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

###

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
166 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark
February 23, 2010 11:09 am

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.

harrywr2
February 23, 2010 11:13 am

” 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.

February 23, 2010 11:14 am

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 ?

February 23, 2010 11:17 am

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

JonesII
February 23, 2010 11:17 am

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!

Mark
February 23, 2010 11:17 am

Agree with John Hooper too as it happens.

JonesII
February 23, 2010 11:23 am

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!

Doug in Dunedin
February 23, 2010 11:27 am

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

erik sloneker
February 23, 2010 11:33 am

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

rbateman
February 23, 2010 11:35 am

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.

Sharon
February 23, 2010 11:48 am

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.

February 23, 2010 12:00 pm

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.

Alan S
February 23, 2010 12:00 pm

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.

Dr A Burns
February 23, 2010 12:01 pm

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.

D. King
February 23, 2010 12:07 pm

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

Herman L
February 23, 2010 12:09 pm

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.

RuhRoh
February 23, 2010 12:14 pm

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

KTWO
February 23, 2010 12:21 pm

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.

Greg Cavanagh
February 23, 2010 12:43 pm

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

David L. Hagen
February 23, 2010 12:50 pm

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

hotrod ( Larry L )
February 23, 2010 12:55 pm

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

February 23, 2010 12:58 pm

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.

Curiousgeorge
February 23, 2010 12:58 pm

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.

David L. Hagen
February 23, 2010 1:03 pm

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.

February 23, 2010 1:04 pm

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.