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
###
David Hagen, Andrew30,
Thanks for the feedback. Very interesting indeed.
What was not clear, was whether these lawsuits, or ‘petitions’ would effectively block the EPA from beginning their restrictions on Carbon production/emission?
Hope that your (Andrew30’s) prediction that this become an Election issue becomes realized but I fear that the US press will continue to fade the coverage. The NYT has been shocking in its overt bias.
Bulldust (16:00:47) :
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?
My reply;
Obama helped set up the carbon trading scheme, was recruited to play the role of the current president, and be the scapegoat in case any thing that went wrong, Climategate opened up the can of wrong worms.
Now that they are out, he is trying to contain them to save face and not become exposed for the figure head he is, plausible deny-ability is his ace in the hole, that he hopes will save his ass in history.
From his actions at Copenhagen running around with out the awareness of the location of the other main countries representatives, India, China, showed me that he did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support.
When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such. Left in disgust and anger, with his feelings hurt realizing he was a puppet left hanging on strings as the real deal came down.
Leaving out all of the underdeveloped nations, was done the day before, and he did not get the memo to just go home. He is now trying to hold up his end of the bargain, knowing he is going to take the fall either way, Biden his time till the axe falls.
Doug in Duedein:
“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.”
Given the massive fraud and exploitation of the EU carbon trading mechanisms, it make one wonder about the involvement of the Broadway Bank crowd (Chicago Mob) in Obama’s carbon exchange.
I had intended to comment on this but find my self wondering how skeptical persons can go about attacking each other and trying to change the minds of in this case, Americans. Gentlemen some skeptics bad mouth others because they believe in God. OK they believe in God, the last time I looked one of the things that God stresses and that is to tell the truth. Another disses a skeptic because he might have worked or owned “oil” or “coal”, I own property in Alabama with the mineral rights and most of the state north of Montgomery has some form of coal on it, so. I am tired of people discounting others with out proof of conflict of interest. And that being an overbearing controlling conflict of interest. Enemies change and so do allies. We as skeptics had better use every tool in our box of goodies and use them well. This battle isn’t over by a long shot. All we want is truth in Science. I don’t care who provides the data, I don’t care who designs the programs used to study the data, I don’t care Who they work for. AS LONG AS THE DATA IS OPEN PROPERLY GATHERED, CATALOUGED, STORED, AND VERIFIABEL! THE PROGRAMING IS OPEN AND VERIFIABLE! I DON”T CARE! Now shouldn’t we get back to good science and the proper use of empirical data. Shouldn’t we return to good statistical programs. Shouldn’t we return to due diligence. Shouldn’t we return to transparency.
It is time to stop name calling and get back to work. Science needs all of us and particularly climate science.
Bill Derryberry
I want scientists and IPCC policy makers summoned to a Senate hearing to be broadcast on C-Span. I want the entire mess laid out before the world in broad daylight.
Quote: Richard Holle (19:14:14) :
“Obama helped set up the carbon trading scheme, was recruited to play the role of the current president, and be the scapegoat in case any thing that went wrong, Climategate opened up the can of wrong worms.
Now that they are out, he is trying to contain them to save face and not become exposed for the figure head he is, . . .
From his actions at Copenhagen running around with out the awareness of the location of the other main countries representatives, India, China, showed me that he did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support.
When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such. Left in disgust and anger, . . . realizing he was a puppet left hanging on strings as the real deal came down.”
Leaving out all of the underdeveloped nations, was done the day before, and he did not get the memo to just go home. He is now trying to hold up his end of the bargain, knowing he is going to take the fall either way, Biden his time till the axe falls.”
That’s an interesting analysis, Richard.
1. Obama “was recruited to play the role of the current president” by whom?
2. Obama “did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support”. Does the CIA or some intelligence agency control the US President?
3. Others at Copenhagen “knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.” They knew that Obama is whose puppet?
Thanks, Richard.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Does this “minority” refer to the party (or parties) that occupies a minority position as regards the number of members in Congress or Senate? Thanks.
The Peabody EPA Petition cites the legal basis:
Jean Parisot (19:31:08) :
Given the massive fraud and exploitation of the EU carbon trading mechanisms, it make one wonder about the involvement of the Broadway Bank crowd (Chicago Mob) in Obama’s carbon exchange.
