the time and inspiration for the issue to mature and our scientific/professional heroes to organize and speak out.

  21. George Tobin says:

    1) Formally this is headed nowhere. No chance that DOJ will even pretend to notice. No chance that full committee will act. However, it may matter nevertheless because a lot of Democrats are looking for any excuse to bail on cap and trade and other job-killing measures.

    2) The cute notion that voters won’t take it out on Democratic members of Congress because they punted this issue to EPA is going to be sorely tested if EPA does what they are expected to do.

    3) So Climategate is one more reason for Democrats to stall and try to silence the issue altogether. For that reason, Inhofe is having an effect even though everyone will deny it.

  22. John Hooper says:

    Curiousgeorge (08:36:40) :

    Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.

    Because it’s only Inhofe.

    Google his other opinions on Noah’s Ark, Gays and Guns and you’ll see why.

    The enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend.

  23. Pascvaks says:

    And Alice went to The Tea Party.

  24. Come on you Yanks! Only America can stop this AGW farce, with a little help from the Brits, ANZACS, Canuks, Indians, Russians, Chinese, Scandinavians, et al.

  25. Don Shaw says:

    Rush just caught Boxer in a big lie. She claimed that she was only dependent on US institutions like NOAA. He then plays her very words recently quoting IPCC

  26. G. L. Lalique says:

    When is soeone in the British government going to do likewise and have the courage to open up the debate? David Cameron might do himself a lot of good if he took the lead on this.

  27. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – G. L. Lalique (09:27:22) :
    “When is someone in the British government going to do likewise and have the courage to open up the debate? David Cameron might do himself a lot of good if he took the lead on this.”
    ___________________________
    Not a chance mate. No guts, no glory!

  28. Al Gore's Brother says:

    Herman L @ 9:06:03

    The IPCC has been proven wrong on many fronts yet they have flatly refused to correct themselves. In fact, they have gone so far as to claim they now have MORE credibility. If that is the case then your point is backwards. Sen. Inhofe has MORE credibility to speak on the subject.

    In the future, please do your homework before you post such irrational drivel here…

  29. DR says:

    Does anyone have the link to Boxer, Byrd et al preaching about the lack of snow for previous recent years in the U.S. as proof positive of global warming catastrophe?

  30. John Diffenthal says:

    @ G. L. Lalique (09:27:22)

    The idea of David Cameron stepping so far outside mainstream thought is simply risible.

  31. Henry says:

    [snip - speculation on the man's character, you don't know your assertion to be true, and I'm not impressed with the integrity of your assertion, since you use a false name yourself - A]

  32. James Sexton says:

    Bob (Sceptical Redcoat) (09:24:40) :

    “Come on you Yanks! Only America can stop this AGW farce, with a little help from the Brits, ANZACS, Canuks, Indians, Russians, Chinese, Scandinavians, et al.”

    We’re going to have to wait until the November elections. Our current administration and congress are a bit thick and refuse to see what’s going on. And we’re going to need more than just a little help, but I’m more than a little hopeful that this farce will end. Sadly, and embarrassingly so, us Yanks seem to be a bit behind the curve when it comes to debunking the myths associated with AGW.

  33. James F. Evans says:

    Henry (09:40:23) wrote: “Lets wait for a real, balanced report.”

    Yes, let’s wait for the fraud to be completed and Cap ‘n Trade to implimented.

    Not.

    Still, Democrats won’t go ahead with an investigation, but, then, again, another campaign issue in the fall.

    And, some news coverage.

    All good.

  34. D.T. says:

    I just watched this on CSpan. It just reinforces my opinion that hearings like these are mainly for show. Partisans will never—never—allow science to trump party politics. Politicians like Inhofe aren’t that common.

    Yes, I voted for Inhofe and may vote for him again. We Democrats hold a large majority in Oklahoma, so any Republican elected has to appeal to a large number of us. Just so you know.

    D.T.

  35. R. de Haan says:

    An unexpected good documentary was aired by ZDF in Germany.
    The word “Betrug” = “Fraud” was used in reference to several well documented examples. IPCC Gate obviously is unstoppable and now has hit the hart of the former German Propaganda Machinery. It’s amazing.
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/mojib-latif-on-zdf-fraud-to-public.html

  36. Ric Werme says:

    paullm (09:17:28) :

    Once again I call for national recognition and perhaps a “real” Nobel Prize for Sen. Inhofe. How about the senator being awarded Gore’s prize? His work to confront this “HOAX” in the Congress has provided the time and inspiration for the issue to mature and our scientific/professional heroes to organize and speak out.

    A “real” Nobel Prize? Math? Physics? Medicine?

    He’s a politician making sausage. Perhaps he has to be as strident as Senator Boxer, and the report may be useful, but he has done no original science that I know of. Advocating a Nobel prize for the man is to advocate for reducing the “real” prizes to the level of the Peace Prize.

  37. Steve Koch says:

    The next step is to institute a class action suit against the perpetrators of the AGW fraud (i.e. Hansen, Mann, Jones, Pauchari, Gore, etc). The discovery process alone should yield mountains of muck.

  38. Luboš Motl says:

    He loves Boxer so much – such a cute beginning. ;-) A heavyweight boxer may be needed to deal with all these crooks. Not sure whether Barbara is enough for the job. :-)

  39. AGW-Skeptic says:

    “Sadly, and embarrassingly so, us Yanks seem to be a bit behind the curve when it comes to debunking the myths associated with AGW.”

    Well, the US media is totally “in bed” with AGW, whereas the Brits have more diversity in their media.

    Thank you, Al Gore, for the internet!

  40. Vincent says:

    Herman L launches into the usual warmists modus operandi – ad hominem attacks; if you can’t attack the message attack the speaker.

    Whatever senator Inhofe has said or not said in 2008 is totally irrelevant. since last I looked, he was talking about recent revelations: “Himalyan glacier melt by 2035 – a lie; 40% Amazon rainforest destruction – a lie.” One could add that Inhofe was being overly conservative in that he omitted more criticisms than he mentioned – but I suppose he was time constrained.

    Still, it always helps to stick your fingers in your ears and scream “its a lie its a lie.”

  41. Jean Parisot says:

    Has anyone filed an SEC complaint (and/or it’s UK equivalent) with regards to the various AGW alarmists manipulating the market for investment products without proper disclosure of interests?

  42. Rudy Petorelli says:

    The last few months has seen a tsunami of evidence of deception, fraud, criminal action, attempts to stifle dissenting opinions, involving scientists who supplied global warming information to the UN and the UN IPCC itself. It is a disgraceful and disgusting story of a small coterie of people attempting to deceive the world re man-made Global Warming.

    Just a perfunctory examination of some of the millions of posts on internet web sites will substantiate this.

    People need to forget they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. They need to forget they are progressive or conservative.

    Our Government, thru the EPA, wants to enact some of the most punishing, expensive regulations on individuals and businesses in history. It has the capacity to ruin our economy when our economy is already in trouble.

    And they base this action on fraudulent science and a corrupt UN.

    How many trillions of dollars have been spent worldwide to “prove” man-made global warming due to CO2? Despite 20-30 years of effort, science is no nearer to proving this than when they started.

    Imagine if all of that money were spent to encourage and develop alternative energy sources, clean-coal burning technology, development of our vast oil resources, development of our vast natural gas resources, building of nuclear energy plants, etc, etc, etc.

    We should immediately pull back all unspent research money aimed at proving man-made warming.

    We should block the EPA from enacting ANY legislation regarding energy until science has proven beyond a doubt that man is causing any warming of the planet.

    Wake up America and the rest of the World.

    We are wasting trillions of dollars that will have NO effect of climate.

    This is NOT an immediate crisis, if a crisis at all. Let us stop this madness.

  43. A C Osborn says:

    One very plus point about this is that it is bringing the questions out for airing again. It may only sway a few more people to look at the issues, but every one is a “won battle” for us. It might not be the war, but if we can just win enough battles to affect Voting in the UK, the USA and Australia we might just get somewhere.

  44. Robert Christopher says:

    @ G. L. Lalique (09:27:22)

    You blew it, Dave: Cameron’s wind turbine in the wrong spot
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390128-you-blew-it-dave-camerons-wind-turbine-in-the-wrong-spot.do
    London Evening Standard, March 24th 2007

    Even though this is nearly two years old, I haven’t seen any updates on the subject.

  45. Doug in Dunedin says:

    I’m saddened to conclude that Cameron will be no better than the disastrous Broon for Britain. On any front he seems to be a total wimp. He wouldn’t have the acumen to see the political advantage of championing opposition to CAGW.

    Doug

  46. Henry chance says:

    Democrats say something is happening out there 3 inches snow. Boxer and Byrd ready to give up.

    We are in TROUBLE.

  47. Herman L says:

    Sorry, but I gotta call you out on a factual error here. You write “Gore never acknowledged errors in his work”, yet Gore did indeed correct his most recent slide show.

    As Andy Revkin reported (coincidentally one year ago today): “Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation.”Kalee Kreider, Gore’s spokeswoman on environmental matters wrote to Revkin: “We appreciate that you have pointed out the issues with the CRED database and will make the switch back to the data we used previously to ensure that there is no confusion either with regards to the data or attribution.”

    The complete Revkin post is here: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/ It includes the full text of Gore’s spokeperson’s reply.

