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
###
Doug in Dunedin
“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.”
“Jean Parisot
Are you suggesting that the Chicago Mob control Obama?”
No, I am suggesting that anytime you have a convergence of Chicago politicians and a substantial amount of money – that one needs to look carefully at the arrangement. There is ample historical evidence to support this suspicion and the better part of a generation of Chicago politicians sitting in prison. Add to that, the current scandal in the EU and I believe concern is warranted.
There is no insinuation of “control”, but for many years they did have common interests, common associates, and common financial relationships. The carbon exchange was established in that time frame and the potential must be considered. I doubt (without any details) that the development of the exchange included anti-fraud and organized crime experts, because at that time no one on the outside was really considering the value of the carbon trading.
Quote: Jean Parisot (10:12:45)
I do not recall voting in favor of “carbon exchange.”
Do you?
Did any ordinary citizens have anything to do with that decision?
If not, why?
Thanks,
Oliver
Jean Parisot (10:12:45) :
‘No, I am suggesting that anytime you have a convergence of Chicago politicians and a substantial amount of money – that one needs to look carefully at the arrangement. There is ample historical evidence to support this suspicion and the better part of a generation of Chicago politicians sitting in prison. Add to that, the current scandal in the EU and I believe concern is warranted.
There is no insinuation of “control”, but for many years they did have common interests, common associates, and common financial relationships. The carbon exchange was established in that time frame and the potential must be considered. I doubt (without any details) that the development of the exchange included anti-fraud and organized crime experts, because at that time no one on the outside was really considering the value of the carbon trading.’
Thank you Jean for amplifying your thoughts for me here. There still remains the Cap and Trade issue, although I get the distinct impression that even the Democrats would now like to find a good reason to abandon this.
In all of this I am alarmed how some powerful business interests are able to ‘strong-arm’ governments as great as that of the US. The epic ‘sub prime’ story which seemed to have its roots in the demise of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 was strong arm stuff and so it seems is this. It is events like these that lead to the demise of a nation. The US economy has been badly weakened by the former – it doesn’t need another dose.
Herman L,
“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.”
I can’t find the word Himalaya in chapter 4 – perhaps you could give me the paragraph.
However, if you say it’s in there I believe you. You ask the question why would “they” lie in WGII and not in WGI. Actually it’s pretty simple – because “they” represents a plurality of individuals consisting of different lead authors and different reviewers. They are two distinct documents. And we know Pachauri is too busy writing erotic novels to have noticed.
You futher claim that the error of the 40% Amazon rainforest loss due to climate change is simply a matter of a wrong citation. I must disagree. It is not the citation that is in issue, but the underlying conclusion. WWF cited a paper on Amazon rainforest loss and logging. The conclusion was that overlogging would lead to a loss of precipitation that would in turn lead to the aforementioned rainforest loss. That is very different from the way WWF twisted it to mean that it was climate change that would lead to the rainforest loss.
But it gets worse. Inhofe did not even mention the erroneous claim that there would be 50% loss of agricultural yield in parts of Africa as a result of climate change based on a non peer reviewed report written by activists. He didn’t mention the sin of omission of the finding that although some areas would suffer a water shortage, in balance there would in fact be a net reduction in water shortage.
It’s funny how all these “mistakes” are biased in one direction only. Now why would that be?
toby (05:09:34) :
“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.”
Sure, the Himalayan glacier episode was a mistake, the document holds up very well (ref: alarmist propaganda site).
Sure, the 40% Amazon rainforest disappearance was a mistake, the document holds up very well.
Sure, the claim of 50% drop in agricultural yield in Africa was a mistake, and still the document holds up very well.
Sure the claim that more people would be water stressed than not was a mistake, but the document holds up very well.
You could even add the erroneous claim that 55% of Holland was below sea level and see how the document holds up.
Holds up well does it? Only if you’ve got an agenda.
Doug in Dunedin (10:25:12) : “I’m saddened to conclude that Cameron will be no better than the disastrous Broon for Britain. …”
True, but Monckton (UKIP) is getting into his stride.
Here he is on Alex Jones TV (1st of 5): Obama’s Green Jobs”Nothing More Than Socialized Terrorism!”
