US Senator Inhofe comments on Climategate 2.0

Washington, D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, commented on the release today of additional emails by scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  While the authenticity of the emails is yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia, according to the UK Guardian, Professor Michael Mann, author of the debunked hockey stick graph, said, “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

“Even before the Climategate emails were released in 2009, the so-called ‘consensus’ peddled by the IPCC was already shattered,” Senator Inhofe said.  “Nevertheless, the Obama administration is moving full speed ahead to implement global warming regulations that will impose the largest tax increase in American history, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC.  Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding: it shows that EPA did not engage in the required record-keeping procedures or conduct an independent review of the science underpinning these costly regulations.  If the first Climategate scandal – and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake – were not enough, the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA’s job killing global warming agenda.

“The crisis of confidence in the IPCC translates into a crisis of confidence in the EPA’s endangerment finding.  The IPCC science has already disintegrated under the weight of its own flaws, and I believe it will only be a matter of time before the endangerment finding follows suit.  It’s time for the Obama administration to stop trying to resurrect policies that are all pain for no gain, and get to work on reviving our economy.”

 

Background

For years, Senator Inhofe warned that the IPCC would lose its credibility entirely and eventually be ignored if it did not make significant reforms.  In 2005, he sent a letter to IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri that contained several suggestions on how the IPCC could reform its flawed peer-review process.  Yet as Reuters reported, Pachauri refused even to acknowledge his concerns: ‘In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an alarmist bias and says “I have a deep commitment to the integrity and objectivity of the IPCC process.” Pachauri’s main argument is that the IPCC comprises both scientists and more than 130 governments who approve IPCC reports line by line. That helps ensure fairness, he says.’

Senator Inhofe’s concerns were validated when the Climategate scandal broke in 2009.  The EPW minority staff released a Senate report in February 2010 that found that scientists involved in the controversy were obstructing the release of information that was contrary to their ‘consensus’ claims; manipulating data using flawed climate models to reach preconceived conclusions; pressuring journal editors not to publish work questioning the ‘consensus’; and assuming activist roles to influence the political process.  In the wake of the original email scandal, over one hundred errors in the IPCC science were revealed.  These new emails appear to be more of the same, further eroding the credibility of the IPCC.  Now it is not the so-called ‘consensus’ but the evidence of scientific corruption which is ‘overwhelming.’

 

Crisis of Confidence in the IPCC

August 31, 2010 Financial Times Time for a change in climate research: “Now it is time to implement fundamental reforms that would reduce the risk of bias and errors appearing in future IPCC assessments, increase transparency and open up the whole field of climate research to the widest possible range of scientific views.”

January 28, 2010 ABC News Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted? Confidence Melting Away: Doubters Grow in Climate Change Debate: But other climatologists are calling for consequences. They insist that IPCC Chairman and Nobel laureate Rajendra Pachauri is no longer acceptable as head of the panel, particularly because of his personal involvement in the affair. “Pachauri should resign, so as to avert further damage to the IPCC,” says German climatologist Hans von Storch. “He used the argument of the supposed threat to the Himalayan glacier in his personal efforts to raise funds for research.” Storch claims that the Indian-born scientist did not order the retraction of the erroneous prediction until it had generated considerable public pressure.

February 8, 2010 New York Times Article Skeptics Find Fault With U.N. Climate Panel: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege: “Just over two years ago, Rajendra K. Pachauri seemed destined for a scientist’s version of sainthood: A vegetarian economist-engineer who leads the United Nations’ climate change panel, he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the panel, sharing the honor with former Vice President Al Gore. But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists.”

February 15, 2010 Washington Post Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda: “But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.”

February 17, 2010 New York Times Editorial “With Stakes This High”: Given the stakes, the panel cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel’s chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian engineer, also is under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests. Mr. Pachauri says he does not profit personally and channels the fees to a nonprofit research center he runs in New Delhi. Yet as the person most responsible for the panel’s integrity, he cannot afford even the appearance of a conflict of interest. All this follows last November’s uproar over leaked e-mail messages that, while they had nothing to do with the panel’s reports, portrayed climate scientists as thin-skinned and fully capable of stifling competing views. The controversy over the 2007 report has been stoked by charges of poor sourcing and alarmist forecasts, prominently a prediction – in a 938-page working paper – that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This was clearly an exaggeration, though it was not included in the final report. An overblown warning of crop failures in North Africa made it into the final report.