    Now, I’m sure you can reply with a Gore-didn’t-fix-this and Gore-didn’t-fix-that retort (specifics would be helpful for further research) right now, but at least Gore has gone publicly on record with a correction. You can’t say “never” about Gore. I feel fully confident, however, that I can say “never” about Senator Inhofe.

  48. starzmom says:

    When I see and hear Boxer and Pelosi, the mental image I have in my head is my son, at 4 years old, with his eyes shut and hands over his ears, singing “I’m not listening!”

  49. Wind Rider says:

    The Democrats are still hanging tough – Sanders equated Inhoffe to Nazi sympathizers of the 30’s, and Boxer intimated that he was McCarthy re-incarnate. Twice they accused the SPPI of being funded by Exon Mobil (Barrasso, R-WY introduced an SPPI published report on the NOAA temperature shennanigans).

    Jackson’s initial response to the question about wether she stands by her statement of reliance on the IPCC AR4 report as solid science? “I think you’re taking me out of context”.

  50. Mark says:

    Agree with Ric Werme. Is political expedience only bad if it’s used to argue a case you don’t agree with? There’s a whiff of hypocrisy around some peoples’ support of Monckton and Inhofe. It could come back to bite.

  51. harrywr2 says:

    ” G. L. Lalique (09:27:22) :

    “When is soeone in the British government going to do likewise and have the courage to open up the debate?”

    Never, if one looks at various ‘energy independence issues’ whether or not Global Warming is real is irrelevant, the EU as a whole has an energy independence problem, unless they are prepared to become client states of mother Russia.

    In the US and Australia, the discussion is a bit different, as we have massive amounts of coal.

  52. Mack says:

    I think you folks in the USA are lucky to have people like Sen.Inhofe to speak out on your behalf. He in turn is lucky to have people like Anthony and Steve and all the others who have worked so hard to expose the fraud.In the UK,Christopher Booker and J.Delingpole along with Lord Monckton are making the running in uncovering the crime,maybe the coming election will produce a champion to perform like Sen Inhofe ?

  53. dfbaskwill says:

    Please. oh please put Michael Mann under the glaring lights. I’ll buy tickets!

  54. JonesII says:

    With all this climate issue, first world countries have become the mockery of third world countries..in every aspect you have surpassed the wildest and funniest banana republic!
    My sincere congratulations!

  55. Mark says:

    Agree with John Hooper too as it happens.

  56. JonesII says:

    Hey!, instead of fighting with thousand of soldiers Al-Qaida, why don’t you send Al Baby over there with a team of technicians to install windfarms all over Afghanistan…Believe me, they will surrender inmediately!

  57. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Rudy Petorelli (10:21:27) :
    ‘Our Government, thru the EPA, wants to enact some of the most punishing, expensive regulations on individuals and businesses in history. It has the capacity to ruin our economy when our economy is already in trouble.
    And they base this action on fraudulent science and a corrupt UN.’

    But Rudy I am more worried by statements like this:-

    “story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

    I have to ask “what motivates your president?”

    Doug

  58. erik sloneker says:

    Inhofe was a pit bull on this subject before climate-gate and the subsequent revelations became widely known. Imagine what he’ll be now. I’m disappointed he didn’t mention uncertainties regarding the surface temperature records. Once the temperature records undergo a transparent reappraisal, AGW will be officially dead.

    My hat goes off to Anthony and the two Ms for your tireless efforts to expose this fraud. My sincere thanks to you all.

    Erik Sloneker

  59. rbateman says:

    Sen. Inhofe framed it very well. Superfund, which worked in the past, has been derailed a long time back due to the hiatus over AGW, which is now seen as misplaced findings.
    Reset button is now on the table.
    And that’s how you get common sense back into the discussion.

  60. Sharon says:

    I wish the report’s executive summary had mentioned the fact that CRU has been funded by US government agencies, the Department of Energy for example. Mann also has been funded, and was even an employee (post-doctoral researcher) at the DOE. This is a line of investigation I hope the good Senator will pursue. Follow the money.

  61. jothi85 says:

    To Bob (Sceptical Redcoat) (09:24:40) :

    The brazilians, South Africans, Indians and Chinese ( BASIC countries ) have already said “getLost” to AGW, about 10 days ago. The indians are setting up their own institute and have already said IPCC is not relevant. Chinese have said we have to keep an open mind on AGW – translation “Go to Hell” .

    so, if our EPA is going to do anything, the next congress will pull the budget. next prez can replace the “endangerment finding”
    so, this whole effort by Boxer-Jackson duo is just going through the motions to satisfy the left wing.

  62. Alan S says:

    As noted in some comments: bar very few, the media and other “elites” won’t care to report it or even pay any attention to it.

  63. Dr A Burns says:

    Curiousgeorge (08:36:40) :
    “Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.”

    NBC, CNBC, MSNBC are owned by GE. GE is a supporter of Cap & Trade because it stands to make billions out of its windmills and nuclear power stations.

  64. D. King says:

    Lisa Jackson says she relies on NOAA and not the IPCC.
    OOPS, the head of NOAA’s NCDC is Thomas Karl.

    “According to a school biography published by Northern Illinois University, Karl shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and other leading scientists based on his work at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was “one of the 10 most influential researchers of the 1990s who have formed or changed the course of research in a given area.” “

    Thomas Karl is the head of Obama’s new Climate Change office.

    http://tinyurl.com/yz6s6qw

  65. Herman L says:

    To Vincent (10:08:14) :

    Herman L launches into the usual warmists modus operandi – ad hominem attacks; if you can’t attack the message attack the speaker.

    I don’t consider it an ad hominem attack to call out a person for commiting obvious errors and then refusing to correct them. I said “Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science” because of the document he produced, not the person. Sorry if it reads the other way. My Bad.

    My point is that Inhofe has an established track record of not just being wrong, but being so obviously wrong that his work cannot be trusted. When a scientist directly states that he’s misrepresenting her work, that is reason to issue a correction. Inhofe has not done that. When a scientist says take my name of your list, I don’t agree what you are attributing to me, that is reason to issue a correction. Inhofe has not done that. These are facts; there’s nothing grey here and no other way to interpret this: Inhofe’s report is wrong. The list of errors is very long. You can fact check the citation’s in Inhofe’s report yourself.

  66. RuhRoh says:

    Thanks for the post.

    BTW, while reading through the Climategate emails, I finally realized the context of Overpeck’s ‘contain the MWP’ .

    The context is that he is asking for a 2000 year timeline plot instead of the 1000 year.
    There is a reference to MWP spanning 800-1300, and ‘Peck’ had suggested a graph that would contain the beginning as well as the end of the MWP.

    So, that is a less worrisome quote than I had understood it previously, as I see it. He did not ask that it be vertically ‘contained’ or constrained…
    There’s plenty of ‘non-robust-ethics’ revealed in those emails.
    Focus on ‘contain’ is misplaced I think.
    RR

  67. KTWO says:

    A minority report will be ignored. Only FOX is likely to report it.

    The print media may put a paragraph on an inside page of the Saturday paper.

    I applaud Inhofe for his tenacity whatever his motives.

  68. Greg Cavanagh says:

    The more I understand about how politics works, the more I despise politicians.

  69. David L. Hagen says:

    Minor correction – Senator Inhofe presented at the “Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works” hearing, not on the “Senate Floor”.

  70. hotrod ( Larry L ) says:

    Fox online is currently running both of these stories with rather long articles, but has not published a story on the Minority report itself, but I agree it is highly likely that they are the only large news media organization in the U. S. that will give it much air time.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/23/inhofe-calls-investigation-scientists-climate-change-e-mails/

    Larry

  71. tarpon says:

    You want a real laugh, watch the trailer for Al Gore’s film on youtube, and remember it won an Oscar and led to a Nobel Prize.

    Probably be next year when the House flips then the …. Will hit the fan.

  72. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Dr A Burns (12:01:51) :

    Curiousgeorge (08:36:40) :
    “Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.”

    NBC, CNBC, MSNBC are owned by GE. GE is a supporter of Cap & Trade because it stands to make billions out of its windmills and nuclear power stations.

    Ah, if only it were just about the money. Unfortunately, it’s about political power in the biblical sense. In some political circles, the objective is to create contented, compliant, and non-threatening slaves who don’t even realize they are slaves. Management of information is a key ingredient in that endeavor. Manufacturing consent and all that.

  73. David L. Hagen says:

    KTWO – Its already on Drudge and in the New York Times:
    EPA Chief Goes Toe-To-Toe With Senate GOP Over Climate Science

    Senate Republicans used the hearing as a platform to blast EPA over its plans to begin rolling out greenhouse gas regulations next month after it determined last year that the heat-trapping emissions endanger human health and welfare.

    Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel’s ranking member, called on EPA to reconsider that determination after recent reports have revealed errors in the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that were used to underpin EPA’s finding and a recent controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate scientists that some have dubbed “Climategate.”

    “We’ve been told that the science still stands,” Inhofe said. “We’ve been told that the IPCC’s mistakes are trivial. We’ve been told that Climategate is just gossipy e-mails between a few scientists.

    “But now we know there’s no objective basis for these claims,” he added. “Furthermore, Climategate shows there’s no ‘consensus;’ the science is far from settled.”

    Conversely, Salon upholds the global warming consensus line citing Steven Chu

    At this point, you just to have to choose your reality. I will choose Steven Chu and endlessly self-checking , self-correcting science over James Inhofe every single day.

