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
###
Antony is this for real? Checkout the atacama desert this is the current weather scenario massive storms over the atacama desert?
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=-25.23999977&lon=-57.52000046&zoom=8&pin=Asuncion%2c%20Paraguay&type=hyb&rad=0&wxsn=0&svr=0&cams=0&sat=1&sat.num=1&sat.spd=25&sat.opa=85&sat.gtt1=109&sat.gtt2=108&sat.type=VIS&riv=0&mm=0&hur=0
re previous need to reduce size to fit North Chile in or just pick chile….
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?
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 full PEC petition is published by SPPI
hey folks
visit here.
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/02/uah-january-raw-data-spot-check.html
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/
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?
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.
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.
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!
steven mosher (13:36:18) :
Wow Steve,
The raw data may not be raw data. Remember, two sets of source code.
Dave
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.
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.
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
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 !
steven mosher (13:36:18)
Another satellite sensor failure?
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
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.