Richard Holle (19:14:14) :
When he did manage to find where they were meeting, he was totally out of his element, shut out of the respectable interchange, as they knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.
Jean Parisot
Are you suggesting that the Chicago Mob control Obama?
And
Richard Holle, are you connecting Obama to the Chicago Mob as their puppet?
While I have always considered Obama as facile and an empty vessel, these ideas go much further and are indeed very sinister. If true, they are extremely dangerous not for just the US but for all of us. What reason have you to make such an implication? Can you explain?
Doug
That’s an interesting analysis, Richard.
1. Obama “was recruited to play the role of the current president” by whom?
2. Obama “did not have close support of the the CIA or any intelligence agency support”. Does the CIA or some intelligence agency control the US President?
3. Others at Copenhagen “knew he was just a puppet and treated him as such.” They knew that Obama is whose puppet?
Thanks, Richard.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
#1 Corrupt circle of friends he has since surrounded himself with as WH staff, many of his former banking buddies.
#2 George Bush senior was former director of CIA, Jr. had good intel, whether he had the brains to use it sans guidance I don’t know.
The supposed purpose of the CIA is to provide good intel for congress and the WH, at least that what it says on the front page of their web site.
#3 Those in the final meeting China, India, Brazil… chose to close out the undeveloped nations the day before, by leaking info they knew they would rebel from, giving them free rein to have a closed door meeting with out interference.
The international intel community is better than you think, the Chinese are not ignorant of this plot by the carbon brokers, India certainly has a enough connections through Patchy and gang at Tera. To know to side step the commitment phase of the UN agenda, Obama was told they had left and were at the airport already, when they started their meeting without him. If he had the connection to intel the Bush’s had he would not have been running around wondering where they were.
Would you think for a moment that those involved up to their eyeballs for the past 15 years, did not know how Obama got to the forefront of politics, in the USA in spite of all of the opposition he faced in the campaign, showed up as an unknown to be sacrificed at the CAGW alter.
But hay I’m just a retired production worker from a small town in Kansas..
with a 21kbp dial up connection. Imagine what the truly curious can find out in several months?
Reply: I reeeeaaallly don’t want to go back and read all the comments that preceded this, but can we stop with the political conspiracy theory comments, even if you believe them? ~ ctm
@Herman Dobrowolski L (09:06:03) :
“Senator Inhofe has no credibility to address climate science.”
Wouldn’t that mean that Al Gore also has no credibility for the same?
“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.”
Proven wrong by who? Can you cite an unbiased source for this assertion? (Didn’t think so.)
“How has his document been proven wrong? He cites scientists as global warming “doubters” who are not.”
Some names please? I’m sure that Senator Inhofe is privy to private information that the public have no knowledge of. There are a plethora of scientists who are AGW skeptics who keep their position private, in order to not endanger their career.
@tokyoboy (20:51:26) :
“Does this “minority” refer to the party (or parties) that occupies a minority position as regards the number of members in Congress or Senate? Thanks.”
Yes. The minority party is the party with the 2nd largest number of members holding a seat in either of the two divisions of Congress. Currently, the Republicans are the minority party in both the Senate (holding 41 of 100 seats) and the House of Representatives (holding 178 of 435 seats).
BTW, the Democratic Party (the majority party in both the Senate and the House) is overwhelmingly comprised of AGW believers, since belief in AGW is part of the official party “line”.
No doubt the good Senator has as much right as anybody to comment on what is known about CRUgate. But to me over here, it seems a tad premature when an inquiry with access to people, documents and databases is still in progress.
Herman L,
“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.”
And I said quite clearly that I’m talking about the speech he made to the Senate. In it he said that:
1) The IPCC’s claim of Himalyan glacier disappearance by 2035 was a lie:
2) The IPCC’s claim that 40% of the Amazon rain forest would disappear as a result of climate change was a lie.
These are quite clearly statements of fact. Why do you continue to distract with red herring arguments?
Inhofe is just a glorified lobbyist for big oil and coal. What a waste of space!
Vincent,
So the Himalayan glacier number was wrong? It was a mistake not a lie. So what? If you go to http://www.realclimate.org you will find that the IPCC document holds up very well with a minor blemish, which did not find its way into the recommendations for policymakers.