    InClimate-Change Fervor Cools Amid Disputed Science (Update1) Bloomberg reports:

    Also last week, ConocoPhillips, BP Plc and Caterpillar Inc. said they will quit the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of companies created in 2007 to push for legislation to reduce carbon pollution.

    GE Chief Executive Officer Immelt, who helped spearhead formation of the coalition, says legislation is needed so companies know how to proceed with long-term investments. . . .
    Peabody Energy Corp., the biggest U.S. coal company, said in a court challenge Feb. 12 that the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency relied on flawed science by the UN panel in its decision last year to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.

    The EPA “needs to step back and begin a thorough review of the real state of scientific understanding of greenhouse gases,” Beth Sutton, a spokeswoman for the St. Louis-based company, said in an e-mail.

  74. davidmhoffer says:

    KTWO
    I applaud Inhofe for his tenacity whatever his motives.>

    “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” ~ Sun Tzu

    however, my recollection of Sun Tzu is that when the enemy has been eliminated, your alliance must be re-evaluated because the “next enemy” may not be one that you have in common. Inhofe is, in this battle, an ally. For other battles…. other allies.

  75. Stephan says:

    re previous need to reduce size to fit North Chile in or just pick chile….

  76. tornadomark says:

    Romm on Fox News w/ Cavuto (4:10pm Tue):
    Romm:”Inhofe doesn’t understand Climate. He supports dirty air!”
    Cavuto: “What if you are overstating the problem, Joe?”
    Romm: “We cannot risk doing nothing!”
    Romm: “These snowstorms are exactly what’s expected from Global warming.”
    Romm: “Phil Jones did not say that the last 15 years have been cooling…”

    What colour is the sky in your world, Joe?

  77. David L. Hagen says:

    erik sloneker – One of the other Senators brought up the surface record expose at SPPI.
    See also:
    World’s biggest coal company brings U.S. government to court in climate fraud

    The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.. . .

    Moreover, PEC is demanding that the EPA shall convene a full evidentiary hearing as a part of such reconsideration. If this element of the petition were granted it is highly probable that the weight of the new evidence now freely available since Climategate would expose the criminal and fraudulent component within the science of man-made global warming, and would likely succeed in having all the EPA’s findings on carbon dioxide invalidated.

    Thereby, from accomplishing their civil task Peabody will lend further weight to the likelihood of criminal charges being brought against those individuals implicated in international fraud on the largest scale ever known.

    The full PEC petition is published by SPPI

  78. James W says:

    Inhofe calls for investigation on Mann….. And his use of Fed funds for AGW.
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/23/inhofe-calls-for-investigation-of-researcher-michael-mann/

  79. Ralph Woods says:

    When an issue becomes a religious cult, like AGW, I suppose you have to take whatever allies you can to fight back.

    But Inhofe and Fox News are such easy targets. Fox for all its sloppy, racist, and heavy-handed bashing. And Inhofe for his obvious ties to oil.

    Can’t we do better than these full-of-holes alliances?

  80. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Sen. Inhofe has a dog in this fight, he’s a licensed pilot and has considerable training in meteorology. His life & the lives of his passengers depend upon his ability to interpret the shifts in weather and air currents.

    Sen. Gore is….uh….well….something.

  81. Roger Knights says:

    Herman L (09:06:03) :

    Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science.

    As proof I offer exhibit one: his document “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The document has been proven wrong at so many levels yet Inhofe has refused to correct it.

    How has his document been proven wrong? He cites scientists as global warming “doubters” who are not.

    This is an example — one of many — of why it is better to avoid overstatement, or anything that the other side can use to create a diversion. The title of that collection should have been (as the current curator of the list of peer-reviewed dissenting-material has revised it to something like) “Papers containing material that is non-supportive or worse of global warming.”

    Inhofe’s list should also have eliminated borderline cases, or at least put them in a separate category.

    Some of the scientists would still have objected to the inclusion of their papers on that list, but that would have been because — in some cases — they didn’t want their colleagues shunning them, not because of an inaccurate characterization of their material.

  82. Skepshasa says:

    Has anyone else noticed the propensity of true believers in AGW theory to use the “Pascal’s wager” technique:

    ===”You should believe in AGW/God because….what if you’re wrong? What are you going to do if you’re wrong?”===

    Sad…

    Ironic that Inhofe is one that would use it FOR God and not AGW, but Boxer would no doubt do the opposite. Crazy!

  83. D. King says:

    steven mosher (13:36:18) :
    Wow Steve,
    The raw data may not be raw data. Remember, two sets of source code.
    Dave

  84. Roger Knights says:

    Pedro (09:10:46) :

    Another expectation: Senate leadership will similarly “totally ignore” it, and they will deep-six Sen. Inhofe’s efforts … upon non-transparent instructions from the WH.

    The bettors on Intrade, the online event-prediction site, give the Democrats only a 2/3 chance of retaining control of the Senate in 2010. So there’s hope.

  85. Johnhayte says:

    Well, I suppose one should read it before drawing any conclusions, but I would expect a report like this to be more concerned more with politics (namely the upcoming mid-term elections) than defending the integrity of scientific inquiry.

  86. Ed Forbes says:

    DR (09:34:14) :

    “..Does anyone have the link to Boxer, Byrd et al preaching about the lack of snow for previous recent years in the U.S. as proof positive of global warming catastrophe?..”

    Try this one:
    Breitbart TV looks back on Byrd, Boxer, Klobuchar blaming lack of snow on AGW
    http://www.looktruenorth.com/limited-government/climate-change/11244-breitbart-tv-looks-back-on-byrd-boxer-klobuchar-blaming-lack-of-snow-on-agw.html

  87. G.P. says:

    Let the EPA do their things let them try to wreck a part of the economy and we will see on november what will happen !

  88. Tom in Texas says:

    steven mosher (13:36:18)

    Another satellite sensor failure?

  89. pat says:

    should be IPCC was fast and loose with facts, jo…

    Joseph Romm: Newsweek plays fast and loose with facts in climate story
    http://sunvalleyonline.com/links/2010/02/22/newsweek-plays-fast-and-loose-with-facts-in-climat

  90. Peter of Sydney says:

    When is everyone going to realize that nothing has changed. Western governments like the US, Australia and the UK are still pushing very strongly for some form of greenhouse gas tax. If not by legislation then by some other means. There is no stopping them barring their eviction at the next election. However, it may be too late by then. There is only one other possible way to short circuit the AGW scam. Charge many of the leading AGW alarmists with fraud and any other criminal charges. Take them to court and it would be not too unreasonable to expect a guilty verdict given all the mounting evidence. Then and only then will the real tide turn. Meanwhile, the governments have the power to push through their AGW agenda as it stands. There is no doubt about that as it can be plainly seen. We can have evidence discounting the AGW thesis coming out of ears but nothing will change. Some would say we already have it coming out of our ears. We need to take this “fight” to the proper level; in the court room, before it’s too late.

  91. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Ralph Woods (13:59:53) :
    “When an issue becomes a religious cult, like AGW, I suppose you have to take whatever allies you can to fight back…Can’t we do better than these full-of-holes alliances?”
    ___________________________
    AGW isn’t a religious cult. It’s more like a movie they made in the 1950’s “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. I always look under the bed at night before I get in to see if there’s a pod underneath. I think we all need to to that. Every night;-)

    PS: We are, everyone of us, a glob of contradictions –of good and not so good traits. Don’t underestimate the opposition, or over estimate yourself. The enemy of your enemy may not be your friend, but it seems like a good idea to cheer him on. It might make your job a little easier.

  92. Andrew30 says:

    “Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. ”

    The Minority Staff Report.

    Perhaps something like the Merck/Vioxx trial.

    Merck had:
    Years of research.
    Peer reviewed papers.
    Medical studies.
    Multi-year field trials.
    Patient testimonials.
    Favorable publication in scientific magazines.
    Thousands of doctors believing them.
    Millions of people believing them on multiple continents.

    And the court discovered that Merck, their researchers, the reviewers and the magazines had been lying the whole time.

    People died.

    Science won, Merck lost.

  93. Thomas Hobbes says:

    Does anyone have a read on what the “Petition for Reconsideration” means from a legal or procedural standpoint… Is this like Oliver Twist asking for ‘more’.. by this I mean, can the ‘petition’ be dismissed summarily with out process, explanation or due consideration… Or is there a specific legal standing which forces a court hearing and review?

  94. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Peter of Sydney (14:32:10) :
    “When is everyone going to realize that nothing has changed. Western governments like the US, Australia and the UK are still pushing very strongly for some form of greenhouse gas tax…”
    ____________________

    I think you have some misplaced trust in the Justice System we have in most Western countries. If the Executive and/or Legislative Branches are currupt, the Judicial Branch is powerless (and is also very likely to be just as, if not or more, currupt).

    Laws and Taxes passed today CAN be changed, revoked tomorrow.

    Elections matter.

    When the system is beyond restoring the people have one final solution.

    People are people. Scratch the surface and we’re all capable of great violence. Civilization as we know it is a construct of words, written on a piece of paper, that we have agreed to live by. Nothing less. Nothing more.

  95. Kevin Kilty says:

    Ralph Woods (13:59:53) :

    When an issue becomes a religious cult, like AGW, I suppose you have to take whatever allies you can to fight back.

    But Inhofe and Fox News are such easy targets. Fox for all its sloppy, racist, and heavy-handed bashing. And Inhofe for his obvious ties to oil.

    Someday, please, just once, give an example of these slanders. Show an example of Fox’s racism, for instance. I don’t even own a TV, and I don’t know Inhofe from Adam, but people can work for oil companies and still tell the truth I assure you.