It is worth watching; in part 4 at 4:45 he mentions TERI-Europe, which is described in more detail here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-4.html
There is also this Telegraph article, 8:12PM GMT Feb 24th 2010
There’s a blackout coming [to the UK] – unless someone sees the light
The Tories must rescue Britain’s energy policy after years of dangerous neglect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/benedict-brogan/7309946/Theres-a-blackout-coming-unless-someone-sees-the-light.html
Here is a quote from the article: Forget global warming – the more pressing problem is that the lights are about to go out [in the UK].
With a UK General Election due by June 3rd, what is it going to take to get Labour, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives, the BBC, ITV, (terrestrial) Sky etc start a conversation with the general public about this?
Doug in Dunedin,
When I need polite cover on the AGW issue, I attack cap n’ trade rather then discussing the science. The greens can’t justify it as a solution to their “crisis”.
Keeps my wife from kicking me too hard under the table at dinner parties.
Robert Christopher (15:25:04) :
Doug in Dunedin (10:25:12) : “I’m saddened to conclude that Cameron will be no better than the disastrous Broon for Britain. …”True, but Monckton (UKIP) is getting into his stride.
Robert
Ah! The noble Lord, I have rejoiced in his triumphal swing through the Land of Oz and marvel at his erudition and debating skills —- But Robert UKIP? Is that the right vehicle for him? He should be with the Tories if he is to get traction.
Anyway, Lord Monckton does stand out clearly as a leader with insight not just on the CAGW issue but also on the economic issues confronting Britain and its relationship with Europe. I’ll watch with interest – and hope! I despair with the Telegraph these days in that they still adhere to the ‘AGW Mantra’ in the main – they should grab the nettle!
I’ll look forward to June 3rd.
Thanks
Doug
Jean Parisot (15:47:54) :
Keeps my wife from kicking me too hard under the table at dinner parties.
Now that I do understand! – As they say these days lol!
Doug in Dunedin (15:55:49) :
You guessed correctly, and I think your vehicle question is a good one. To answer your (rhetorical?) question, I would expect that if Lord Monckton thought he could have found some traction he would have stayed with the Conservatives. After all, he did work for the Conservatives in the 1980s.
I see Lord Monckton as a political voice bringing the subject into the public domain, a role that needs a politician to perform; separation of roles is so important! However, we need some political voices inside the House of Commons, and not just from one party.
You are right: if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.
Robert Christopher (18:14:50) :
if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.
Agreed, but I don’t hold out much hope, he seems too flaky to me but he might surprise. At least politicians keep an eye on the numbers and they (the numbers) are moving towards the sceptic’s position. Anyway the UKIP people are saying the right things in Europe (to my mind) and Lord Monckton well – he is amazing. What astonishing recall!
Doug
Robert Christopher (18:14:50) :
“if only David Cameron would say something (along the lines I hope we are hoping). May be he is waiting for the right moment.”
I’m not sure I buy the theory that Cameron is just another sincere but duped politician, or even the theory that he is a secret sceptic waiting for the right moment to go on the offensive.
Regretably I believe he understands the scam but is part of it. He has too many ties with billionaire overlords who stand to make a fortune. I hope I’m wrong though.
Vincent (14:32:46)
Actually it’s pretty simple – because “they” represents a plurality of individuals consisting of different lead authors and different reviewers. They are two distinct documents.
So, on the basis of the Himalayan glacier matter are you accusing a few (unnamed) individuals of lying, and therefore not calling the entire IPCC process a lie?
Vincent (01:40:56) :
’m not sure I buy the theory that Cameron is just another sincere but duped politician, or even the theory that he is a secret sceptic waiting for the right moment to go on the offensive.
Regrettably I believe he understands the scam but is part of it. He has too many ties with billionaire overlords who stand to make a fortune. I hope I’m wrong though.’
Well if he becomes P.M. his responsibilities are to the people of the state and not his friendship with billionaire overlords. It is high time that these people appreciate the difference. Sadly though, Britain has lost most of its sovereignty to Europe anyway. When you look at all these factors the governance of China begins to look good! God help them!
Inhofe is an evil person. I grew up in Oklahoma, and for years he fought against residents of the biggest Superfund site in the US being relocated because it was “big government.” Instead, he thought their kids should get lead poisoning and cancer. He finally came around to the errors of his ways, but not before much more damage had been done.
[snip] Comments using “deniers, “denialists” as pejoratives are snipped, or simply deleted without comment. ~dbstealey, mod..