No, didn’t think you would listen.
“””toby (05:06:30) :
Inhofe is just a glorified lobbyist for big oil and coal. What a waste of space!”””
Oh Really. Al Gore has made triple on his carbon economy empire more than Inhofe could ever dream of making from oil! I doubt that Inhofe has benefited much at all personally from big oil, might have helped his career, but oil men are his constituents, after all.
Canadian government: “there is no consensus”.
…-
“Maxime Bernier challenges climate science
While the Harper government has been widely criticized for its stance on climate change, it has not questioned the science behind international negotiations. And, notably, the government signed the agreement negotiated at the Copenhagen conference and has submitted its emission reduction targets as required.
Today, however, in a letter to La Presse (which he says was not seen by the PMO), ex-foreign minister Maxime Bernier defends the government’s approach from the point of view of a “skeptic.”
Some excerpts from the letter:”
“What is certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars and to impose unnecessarily stringent regulations to solve a problem whose gravity we still are not certain about. The alarmism that has characterized this debate is no longer appropriate. Canada is wise to be cautious.””
“We now recognize that it’s possible to be a “skeptic,” or at least to keep an open mind about nearly all critical aspects of the warming theory. For example, while no one questions whether there has been warming, there is no consensus among scientists as to its degree.
Moreover, we realize that during the period of greatest concern about warming – the last decade – temperatures have stopped increasing! Meanwhile, the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, said to be the cause of warming according to the official theory, is still increasing. Some very serious scientists believe that we are under-estimating the influence of the sun and other factors that have nothing to do with carbon emissions.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/bernier-challenges-climate-science/article1479289/
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/02/24/thou-shalt-not-question-the-opp/#comment-75579
Reply to Vincent (04:06:23) :
1) The IPCC’s claim of Himalyan glacier disappearance by 2035 was a lie
Of course, it all depends on what you consider is a deliberate lie and what you consider a mistake. I doubt that you will believe that the error in found in two sentences on page 493 of Chapter 10 in Working Group 2’s report was just a mistake, so there’s no point in me trying to convince you. But if you believe, as Senator Inhofe apparently does, that this was a deliberate lie (and not just on the part of a few individuals — made by every IPCC participant up and down the writing and review process), then perhaps you can explain why they chose NOT to lie in the whole of chapter 4 of Working Group 1, which no one has challenged? If you open up that document (link here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4.html) you find a valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice with the authors including glacier experts like Georg Kaser, who first discovered the error in Working Group 2, chapter 10, page 493. I’ll let you explain why lie one place and not another. I’m sticking to the mistake explanation.
) The IPCC’s claim that 40% of the Amazon rain forest would disappear as a result of climate change was a lie.
All you need to know about this is that the reference was wrong. This is corrected by replacing the WWF reference with the correct one. The underlying research by Daniel Nepstad is fully valid. As he writes “In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. ”
You can read Nepstad’s full statement here: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/essays/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.htm
Again, I’m sure I cannot convince you that this was simply an error, not a lie. So I simply ask you the question: why lie when all you need to do is include the correct reference?
These are quite clearly statements of fact. Why do you continue to distract with red herring arguments?
There, I’ve answered your questions, refuted you facts with evidence. I’d like to hear someone defend my “red herrings” about Inhofe’s factual errors in his report here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 Still up on congress’s website, and still not corrected.
REPLY: Herman, on the subject of “lies” that you bring up, it is central to the whole debate, Why does climate science need to lie and obfuscate if the postion of science is supposedly so strong? Why “hide the decline” why does Gore have 9 factual errors (still uncorrected) in AIT. By your opinion Inhofe’s list needs correcting. I suggest you write to him and when you get a reply, I’ll gladly post it here. In the meantime I suggest that before you start in again with lables of “lies” you might want to help get the AGW house of “lies” in order, since you seem to endorse them.
Finally I’ll point out “I’m sure I cannot convince you…” doesn’t do anything helpful, it simply bolsters your own view of your own opinion. As I said from day one when you nitpicked over what you thought was misuse of a word, your style of conversation isn’t a winning combination here. You are failing miserably. -A
Richard Holle (23:04:08) :
Thanks, Richard.