  96. Noelene says:

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson laid out the timetable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions Monday, writing in a letter to lawmakers that she plans to start targeting large facilities such as power plants next year but won’t target small emitters before 2016.

    The letter makes it clear the Obama administration will move ahead with curbing global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act unless Congress moves to stop it. Jackson emphasized that the administration was required to act under a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said greenhouse gases from motor vehicles qualified as a pollutant under the 40-year-old air-quality law. Jackson was responding to a letter several coal-state senators sent her late Friday.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204829.html?hpid=sec-nation
    She is acting under a supreme court decision that found greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles qualified as a pollutant ,to regulate power stations,guess that makes sense.

  97. Andrew30 says:

    Thomas Hobbes (15:01:45) :
    “Does anyone have a read on what the “Petition for Reconsideration” means from a legal or procedural standpoint…”

    At this point it is like handing the EPA a way to admit they were deceived and allow them to change their mind without further legal process. It will play out (starting in March) as a public discovery process and will take a few weeks.

    If the EPA does not take the offer to save their reputation then we should expect; a move to a Federal court to actually begin the legal proceedings directed at individual actions since the allegations of fraud include the reference to federal money; and/or private litigation to commence in Circuit/District Courts against individuals and institutions for losses incurred as a result of fraud; and a petition to the US Supreme court to examine the District Appeals Count actions and the determined outcome. If it goes the way of the Supreme Court, it will not likely be heard before summer recess. Since the Supreme Court begins the fall session on the first Monday in October, the case will be in full swing come the November elections.

    I think that it will be an election issue in the United States.

  98. Science is now a propaganda tool, and according to
    The Golden Rule: “He who controls the gold, rules.”

    Post Normal Science is PostMortem Science.

    What a sad state of affairs,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  99. hotrod ( Larry L ) says:

    Kevin Kilty (15:17:23) :

    Ralph Woods (13:59:53) :

    When an issue becomes a religious cult, like AGW, I suppose you have to take whatever allies you can to fight back.

    But Inhofe and Fox News are such easy targets. Fox for all its sloppy, racist, and heavy-handed bashing. And Inhofe for his obvious ties to oil.

    Someday, please, just once, give an example of these slanders. Show an example of Fox’s racism, for instance. I don’t even own a TV, and I don’t know Inhofe from Adam, but people can work for oil companies and still tell the truth I assure you.

    Yes I concur that is a pretty harsh charge to make with no evidence to support it. Especially considering their on air staff includes 4 blacks and 1 from Indian origin for starters. In wide shots you can see camera staff who are black as well.

    Uma Pemmaraju
    Juan Williams
    Lauren Green
    Charles Payne

    Shibani Joshi

    Like wise also include a list of all the congressional representatives that have never received a contribution from an oil related organization or business.

    This comment was way out of bounds and off topic enough to not be constructive. It, like the most severe ad hominem attacks and insults used by the AGW supporters says a lot more about you than it does about the validity of your argument.

    Larry

  100. David S says:

    Inhofe is apparently the only one in the senate with any critical thinking skills, or maybe the only one who isn’t getting paid off.

  101. Andrew30 says:

    Ralph Woods (13:59:53) :
    “And Inhofe for his obvious ties to oil. ”

    That the fact that it is ‘obvious’ is a plus in court, it will not be a revelation.

    The funding, connections and relationships on the other side are still not well understood by the public. It is the revelation of new information that one does not want to occur in court, on either side. The petitioner should always expose their positions before cross-examination under oath. If possible, even before legal proceedings are announced.

    Phil Jones, for example, has admitted to not having the data or the code, keeping bad records, etc. So these things would now not be revelations.

  102. Bulldust says:

    What I don’t get is this… by forcing this through when so many are hurting in the US economy, surely it is political suicide for Obama? Am I missing something here?

  103. pat says:

    climategate gives science bad name, luke:

    24 Feb: Australian: Luke Slattery: Climate wars give science bad name
    UNIVERSITY leaders are pressing for a public campaign to restore the intellectual and moral authority of Australian science in the wake of the climate wars.
    Peter Coaldrake, chairman of Universities Australia and vice-chancellor of Queensland University of Technology, told the HES yesterday he was “concerned about the way the climate change debate has flowed”, and would address the role of science in the formation of public policy at his National Press Club address next week…
    Margaret Sheil, chief executive of the Australian Research Council, said she was deeply concerned about the backlash generated by emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the criticisms of Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, head of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, and poor research on the rate of glacial melting in a 2007 UN report on climate change..
    “Anecdotally, we now see tabloids and talkback radio, and even some broadsheet newspapers, perpetuating these criticisms and the notion that `scientists just made stuff up’,” she told the HES…
    Ms Arabia said scientists welcomed public debate and embraced scepticism.
    “In fact scientists would welcome a debate on current climate change that challenges the science with science. A scientist never regards peer-reviewed research as being beyond criticism.
    “But unbalanced debates pitching peer-reviewed science against opinion, anecdotal evidence or the loud voice of cashed-up lobby groups is not healthy.
    “There needs to be a circuit-breaker. And the circuit-breaker is a deeper awareness of the importance of science as a discipline that is based on a time-honoured process called peer review.
    “Peer review allows ideas, scientific views to change, to be corrected. It allows experts to spot mistakes and omissions. Peer review allows scientists to rigorously test their ideas. It is the robust nature of this process that has given people confidence to fly in planes and feed their children nutritious food.”
    Ian Chubb, vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, said some populists had found it easy to denigrate science because many scientific conclusions in the field of climate change rested on a balance of probability rather than incontestable proof.
    “What concerns me is when you get people who are purporting to comment on the science and all they’re doing is seeking to turn themselves into celebrities.” he said.
    He also scorned critics of the science who were from other disciplines. “The world can’t do without science and if we denigrate it and belittle it and besmirch it by inappropriate behaviour we’re in trouble,” he said…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-wars-give-science-bad-name/story-e6frgcjx-1225833598122

    23 Feb: Guardian: David Adam: Climate wars damage the scientists but we all stand to lose in the battle
    It is open season on climate scientists, but such hand-wringing has allowed the creeping rehabilitation of climate scepticism
    Take the influence on public opinion. A recent BBC poll revealed the number of Britons who believe in climate change has dropped from 44% to 31% since November. A Guardian editorial blamed this on events at East Anglia, a link that was reinforced in a news story. But the poll results do not show this. In fact, they show the opposite…
    The evidence shows that the battle for hearts and minds in the fight against climate change has been strengthened, not weakened, by the East Anglia affair. It is a bizarre finding and I make no attempt to explain it, only to point out the dangers of rushing to see desired results in a series of data, or a simple narrative in a complicated picture. ..
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/23/climate-scepticism-hacked-emails

    david adam, how bizarre!

  104. James Sexton says:

    Ralph Woods (13:59:53) :

    “When an issue becomes a religious cult, like AGW, I suppose you have to take whatever allies you can to fight back.
    But Inhofe and Fox News are such easy targets. Fox for all its sloppy, racist, and heavy-handed bashing. And Inhofe for his obvious ties to oil.
    Can’t we do better than these full-of-holes alliances?”

    Fox is racist? I suppose you have proof of your assertion? Inhofe’s ties to oil? Have you checked out where Dutch Shell’s money has been going?
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html

    And http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2009/01/09/exxon-ceo-advocates-emissions-tax/

    Those should show you where oil money is going and what they’re advocating. Given this thread is given to discussing enemies and friends, apparently, we need to properly identify them.

    Oil industry one of the many enemies.(True that Conoco and BP recently pulled out of the alliance, but they’ve already done a fair amount of damage.) Fox is the only major media outlet in the U.S. that has the courage to print an opposing view to current thought in MSM. They are friends.(Yes, Fox is given to a conservative slant, but no more of the left leaning slant at all the other MSM.) At any rate, I view this attempt to control every necessary aspect of the world’s population through some fanciful scheme of CO2 warming alarmism the primary and prevailing issue facing us all. While I vehemently disagree with some of the thoughts expressed here regarding other issues, I believe it more productive to accept the fact that we can disagree on somethings, but stay united in struggles for sanity and truth in science, and not to grant this world wide power grab success.
    We’ll work out the other issues later. Until then,
    Cheers.

  105. Daniel H says:

    I don’t understand how the “Honorable” Lisa Jackson can pretend to be completely objective about how her agency reached the endangerment finding when only last July she was discussing climate change in the context of “environmental justice” with an ACORN-like “climate justice” group. She actually agreed with one questioner who equated climate change funding with slavery reparations! This is all on the EPA’s web site. It’s all on record. Why aren’t people picking this stuff up?

    Here is an excerpt from the official transcript of that meeting:

    MR. WILSON: Well, I am not just talking about EPA money. I am talking about the interagency part of it. Our efforts deal with just basic amenities people who still don’t have water, don’t have streets paved, just the raw, nasty stuff that came out of slavery that we still deal with. And they are not called green jobs, they are not called climate change. They are called basic amenities for life that were denied, and the people who struggle to bring them to this forefront, like I am doing now, are not funded. We are not in the funding stream. We are not New York. We are not Oakland. We are not Chicago. So we always are pushed to the back of the line, even when we have this level of visibility. People don’t care where Mebane is, or Alamance County is. They care where New York is. They care where New Orleans is. But they don’t care where we are.

    ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: I think one of the things that I am interested in exploring is really to use my office as a way to bring attention to the communities, what I call “the other rural America,” because we are spending a lot of time, it is actually around the climate change discussion right now, talking about the Midwest, and the agricultural sector has very real concerns that this whole climate change thing is very bad for their industry. I spend a lot of time saying, “Well, climate change is bad for your industry, too.” Now, you know, cap and trade, you think that is bad? How about climate change? But I think you make a good point.
    _________

    That’s from page 221-222:

    http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/nejacmtg/nejac-meeting-trans-072109.pdf

    This sort of thing needs to be brought to the attention of the media and Senator Inhofe because it’s very, very disturbing.

  106. Pamela Gray says:

    Inhofe, you da MAN! …said the socially liberal, fiscally conservative, concealed weapons permit, 357 magnum packin redhead.

  107. ginckgo says:

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ey?

  108. Kay says:

    @ NickB. (09:12:09) :Now that this is an EPA regulation, it is subject to legal challenges on top of Inhofe’s request for an IG review. Someone has been keeping track in the comments here on the various legal challenges presented already – I believe at least 2 states have filed suit amongst a host of other parties.

    There are 16 total so far, and we’re up to 3 states: Virginia, Texas, and Alabama. The US Chamber of Commerce has asked the federal courts to reconsider the endangerment finding.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/19810/16_Endangerment_Lawsuits_Filed_Against_EPA_Before_Deadline.html

  109. Peter of Sydney says:

    Pascvaks I hear what you are saying. However, it’s a bigger risk to leave it up to the people to decide when the people in general are easily swayed from one side to the other side of the debate, especially the way the media behaves during election campaigns. You have to understand most people do not have a clue abut what’s climate change is all about. At least with the evidence we have thus far we could try and put some of the leading AGW alarmists in court to bring them to account. Sure it won’t be easy nor cheap but it can work. It’s our only real chance. I won’t hold my breath though. If people in general are stupid enough to vote back the current governments then I think we have lost.

  110. DoctorJJ says:

    Makes me proud that he is the Senator from my district. Go Senator Inhofe!!!

  111. KTWO says:

    David L.

    Glad to find out I was mistaken. The media works in mysterious ways. And if the NYT and MSM do carry the story it will indeed be strange.

    I know nothing about Inhofe except that he has seemed pretty much alone in questioning AGW in the Senate.

  112. Bryn says:

    One of the main difficulties all western countries face is that few politicians in positions of influence have science backgrounds. Without careful briefing they cannot make sense of the complexities of climate, let alone AGW. Few can ask pertinent questions without careful briefing.

    That lack of a suitable background training means they cannot easily understand the inevitably technical answers to their questions. Senator Inhofe is no different and the same could be said of the majority of their voting public.

    Politicians can only rely on advice given by “experts” on which to base policy. No matter the “experts” may be inept or fraudulent, the AGW scam is now so ingrained as gospel in enough voters minds, few politicians of any persuasion are likely to buck the trend. It is most depressing.

  113. David L Hagen says:

    Thomas Hobbes
    For legal issues, see:
    16 ‘Endangerment’ Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline

    ROBIN BRAVENDER, NY Times Greenwire | 17 February 2010
    Industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers and three states filed 16 court challenges to U.S. EPA’s “endangerment” finding for greenhouse gases before yesterday’s deadline, setting the stage for a legal battle over federal climate policies.

    Filing petitions yesterday were the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Another was filed by a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.

    The lawsuits ask the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. That finding — released in December in response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling — allows the agency to regulate the heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Observers expect the court to consolidate the petitions.. . .

    Note also:
    EPA Prepares to Take the Lead on Regulating CO2

    Still, it’s far from clear exactly how the EPA will regulate carbon. Regulations would call for new plants to take on the “best available technologies” to control carbon emissions, but the EPA hasn’t specified what those technologies are . . .

    EPA Lawsuite by Southeastern Legal Foundation

    The goal is to compel the federal government to follow the laws as enacted by Congress and to pursue legitimate public policy based on legitimate scientific data. . . .SLF is providing background legal and scientific information on this website during the pendency of the various legal actions in order to ensure that the American people have access to the proceedings and to solid representative materials of the scientific inquiry into climate change.

    See SLF Legal Documents
    Taking EPA global warming rules to court
    By: Shannon L. Goessling

    Peabody Energy Company’s Petition PETITION TO EPA: YOUR AGENCY HAS NO LEGAL OPTION BUT TO REEXAMINE ITS ENDANGERMENT FINDING

    PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    OF EPA’S ENDANGERMENT FINDING
    by the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Industrial Minerals Association – North America, Great Northern Project Development, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Rosebud Mining Company, Massey Energy Company, and Alpha Natural Resources.

  114. Michael says:

    paullm (09:17:28) : Wrote

    “Once again I call for national recognition and perhaps a “real” Nobel Prize for Sen. Inhofe. How about the senator being awarded Gore’s prize? His work to confront this “HOAX” in the Congress has provided the time and inspiration for the issue to mature and our scientific/professional heroes to organize and speak out.”

    +1000

    I don’t know if this is relevant except for the title of the movie.

    Minority Report – Theatrical Film Trailer #2

  115. arthur says:

    this is the second time ever i have commented on these blogs i usually just read in awe, but tonights bbc programme on “how earth made us” informed us that man prevented an ice age 7 thousand years ago because we grew crops and domesticated animals which caused a greenhouse effect.

  116. David, UK says:

    I find it amazing that many people still buy into the AGW cult, given the extraordinary claims the Warmist promoters and politicians make:

    If the winters are milder and summers hotter, that’s global warming.
    If the winters are harsher: that’s global warming too.
    If it snows less than average: yep, global warming of course.
    If it snows MORE than average: well, obviously that’s caused by more precipitation, caused by…erm…global warming.

    Basically, if it’s not “average”, it’s global warming, caused by that little bit of extra CO2 man pumps out. And if there is no real evidence of increases in extreme events (hurricanes, etc), well, simply make them up, or draw attention to every isolated “extreme” event. And keep telling the people that this is an emergency and if we don’t act yesterday then we’re all doomed.

    Utter madness on a global scale. I am more convinced than ever that most warmist politicians and scientists do NOT have the best intentions at heart. I don’t believe that they are simply ‘misguided’ anymore. At best I might allow that they are being self-delusional, but I don’t think that deep down most of them really believe what they’re saying anymore. But this is the road they – and we – seem to be stuck on.

  117. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Peter of Sydney (16:33:02) :
    “Pascvaks I hear what you are saying. However, it’s a bigger risk to leave it up to the people to decide when the people in general are easily swayed from one side to the other side of the debate, especially the way the media behaves during election campaigns. You have to understand most people do not have a clue abut what’s climate change is all about…”
    ______________________

    Absolutely true!

    People rely on others who are aware of a danger to warn them that the danger requires their attention. Whether fire, wolves, thieves, enemy attack in war, etc.. It seems we are the ones who are aware of a danger that many do not realize is present.

    The biggest “risk” is frequently the one civilized people who don’t want to be bothered revert to: “Leave it to the system –others.”

  118. Michael says:

    Carbon market update.

    “Carbon, Mr. Shapiro says, “exists as a commodity only through the decisions of politicians and bureaucrats, who determine both the demand, by setting emissions limits, and the supply, by establishing criteria for offsets.” The resulting carbon market is what he calls an “elaborate shell game.”

    CONNING
    THE CLIMATE
    Inside the Carbon-Trading Shell Game
    By Mark Schapiro
    http://www.probeinternational.org/files/Conning%20the%20Climate.pdf

  119. Inquisitive1 says:

    James Delingpole’s column in the Telegraph.co.uk says it all.

    Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (”mothballed” is the euphemism). It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

    Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India. Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”. By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

    There’s more. The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

  120. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Stephan (13:07:15) :
    “…Checkout the atacama desert this is the current weather scenario massive storms over the atacama desert?”

    Big el Nino. SOI reached 8 stdev negative couple of weeks ago, which is amazing. Big el Nino means flash floods in Peru & Chile.

  121. hotrod ( Larry L ) says:

    Bulldust (16:00:47) :

    What I don’t get is this… by forcing this through when so many are hurting in the US economy, surely it is political suicide for Obama? Am I missing something here?

    Yes unlike the politicians, you are missing a very strong bias that prevents you from seeing reality.

    In my judgment one of two things is going on.

    The Obama administration and the Democratic congress is so drunk with power due to their majority in congress and the (as they see it) mandate of the last election, that they think they are untouchable and can do anything they want without paying the political price.

    Or it is the blindness of the ideologue, or the martyr syndrome that they believe so strongly in their agenda, that they are willing to “take one for the team” in order to push through a key element of their long term agenda.

    They have misinterpreted the mandate of the last election to mean that the bulk of the American population want them to do exactly what they are doing, not realizing that the mandate meant exactly the opposite. People wanted change all right, but they did not want this sort of change. They wanted an end to exactly this sort of power play highly partisan politics. The public wants to get back to give and take politics where the good of the country out weighs the good of the party and the administration or some single issue agenda.

    I know a large number of people from all political persuasions, who are silently seething with anger and they are rapidly moving toward a “vote the bums out” mentality regarding all incumbents.

    Several of them I know, have expressed an intent to automatically vote against every sitting politician in every election until the message gets heard that they are “mad as hell and not going to take it any longer”.

    I expect this next freshman class in Congress will be one of the largest in modern history, and will likely change politics in this country for the next half century or more.