January 20, 2010 Seth Borenstein Associated Press UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers: Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world’s most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 – hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

January 21, 2010 Time magazine Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong: ‘Glaciergate’ is a “black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.”

January 21, 2010 Newsweek, The Economist Off-base camp – A mistaken claim about glaciers raises questions about the UN’s climate panel: “This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication, and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with.”

Share
  • Bob Clark

    We are still getting these reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimating the civilized world only has five years to live at present rates of CO2 emissions.  First of all, I suspect the IEA is using CO 2 emission estimates rather than actual scientific atmospheric instrument measurement readings.  But more importantly, the warnings are almost nonsensical since there is practically nothing that can be done in this short amount of time to offset rising CO 2 emissions in developing and economically recovering nations.  I suspect too this and other agencies routinely call “wolf” every other year just to press the funding of their research livelihoods.  Can’t we just allow the market, and its natural drive for efficiency, to do the best we can at reducing abstract environmental externalities?  The renewable energy drive was borne out of a period of robust economic prosperity, allowing the financial wherewithal to experiment with newer energy novelties.  But the last ten years have made the dreams of ever more rapid economic wealth out of reach.  We can’t afford to keep subsidizing relatively high cost energy novelties, which don’t even put a dent in the loss of certain coal power supplies.

    Economic prosperity comes first, and only through it, can we fund a cleaner environment.  I.E we’ve got the cart before the horse.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Good point. Energy novelties are a rich mans plaything, and we as a country are no longer in that kind of position.

      I honestly think people are running out of patience with frittering away money on nonsense like Solyndra and the Al Gore’s Bugotti Veyron redux. At some point all those windmills will stand as gigantic rusting hulks to a bygone era.

      In 20 years families will drive by (or ride by on horses if BO wins reelection) giant swaths of windmill decay. 200 foot towers teetering on their bases, some partially blown over, some with their blades stripped by vandals for the carbon fiber within. “Hey honeys, remember those idiotic things?”…”Hey daddy, what are those?”….”Well princess, that was when everyone thought the biggest threat in the world was the earth might be 2 degrees warmer 100 years in the future”…..”You mean they were more worried about that than everyone now has to pay 80% taxes to pay for that Security Medicare thing everyone had back then?”….”Yep, something like that princess, something like that..”  

  • valley person

    So one wonders, what would it take to convince the senator that:

    a) the earth is warming
    b) a significant cause is an increase in greenhouse gasses and
    c) the most likely cause of that is burning fossil fuels

    This is agreed to by every major scientific body on the planet. There aren’t any who disagree. So what does Senator Inhofe need? An absent of emails for 6 months? A year? What?  

    • Dean Apostal is a LOSER

      Your capacity for lies is amazing.

      • 3H

        Is it asking to much for you to actually detail where he lied?  Or do we just have to accept your word for it?

    • Founding Fathers

      He needs large campaign contributions from people who aren’t in the business of contributing to global warming.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    The IPCC report was a political document, not a
    scientific one. This was made clear at the outset by the IPCC itself.
    Therefore it is no wonder it is a biased commission and its documents
    would of course would show that bias.Can anyone name a single mistake
    discovered within the report that went contrary to, rather than in support of,
    the AGW hypothesis? I sure can’t think of one. Somehow every mistake has been of
    a nature to support the AGW hypothesis rather than contradict it. Therefore it
    is clear the report is of a biased nature.

    Can anyone name anyone on the committee who was
    involved in a scandal even close to what Pachauri was involved in that made
    money by contradicting AGW rather than supporting it? I sure can’t. Pachauri
    needed AGW to be supported as much as possible for his little Himalaya scam to
    work out. When you have the head of the IPCC running a get rich quick scam that
    depends on ginning the science to make money, I think that tells you all you
    need to know about the worth of some of these scientific committees. So
    what else do we have?

    Well, we have Climategate 1 which finally forced the
    admission that contrary to AGW hypothesis predictions, there had not been the
    global warming that had been predicted for the previous decade. That’s
    huge. That’s predicting you will find WMD’s, invading, and not finding them
    huge. And we never would have had that admission absent the CRU’s
    emails. This was a big part of why the scientists refused to cooperate with FOI
    requests. At the end of the day you have to ask – If the science is so
    unbiased why do so many involved in AGW seem to be running scams on the rest of
    us to make themselves rich?If science is all about discovery and
    transparency, why would the CRU “scientists” do everything in their power not to
    cooperate with Freedom of Information Act requests? If “all the major
    scientific organizations support AGW” has meaning, then why is the IPCC so
    peppered with scandal, headed by a man who ran one of the central scandals to
    make himself rich. When the major organization anyone can think of is a
    demonstrable fraud, why should the rest be treated as totally
    unbiased?