I neither endorse nor disagree with your analysis.
Melting of the Climategate iceberg threatens to expose decades of filth and data manipulation in our major research institutions and science journals.
That is probably why NASA put out this brand new, slick, and persuasive propaganda sheet:
“New NASA Web Page Sheds Light on Science of Warming World” at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-062&cid=release_2010-062
Hang in there, Ralph. We will all hang together or we’ll hang separately!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Skepshasa (14:06:55) :
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!
_________________
The AGW argument that we should take action to be safe even if the science is eventually disproved is not really a Pascal’s wager, because taking action will be a massive expense and will cause suffering among the poor, and a reduction of political freedom for all. The whole point of Pascal’s wager is that staking out a belief in God and saying the occasional prayer won’t hurt you or cost you anything, while failing to do so has the potential to hurt you in the next life.
This is one of the reasons why AGW comparisons to religion are flawed: religious belief can be practiced freely and for free (although due to the call to act charitably, it would be a good idea to stick a few coins in the collection). However, cults demand total dedication and fealty, and cult practices including taking over followers lives and demanding a major portion of the follower’s income. The price of joining a cult or being brainwashed into joining is not unlike what is being asked of us by the global warming cult.
Anthony,
It’s revealing that I provide facts and references to dispute what you claim are lies, but you don’t address them.
REPLY:You raised the issue with Inhofe, follow it through with him. But I think you haven’t the integrity, you just want to rant. I’ve found it to be a pointless exercise and huge time sink with you in the past, since your point of view is one of tunnel vision, and nothing I could say or do would change that. . But quite frankly, your opinion really doesn’t matter in the scheme of things. It is just not worth my time as I have larger issues to attend to. Feel free to shadow box though. -A
Herman L (06:42:44) :
Re the Amazon, you obviously haven’t read the original Articles referenced, whereas I have and the Values are completely in error, especially the %ages.
Also in the Nepstad’s full statement the 630,000 km2 equals 15% is also completley wrong for the whole Amazon basin.
It also specifically states “In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007.”
ie it does not come from the quoted papers, but from work done years after the Moore paper, i.e. 2004 & 2007. So they couldn’t possibly cite future papers.
So for the IPCC to be even close to correct they should have quoted Nepstad et al. 2004, which they did correctly in Natural ecosystems but the figure is only 33.33%.
If you read the Nepstad et al. 2004 it only shows that the forest is susceptible, it is still the People burning of the Forest (which can burn out of control) to extend Farming (mostly for biofuels) that is the real problem.
i.e. NOT
“Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).” (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007)”
Can’t we all get along here? I did not bring up the subject of “lies.” That was Vincent @ur momisugly 10:08:14 yesterday who raised the subject (possibly quoting Inhofe — I don’t know), which I was responding to. Further, I did not accuse Senator Inhofe of lying. I wrote that Sen. Inhofe needs to “acknowledge obvious errors in his previous work” @ur momisugly 09:06:03 yesterday (and I cited three errors). In retrospect, I should not have written to Vincent “I doubt that you will believe that the error … was just a mistake,” so my apologies to Vincent for accusing him of closed-mindedness. I should have phrased that differently.
I suggest we all stop accusing people of lying and give everyone the benefit of the doubt that all they are guilty of is making a mistake. Then give them a reasonable opportunity to address the error. Everyone makes mistakes.
I’ve presented evidence that the IPCC acknowledged a mistake on Working Group 2, chapter 10, page 493. I’ve presented evidence that Daniel Nepstad did this for the Amazon rain forest matter. As I reported back @ur momisugly 10:37:58, even Al Gore acknowledged an error. Facts are true or false, and sometimes we get them wrong. I simply believe Senator Inhofe has had his facts wrong for over a year (and I presented primary evidence for that) yet I have found no evidence that he — unlike the IPCC, unlike Nepstad, unlike Al Gore — has addressed that.
A C Osborn —
So you’re basically saying Nepstad got his research wrong? That’s fine, and, if correct, I hope a corrected version comes out. But he’s comfortable with the way his report was referenced in FAR, and that’s my point. People are challenging the IPCC for this; they should be challenging Nepstad.