    Larry

  122. UpNorthOutWest says:

    It will be interesting how Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairwoman of Inhofe’s committee, reacts to this going forward.

    She’s in the electoral fight of her life here in California this year. A year ago she was championing cap-and-trade; it was her signature legislation and she couldn’t talk about it enough. Now she’s trying to whistle and stare at the ceiling, as she claims to be all about jobs.

    You can’t be for job-killing cap-and-trade and for job growth; simply impossible.

    I’d love to see Inhofe push a government reaction to the climate hoax in committee and force Boxer to pick a side. Boxer’s opponent, Carly Fiorina, no doubt will be hammering her on this issue.

    http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20102210313

  123. Thomas Hobbes says:

    David Hagen, Andrew30,

    Thanks for the feedback. Very interesting indeed.

    What was not clear, was whether these lawsuits, or ‘petitions’ would effectively block the EPA from beginning their restrictions on Carbon production/emission?

    Hope that your (Andrew30’s) prediction that this become an Election issue becomes realized but I fear that the US press will continue to fade the coverage. The NYT has been shocking in its overt bias.

  124. Bulldust (16:00:47) :

    What I don’t get is this… by forcing this through when so many are hurting in the US economy, surely it is political suicide for Obama? Am I missing something here?

    My reply;
    Obama helped set up the carbon trading scheme, was recruited to play the role of the current president, and be the scapegoat in case any thing that went wrong, Climategate opened up the can of wrong worms.

    Now that they are out, he is trying to contain them to save face and not become exposed for the figure head he is, plausible deny-ability is his ace in the hole, that he hopes will save his ass in history.

    From his actions at Copenhagen running around with out the awareness of the location of the other main countries representatives, India, China, showed me that he did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support.

    When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such. Left in disgust and anger, with his feelings hurt realizing he was a puppet left hanging on strings as the real deal came down.

    Leaving out all of the underdeveloped nations, was done the day before, and he did not get the memo to just go home. He is now trying to hold up his end of the bargain, knowing he is going to take the fall either way, Biden his time till the axe falls.

  125. Jean Parisot says:

    Doug in Duedein:

    “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

    Given the massive fraud and exploitation of the EU carbon trading mechanisms, it make one wonder about the involvement of the Broadway Bank crowd (Chicago Mob) in Obama’s carbon exchange.

  126. Bill in Vigo says:

    I had intended to comment on this but find my self wondering how skeptical persons can go about attacking each other and trying to change the minds of in this case, Americans. Gentlemen some skeptics bad mouth others because they believe in God. OK they believe in God, the last time I looked one of the things that God stresses and that is to tell the truth. Another disses a skeptic because he might have worked or owned “oil” or “coal”, I own property in Alabama with the mineral rights and most of the state north of Montgomery has some form of coal on it, so. I am tired of people discounting others with out proof of conflict of interest. And that being an overbearing controlling conflict of interest. Enemies change and so do allies. We as skeptics had better use every tool in our box of goodies and use them well. This battle isn’t over by a long shot. All we want is truth in Science. I don’t care who provides the data, I don’t care who designs the programs used to study the data, I don’t care Who they work for. AS LONG AS THE DATA IS OPEN PROPERLY GATHERED, CATALOUGED, STORED, AND VERIFIABEL! THE PROGRAMING IS OPEN AND VERIFIABLE! I DON”T CARE! Now shouldn’t we get back to good science and the proper use of empirical data. Shouldn’t we return to good statistical programs. Shouldn’t we return to due diligence. Shouldn’t we return to transparency.

    It is time to stop name calling and get back to work. Science needs all of us and particularly climate science.

    Bill Derryberry

  127. aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES says:

    I want scientists and IPCC policy makers summoned to a Senate hearing to be broadcast on C-Span. I want the entire mess laid out before the world in broad daylight.

  128. Quote: Richard Holle (19:14:14) :

    “Obama helped set up the carbon trading scheme, was recruited to play the role of the current president, and be the scapegoat in case any thing that went wrong, Climategate opened up the can of wrong worms.

    Now that they are out, he is trying to contain them to save face and not become exposed for the figure head he is, . . .

    From his actions at Copenhagen running around with out the awareness of the location of the other main countries representatives, India, China, showed me that he did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support.

    When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such. Left in disgust and anger, . . . realizing he was a puppet left hanging on strings as the real deal came down.”

    Leaving out all of the underdeveloped nations, was done the day before, and he did not get the memo to just go home. He is now trying to hold up his end of the bargain, knowing he is going to take the fall either way, Biden his time till the axe falls.”

    That’s an interesting analysis, Richard.

    1. Obama “was recruited to play the role of the current president” by whom?

    2. Obama “did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support”. Does the CIA or some intelligence agency control the US President?

    3. Others at Copenhagen “knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.” They knew that Obama is whose puppet?

    Thanks, Richard.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  129. tokyoboy says:

    Does this “minority” refer to the party (or parties) that occupies a minority position as regards the number of members in Congress or Senate? Thanks.

  130. David L. Hagen says:

    The Peabody EPA Petition cites the legal basis:

    II. LEGAL STANDARD.
    Under Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is obligated to convene a proceeding for reconsideration where the grounds for the objection either arose after the period for public comment or were otherwise impracticable to raise during that period, and are of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). An objection that demonstrates the agency’s rule is invalid because it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” is of central relevance to the rule. Id.
    § 7607(d)(9). Reconsideration must “provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed.” Id. § 7607(d)(7)(B).

  131. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Jean Parisot (19:31:08) :
    Given the massive fraud and exploitation of the EU carbon trading mechanisms, it make one wonder about the involvement of the Broadway Bank crowd (Chicago Mob) in Obama’s carbon exchange.

    Richard Holle (19:14:14) :
    When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.

    Jean Parisot
    Are you suggesting that the Chicago Mob control Obama?

    And
    Richard Holle, are you connecting Obama to the Chicago Mob as their puppet?
    While I have always considered Obama as facile and an empty vessel, these ideas go much further and are indeed very sinister. If true, they are extremely dangerous not for just the US but for all of us. What reason have you to make such an implication? Can you explain?

    Doug

  132. That’s an interesting analysis, Richard.

    1. Obama “was recruited to play the role of the current president” by whom?

    2. Obama “did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support”. Does the CIA or some intelligence agency control the US President?

    3. Others at Copenhagen “knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.” They knew that Obama is whose puppet?

    Thanks, Richard.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    #1 Corrupt circle of friends he has since surrounded himself with as WH staff, many of his former banking buddies.

    #2 George Bush senior was former director of CIA, Jr. had good intel, whether he had the brains to use it sans guidance I don’t know.

    The supposed purpose of the CIA is to provide good intel for congress and the WH, at least that what it says on the front page of their web site.

    #3 Those in the final meeting China, India, Brazil… chose to close out the undeveloped nations the day before, by leaking info they knew they would rebel from, giving them free rein to have a closed door meeting with out interference.

    The international intel community is better than you think, the Chinese are not ignorant of this plot by the carbon brokers, India certainly has a enough connections through Patchy and gang at Tera. To know to side step the commitment phase of the UN agenda, Obama was told they had left and were at the airport already, when they started their meeting without him. If he had the connection to intel the Bush’s had he would not have been running around wondering where they were.

    Would you think for a moment that those involved up to their eyeballs for the past 15 years, did not know how Obama got to the forefront of politics, in the USA in spite of all of the opposition he faced in the campaign, showed up as an unknown to be sacrificed at the CAGW alter.

    But hay I’m just a retired production worker from a small town in Kansas..
    with a 21kbp dial up connection. Imagine what the truly curious can find out in several months?

    Reply: I reeeeaaallly don’t want to go back and read all the comments that preceded this, but can we stop with the political conspiracy theory comments, even if you believe them? ~ ctm

  133. toyotawhizguy says:

    @Herman L (09:06:03) :

    “Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science.”

    Wouldn’t that mean that Al Gore also has no credibility for the same?

    “As proof I offer exhibit one: his document “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The document has been proven wrong at so many levels yet Inhofe has refused to correct it.”

    Proven wrong by who? Can you cite an unbiased source for this assertion? (Didn’t think so.)

    “How has his document been proven wrong? He cites scientists as global warming “doubters” who are not.”

    Some names please? I’m sure that Senator Inhofe is privy to private information that the public have no knowledge of. There are a plethora of scientists who are AGW skeptics who keep their position private, in order to not endanger their career.

  134. toyotawhizguy says:

    @tokyoboy (20:51:26) :

    “Does this “minority” refer to the party (or parties) that occupies a minority position as regards the number of members in Congress or Senate? Thanks.”

    Yes. The minority party is the party with the 2nd largest number of members holding a seat in either of the two divisions of Congress. Currently, the Republicans are the minority party in both the Senate (holding 41 of 100 seats) and the House of Representatives (holding 178 of 435 seats).

    BTW, the Democratic Party (the majority party in both the Senate and the House) is overwhelmingly comprised of AGW believers, since belief in AGW is part of the official party “line”.

  135. H from London says:

    No doubt the good Senator has as much right as anybody to comment on what is known about CRUgate. But to me over here, it seems a tad premature when an inquiry with access to people, documents and databases is still in progress.

  136. Vincent says:

    Herman L,

    “I said “Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science” because of the document he produced, not the person. Sorry if it reads the other way.”

