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

###

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Curiousgeorge

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

JonesII

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

Mike Davis

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.

John Diffenthal

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 …”.

Rhys Jaggar

An admirable use of democratic due process.

Skepshasa

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.

kim

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.
===============================

Nigel Brereton

This should assist Lord Lawson in his meeting Monday!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/23/oral-evidence.html

AEGeneral

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

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

kim

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

Curiousgeorge

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

Herman L

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

sensorman

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

Henry chance

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.

sensorman

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

Pedro

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.

NickB.

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.

Tim

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?

paullm

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.

George Tobin

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.

John Hooper

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.

Pascvaks

And Alice went to The Tea Party.

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.

Don Shaw

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

G. L. Lalique

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.

Pascvaks

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!

Al Gore's Brother

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…

DR

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?

John Diffenthal

@ G. L. Lalique (09:27:22)
The idea of David Cameron stepping so far outside mainstream thought is simply risible.

Henry

[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]

James Sexton

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.

James F. Evans

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.

D.T.

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.

R. de Haan

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

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.

Steve Koch

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.

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. 🙂

AGW-Skeptic

“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!

Vincent

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.”

jeanparisot

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?

Rudy Petorelli

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.

A C Osborn

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.

Robert Christopher

@ 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.

Doug in Dunedin

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

Henry chance

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

We are in TROUBLE.

Herman L

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.

starzmom

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!”

The state of Texas is suing the EPA over the CO₂ issue. Maybe it’s a start.

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”.