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
###
Interesting that this is being totally ignored by CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Will have to wait a few months to be a majority document…
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.
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 …”.
An admirable use of democratic due process.
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.
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.
===============================
This should assist Lord Lawson in his meeting Monday!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/23/oral-evidence.html
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
Yep, AEG @ur momisugly 8:51:54, just raising the stakes a little, and howling that Gore’s gone to ground.
======================
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
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
Just read the report. Is this evidence of the existence of an “urban sanity island”?
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.
After reading a little more about Mr Inhofe, I may have to retract my last comment…
Curiousgeorge @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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