    And I said quite clearly that I’m talking about the speech he made to the Senate. In it he said that:
    1) The IPCC’s claim of Himalyan glacier disappearance by 2035 was a lie:
    2) The IPCC’s claim that 40% of the Amazon rain forest would disappear as a result of climate change was a lie.

    These are quite clearly statements of fact. Why do you continue to distract with red herring arguments?

  137. toby says:

    Inhofe is just a glorified lobbyist for big oil and coal. What a waste of space!

  138. toby says:

    Vincent,

    So the Himalayan glacier number was wrong? It was a mistake not a lie. So what? If you go to http://www.realclimate.org you will find that the IPCC document holds up very well with a minor blemish, which did not find its way into the recommendations for policymakers.

    No, didn’t think you would listen.

  139. Walnut says:

    “””toby (05:06:30) :

    Inhofe is just a glorified lobbyist for big oil and coal. What a waste of space!”””

    Oh Really. Al Gore has made triple on his carbon economy empire more than Inhofe could ever dream of making from oil! I doubt that Inhofe has benefited much at all personally from big oil, might have helped his career, but oil men are his constituents, after all.

  140. maz2 says:

    Canadian government: “there is no consensus”.
    …-

    “Maxime Bernier challenges climate science

    While the Harper government has been widely criticized for its stance on climate change, it has not questioned the science behind international negotiations. And, notably, the government signed the agreement negotiated at the Copenhagen conference and has submitted its emission reduction targets as required.

    Today, however, in a letter to La Presse (which he says was not seen by the PMO), ex-foreign minister Maxime Bernier defends the government’s approach from the point of view of a “skeptic.”

    Some excerpts from the letter:”

    “What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about. The alarmism that has characterized this debate is no longer appropriate. Canada is wise to be cautious.””

    “We now recognize that it’s possible to be a “skeptic,” or at least to keep an open mind about nearly all critical aspects of the warming theory. For example, while no one questions whether there has been warming, there is no consensus among scientists as to its degree.

    Moreover, we realize that during the period of greatest concern about warming – the last decade – temperatures have stopped increasing! Meanwhile, the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, said to be the cause of warming according to the official theory, is still increasing. Some very serious scientists believe that we are under-estimating the influence of the sun and other factors that have nothing to do with carbon emissions.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/

    http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/02/24/thou-shalt-not-question-the-opp/#comment-75579

  141. Herman L says:

    Reply to Vincent (04:06:23) :

    1) The IPCC’s claim of Himalyan glacier disappearance by 2035 was a lie

    Of course, it all depends on what you consider is a deliberate lie and what you consider a mistake. I doubt that you will believe that the error in found in two sentences on page 493 of Chapter 10 in Working Group 2’s report was just a mistake, so there’s no point in me trying to convince you. But if you believe, as Senator Inhofe apparently does, that this was a deliberate lie (and not just on the part of a few individuals — made by every IPCC participant up and down the writing and review process), then perhaps you can explain why they chose NOT to lie in the whole of chapter 4 of Working Group 1, which no one has challenged? If you open up that document (link here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4.html) you find a valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice with the authors including glacier experts like Georg Kaser, who first discovered the error in Working Group 2, chapter 10, page 493. I’ll let you explain why lie one place and not another. I’m sticking to the mistake explanation.

    ) The IPCC’s claim that 40% of the Amazon rain forest would disappear as a result of climate change was a lie.

    All you need to know about this is that the reference was wrong. This is corrected by replacing the WWF reference with the correct one. The underlying research by Daniel Nepstad is fully valid. As he writes “In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. ”

    You can read Nepstad’s full statement here: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/essays/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.htm

    Again, I’m sure I cannot convince you that this was simply an error, not a lie. So I simply ask you the question: why lie when all you need to do is include the correct reference?

    These are quite clearly statements of fact. Why do you continue to distract with red herring arguments?

    There, I’ve answered your questions, refuted you facts with evidence. I’d like to hear someone defend my “red herrings” about Inhofe’s factual errors in his report here:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 Still up on congress’s website, and still not corrected.

    REPLY: Herman, on the subject of “lies” that you bring up, it is central to the whole debate, Why does climate science need to lie and obfuscate if the postion of science is supposedly so strong? Why “hide the decline” why does Gore have 9 factual errors (still uncorrected) in AIT. By your opinion Inhofe’s list needs correcting. I suggest you write to him and when you get a reply, I’ll gladly post it here. In the meantime I suggest that before you start in again with lables of “lies” you might want to help get the AGW house of “lies” in order, since you seem to endorse them.

    Finally I’ll point out “I’m sure I cannot convince you…” doesn’t do anything helpful, it simply bolsters your own view of your own opinion. As I said from day one when you nitpicked over what you thought was misuse of a word, your style of conversation isn’t a winning combination here. You are failing miserably. -A

  142. Richard Holle (23:04:08) :

    Thanks, Richard.

    I neither endorse nor disagree with your analysis.

    Melting of the Climategate iceberg threatens to expose decades of filth and data manipulation in our major research institutions and science journals.

    That is probably why NASA put out this brand new, slick, and persuasive propaganda sheet:

    “New NASA Web Page Sheds Light on Science of Warming World” at:

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-062&cid=release_2010-062

    Hang in there, Ralph. We will all hang together or we’ll hang separately!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Science
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  143. vigilantfish says:

    Skepshasa (14:06:55) :

    Has anyone else noticed the propensity of true believers in AGW theory to use the “Pascal’s wager” technique:

    ===”You should believe in AGW/God because….what if you’re wrong? What are you going to do if you’re wrong?”===

    Sad…

    Ironic that Inhofe is one that would use it FOR God and not AGW, but Boxer would no doubt do the opposite. Crazy!

    _________________

    The AGW argument that we should take action to be safe even if the science is eventually disproved is not really a Pascal’s wager, because taking action will be a massive expense and will cause suffering among the poor, and a reduction of political freedom for all. The whole point of Pascal’s wager is that staking out a belief in God and saying the occasional prayer won’t hurt you or cost you anything, while failing to do so has the potential to hurt you in the next life.

    This is one of the reasons why AGW comparisons to religion are flawed: religious belief can be practiced freely and for free (although due to the call to act charitably, it would be a good idea to stick a few coins in the collection). However, cults demand total dedication and fealty, and cult practices including taking over followers lives and demanding a major portion of the follower’s income. The price of joining a cult or being brainwashed into joining is not unlike what is being asked of us by the global warming cult.

  144. Herman L says:

    Anthony,

    It’s revealing that I provide facts and references to dispute what you claim are lies, but you don’t address them.

    REPLY:You raised the issue with Inhofe, follow it through with him. But I think you haven’t the integrity, you just want to rant. I’ve found it to be a pointless exercise and huge time sink with you in the past, since your point of view is one of tunnel vision, and nothing I could say or do would change that. . But quite frankly, your opinion really doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. It is just not worth my time as I have larger issues to attend to. Feel free to shadow box though. -A

  145. A C Osborn says:

    Herman L (06:42:44) :
    Re the Amazon, you obviously haven’t read the original Articles referenced, whereas I have and the Values are completely in error, especially the %ages.
    Also in the Nepstad’s full statement the 630,000 km2 equals 15% is also completley wrong for the whole Amazon basin.
    It also specifically states “In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007.”

    ie it does not come from the quoted papers, but from work done years after the Moore paper, i.e. 2004 & 2007. So they couldn’t possibly cite future papers.

    So for the IPCC to be even close to correct they should have quoted Nepstad et al. 2004, which they did correctly in Natural ecosystems but the figure is only 33.33%.
    If you read the Nepstad et al. 2004 it only shows that the forest is susceptible, it is still the People burning of the Forest (which can burn out of control) to extend Farming (mostly for biofuels) that is the real problem.
    i.e. NOT
    “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).” (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007)”

  146. Herman L says:

    Can’t we all get along here? I did not bring up the subject of “lies.” That was Vincent @ 10:08:14 yesterday who raised the subject (possibly quoting Inhofe — I don’t know), which I was responding to. Further, I did not accuse Senator Inhofe of lying. I wrote that Sen. Inhofe needs to “acknowledge obvious errors in his previous work” @ 09:06:03 yesterday (and I cited three errors). In retrospect, I should not have written to Vincent “I doubt that you will believe that the error … was just a mistake,” so my apologies to Vincent for accusing him of closed-mindedness. I should have phrased that differently.

    I suggest we all stop accusing people of lying and give everyone the benefit of the doubt that all they are guilty of is making a mistake. Then give them a reasonable opportunity to address the error. Everyone makes mistakes.

    I’ve presented evidence that the IPCC acknowledged a mistake on Working Group 2, chapter 10, page 493. I’ve presented evidence that Daniel Nepstad did this for the Amazon rain forest matter. As I reported back @ 10:37:58, even Al Gore acknowledged an error. Facts are true or false, and sometimes we get them wrong. I simply believe Senator Inhofe has had his facts wrong for over a year (and I presented primary evidence for that) yet I have found no evidence that he — unlike the IPCC, unlike Nepstad, unlike Al Gore — has addressed that.

  147. Herman L says:

    A C Osborn —
    So you’re basically saying Nepstad got his research wrong? That’s fine, and, if correct, I hope a corrected version comes out. But he’s comfortable with the way his report was referenced in FAR, and that’s my point. People are challenging the IPCC for this; they should be challenging Nepstad.