    Why should we trust scientist who receive government
    funding anymore than we should trust a scientist from an oil company on AGW?
    Clearly government funded scientists have a bias. Can anyone name a single
    scientist receiving government funding who has been involved in a scandal that
    ran counter to AGW? I sure can’t but I could write a pretty long list of those
    receiving government funding who were involved in fudging the numbers so as to
    support AGW. Id start with James Hansen, head of GISS, yet another of those
    vaunted and supposedly unbiased “scientific” organizations that is routinely
    caught fudging the numbers.In short, the scientists have been forced to
    admit there was not the statistical warming they had predicted for a solid
    decade. They have been caught in numerous scandals, all of which depend on the
    AGW hypothesis being supported to make them money. People can face up to
    that basic reality or live in denial of that. AGW is largely dead as an issue
    politically. Some will continue to make massive profits off of it but in terms
    of public consensus moving any major policy changes I think AGW is largely dead.
    No one is clamoring for any cap and trade. People complain about gas
    prices, but not about the use of oil itself. Patience for the
    institutionalization of scams is largely wearing thin. The Dutch are abandoning
    windmills, no one is too excited about Al Gore getting his $80k car subsidized
    to create jobs in Finland and the Solyndra fiasco is legendary. I think we are
    about done.

    • valley person

      “Why should we trust scientist who receive government
      funding anymore than we should trust a scientist from an oil company on AGW?

      Well lets see, It could be because when the government provides grant funding for research to scientists studying global warming, it does not have any expected or biased outcome other than shining a brighter light on reality. When an oil company funds such research, given that the oil company business is dependent on spewing carbon, we can suspect the motive.

      Nevertheless, as it turns out an oil company DID fund research, and it turned out the researcher found that global warming was the real deal. That Hansen’s research was correct all along.  What a surprise to the Koch brothers.

      And ‘the Dutch are abandoning wndmills?” Care to explain?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >it does not have any expected or biased outcome
        other than shining a brighter light on reality.

        Obviously not. Name the anti Hansen. From the GRU to
        Hansen to Pachuri the list is replete with government funded science being
        fudged to support AGW. I cannot think of any government funded scientists who
        have been caught fudging numbers the other way around. Can you name some?
        Because if you can’t it is hard to take your idea that government funded science
        is uniquely unbiased. >When an oil company funds such research,
        given that the oil company business is dependent on spewing carbon, we can
        suspect the motive.

        Then logically the same then attends to government
        funded research.

        The oil company benefits financially if research they fund
        shows no AGW. Therefore it is reasonable to suspect them of bias.The
        government benefits financially if research shows AGW to be true, all solutions
        rely on greater regulation and enhanced taxes, things government clearly has an
        interest in.Therefore, logically, if oil company research is to be
        suspect due to financial motivation, the government funded research should
        probably be equally suspect since they also have a financial as well as regulatory motivation. When taken in the context of governments
        historical role in the politicization of science through government funding,
        from Ptolemy through Tuskegee, it could be argued government funded science should probably be subject to greater scrutiny.
        >And ‘the
        Dutch are abandoning wndmills?” Care to explain?The Dutch are in the process of severely cutting back
        subsidy and abandoning further wind farm development because of the expense.
        Land based has proved difficult due to public outrage, sea based has proven too
        costly. Maintinance of sea based turbines has also proven more expensive than original estimate (suprise suprise, guess none of the estimators has owned a boat) As I recall the subsidy was to be cut from 2/3 to 1/3 but I could be off
        on that.
        >And ‘the
        Dutch are abandoning wndmills?” Care to explain?The Dutch are in the process of severely cutting back
        subsidy and abandoning further wind farm development because of the expense.
        Land based has proved difficult due to public outrage, sea based has proven too
        costly. Maintinance of sea based turbines has also proven more expensive than original estimate (suprise suprise, guess none of the estimators has owned a boat) As I recall the subsidy was to be cut from 2/3 to 1/3 but I could be off
        on that.

