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
###
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
Inhofe, you da MAN! …said the socially liberal, fiscally conservative, concealed weapons permit, 357 magnum packin redhead.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ey?
@ur momisugly 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
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.
Makes me proud that he is the Senator from my district. Go Senator Inhofe!!!
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.
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.
Thomas Hobbes
For legal issues, see:
16 ‘Endangerment’ Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline
Note also:
EPA Prepares to Take the Lead on Regulating CO2
EPA Lawsuite by Southeastern Legal Foundation
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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
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