  148. Jean Parisot says:

    Doug in Dunedin

    “Jean Parisot (19:31:08) :
    Given the massive fraud and exploitation of the EU carbon trading mechanisms, it make one wonder about the involvement of the Broadway Bank crowd (Chicago Mob) in Obama’s carbon exchange.”

    “Jean Parisot
    Are you suggesting that the Chicago Mob control Obama?”

    No, I am suggesting that anytime you have a convergence of Chicago politicians and a substantial amount of money – that one needs to look carefully at the arrangement. There is ample historical evidence to support this suspicion and the better part of a generation of Chicago politicians sitting in prison. Add to that, the current scandal in the EU and I believe concern is warranted.

    There is no insinuation of “control”, but for many years they did have common interests, common associates, and common financial relationships. The carbon exchange was established in that time frame and the potential must be considered. I doubt (without any details) that the development of the exchange included anti-fraud and organized crime experts, because at that time no one on the outside was really considering the value of the carbon trading.

  149. Quote: Jean Parisot (10:12:45)

    I do not recall voting in favor of “carbon exchange.”

    Do you?

    Did any ordinary citizens have anything to do with that decision?

    If not, why?

    Thanks,
    Oliver

  150. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Jean Parisot (10:12:45) :
    ‘No, I am suggesting that anytime you have a convergence of Chicago politicians and a substantial amount of money – that one needs to look carefully at the arrangement. There is ample historical evidence to support this suspicion and the better part of a generation of Chicago politicians sitting in prison. Add to that, the current scandal in the EU and I believe concern is warranted.
    There is no insinuation of “control”, but for many years they did have common interests, common associates, and common financial relationships. The carbon exchange was established in that time frame and the potential must be considered. I doubt (without any details) that the development of the exchange included anti-fraud and organized crime experts, because at that time no one on the outside was really considering the value of the carbon trading.’

    Thank you Jean for amplifying your thoughts for me here. There still remains the Cap and Trade issue, although I get the distinct impression that even the Democrats would now like to find a good reason to abandon this.
    In all of this I am alarmed how some powerful business interests are able to ‘strong-arm’ governments as great as that of the US. The epic ‘sub prime’ story which seemed to have its roots in the demise of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 was strong arm stuff and so it seems is this. It is events like these that lead to the demise of a nation. The US economy has been badly weakened by the former – it doesn’t need another dose.

  151. Vincent says:

    Herman L,

    “you find a valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice with the authors including glacier experts like Georg Kaser, who first discovered the error in Working Group 2.”

    I can’t find the word Himalaya in chapter 4 – perhaps you could give me the paragraph.

    However, if you say it’s in there I believe you. You ask the question why would “they” lie in WGII and not in WGI. Actually it’s pretty simple – because “they” represents a plurality of individuals consisting of different lead authors and different reviewers. They are two distinct documents. And we know Pachauri is too busy writing erotic novels to have noticed.

    You futher claim that the error of the 40% Amazon rainforest loss due to climate change is simply a matter of a wrong citation. I must disagree. It is not the citation that is in issue, but the underlying conclusion. WWF cited a paper on Amazon rainforest loss and logging. The conclusion was that overlogging would lead to a loss of precipitation that would in turn lead to the aforementioned rainforest loss. That is very different from the way WWF twisted it to mean that it was climate change that would lead to the rainforest loss.

    But it gets worse. Inhofe did not even mention the erroneous claim that there would be 50% loss of agricultural yield in parts of Africa as a result of climate change based on a non peer reviewed report written by activists. He didn’t mention the sin of omission of the finding that although some areas would suffer a water shortage, in balance there would in fact be a net reduction in water shortage.

    It’s funny how all these “mistakes” are biased in one direction only. Now why would that be?

  152. Vincent says:

    toby (05:09:34) :

    “Vincent,

    So the Himalayan glacier number was wrong? It was a mistake not a lie. So what? If you go to http://www.realclimate.org you will find that the IPCC document holds up very well with a minor blemish, which did not find its way into the recommendations for policymakers.

    No, didn’t think you would listen.”

    Sure, the Himalayan glacier episode was a mistake, the document holds up very well (ref: alarmist propaganda site).

    Sure, the 40% Amazon rainforest disappearance was a mistake, the document holds up very well.

    Sure, the claim of 50% drop in agricultural yield in Africa was a mistake, and still the document holds up very well.

    Sure the claim that more people would be water stressed than not was a mistake, but the document holds up very well.

    You could even add the erroneous claim that 55% of Holland was below sea level and see how the document holds up.

    Holds up well does it? Only if you’ve got an agenda.

  153. Robert Christopher says:

    Doug in Dunedin (10:25:12) : “I’m saddened to conclude that Cameron will be no better than the disastrous Broon for Britain. …”

    True, but Monckton (UKIP) is getting into his stride.

    Here he is on Alex Jones TV (1st of 5): Obama’s Green Jobs”Nothing More Than Socialized Terrorism!”

    It is worth watching; in part 4 at 4:45 he mentions TERI-Europe, which is described in more detail here:
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-4.html

    There is also this Telegraph article, 8:12PM GMT Feb 24th 2010
    There’s a blackout coming [to the UK] – unless someone sees the light
    The Tories must rescue Britain’s energy policy after years of dangerous neglect.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/benedict-brogan/7309946/Theres-a-blackout-coming-unless-someone-sees-the-light.html

    Here is a quote from the article: Forget global warming – the more pressing problem is that the lights are about to go out [in the UK].

    With a UK General Election due by June 3rd, what is it going to take to get Labour, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives, the BBC, ITV, (terrestrial) Sky etc start a conversation with the general public about this?

  154. Jean Parisot says:

    Doug in Dunedin,

    When I need polite cover on the AGW issue, I attack cap n’ trade rather then discussing the science. The greens can’t justify it as a solution to their “crisis”.

    Keeps my wife from kicking me too hard under the table at dinner parties.

  155. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Robert Christopher (15:25:04) :
    Doug in Dunedin (10:25:12) : “I’m saddened to conclude that Cameron will be no better than the disastrous Broon for Britain. …”True, but Monckton (UKIP) is getting into his stride.

    Robert
    Ah! The noble Lord, I have rejoiced in his triumphal swing through the Land of Oz and marvel at his erudition and debating skills —- But Robert UKIP? Is that the right vehicle for him? He should be with the Tories if he is to get traction.
    Anyway, Lord Monckton does stand out clearly as a leader with insight not just on the CAGW issue but also on the economic issues confronting Britain and its relationship with Europe. I’ll watch with interest – and hope! I despair with the Telegraph these days in that they still adhere to the ‘AGW Mantra’ in the main – they should grab the nettle!
    I’ll look forward to June 3rd.
    Thanks
    Doug

  156. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Jean Parisot (15:47:54) :
    Keeps my wife from kicking me too hard under the table at dinner parties.

    Now that I do understand! – As they say these days lol!

  157. Robert Christopher says:

    Doug in Dunedin (15:55:49) :
    You guessed correctly, and I think your vehicle question is a good one. To answer your (rhetorical?) question, I would expect that if Lord Monckton thought he could have found some traction he would have stayed with the Conservatives. After all, he did work for the Conservatives in the 1980s.

    I see Lord Monckton as a political voice bringing the subject into the public domain, a role that needs a politician to perform; separation of roles is so important! However, we need some political voices inside the House of Commons, and not just from one party.

    You are right: if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.

  158. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Robert Christopher (18:14:50) :
    if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.

    Agreed, but I don’t hold out much hope, he seems too flaky to me but he might surprise. At least politicians keep an eye on the numbers and they (the numbers) are moving towards the sceptic’s position. Anyway the UKIP people are saying the right things in Europe (to my mind) and Lord Monckton well – he is amazing. What astonishing recall!

    Doug

  159. Vincent says:

    Robert Christopher (18:14:50) :
    “if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.”

    I’m not sure I buy the theory that Cameron is just another sincere but duped politician, or even the theory that he is a secret sceptic waiting for the right moment to go on the offensive.

    Regretably I believe he understands the scam but is part of it. He has too many ties with billionaire overlords who stand to make a fortune. I hope I’m wrong though.

  160. Herman L says:

    Vincent (14:32:46)

    Actually it’s pretty simple – because “they” represents a plurality of individuals consisting of different lead authors and different reviewers. They are two distinct documents.

    So, on the basis of the Himalayan glacier matter are you accusing a few (unnamed) individuals of lying, and therefore not calling the entire IPCC process a lie?

  161. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Vincent (01:40:56) :
    ’m not sure I buy the theory that Cameron is just another sincere but duped politician, or even the theory that he is a secret sceptic waiting for the right moment to go on the offensive.
    Regrettably I believe he understands the scam but is part of it. He has too many ties with billionaire overlords who stand to make a fortune. I hope I’m wrong though.’

    Well if he becomes P.M. his responsibilities are to the people of the state and not his friendship with billionaire overlords. It is high time that these people appreciate the difference. Sadly though, Britain has lost most of its sovereignty to Europe anyway. When you look at all these factors the governance of China begins to look good! God help them!

  162. WAG says:

    Inhofe is an evil person. I grew up in Oklahoma, and for years he fought against residents of the biggest Superfund site in the US being relocated because it was “big government.” Instead, he thought their kids should get lead poisoning and cancer. He finally came around to the errors of his ways, but not before much more damage had been done.

  163. gary read says:

    [snip] Comments using “deniers, “denialists” as pejoratives are snipped, or simply deleted without comment. ~dbstealey, mod..

Comments are closed.