        • valley person

          “Then logically the same then attends to government
          funded research.  ”

          I can see that based on your particular logic, but not on logic in general. You would have to start with an assumption that “government’ has some sort of interest in finding pliable scientists to help them fool the people that the earth is warming primarily due to carbon released by burning fossil fuels. You would have to attribute this motive to the 8 years of the Bush administration and 12 years of Republican dominated congresses as well as the current divided government. And you would have to assume that every major scientific organization on the planet is in on the game.

          I suppose if you have some sort of paranoid conspiracy style logic you can lead yourself to your conclusion. Everyone COULD be out to fool you Rupert, and only you and a handful of others are smart enough to see through all this.

          Yeah…I see the logic in that. But try this instead. You don’t want to accept reality because it counters your ideology. If the earth is actually warming due to fossil fuel burning, we will have to make changes led by the government, not the private sector. So you allow yourself to be scammed by those claiming scams.

          Now which scenario is more logical? That every science body in the world has been duped or is engaged in conspiracy, or that you have been duped?

          On the Netherlands, they are revising their clean energy subsidy program to make it more efficient and competetive. Land based is limited by the fact they have limited land and high population density. Duh. They have moved offshore, as has Denmark and Britain. Off shore is more expensive, but also has a lot of advantages, like much more reliable wind and fewer conflicts with communities.

          • 3H

            I think the proof is in the quality and style of argument.  He doesn’t argue against the science itself; he rails against just about everything except the science.  

            He sees a huge government conspiracy to dictate results in order to get more tax money in order increase government bureaucracy.  Never mind that in the next breath he might condemn government incompetence.  Evidently in all other spheres the United States Government is incredibly incompetent — except when it comes to AGW.  NOW the government not only can foist AGW on the public, but they can keep it secret.  Even from the Republican’s in the government.  Unless they’re not really Republicans, but political double agents…..   

            You attack specific scientists.  Really a handful.   Take the emails, quote them out of context, search (and find) a whiff of controversy or conflict of interest, conflate it, and paint everyone with it.  Do not even take into account, or mention, the thousands of other scientists who also accept AGW as a valid theory.   Do not note that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Because, as we know, they are part of the government conspiracy (spoken of, but never proven).   Oh, be sure to hammer over and over again those few scientists that you believe to be bad apples in the hopes that no one will notice your heavy-handed attempt at guilt by association.

            Mention only one or two scientific organizations and immediately cast aspersions upon their motives because… of course… they are part of that huge and secret governmental conspiracy.  You know, the one mentioned above.  The one that they never provide conclusive proof of but must exist (otherwise their elaborate structure falls apart).

            Oh, be sure to mention, repeatedly, Al Gore’s 80k car — because that is certainly conclusive of… well..  I guess that only rich people believe in AGW so they can feel good about owning expensive electric cars?   I’ve never really known the rich to feel the need to justify much of anything they purchase, but evidently this is an exception.

            But — be sure to never, ever, really discuss the science.  Bad, bad mistake.  Government conspiracy, guilt by association, and ad hominem attacks.  That is, apparently, the only way to address the issue of AGW.  Probably because that’s all there is.   

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You would have to start with an assumption that “government’ has some sort of interest in finding pliable scientists

            Well, if you start there with oil companies because they have a financial interest then it makes no sense not to start at the same place since government obviously has a financial interest.

            >I suppose if you have some sort of paranoid conspiracy style logic you can lead yourself to your conclusion

            Tuskegee was simply a paranoid conspiracy? Ptolomey never existed? I had no idea!

            > That every science body in the world has been duped or is engaged in conspiracy, or that you have been duped

            Or the third option, which is the one you suscribe to, that money influences outcome. Im simply applying your own logic to the situation.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >he rails against just about everything except the
            science.

            When I give concrete examples of the science being
            fudged to enrich those involved that is pointing out the flaws in the science
            itself. Nice try though.

            >Take the emails, quote them out of context, search
            (and find) a whiff of controversy or conflict of interest, conflate it, and
            paint everyone with it.

            Except I didn’t take just the emails, I also took James
            Hansen and the IPCC as other examples. The emails, out of context or not, forced
            the CRU to admit there had been no warming for the previous decade as had been
            predicted. Hard to take that out of context.

            OK, this one was really a
            poor try.

            >Mention only one or two scientific organizations
            and immediately cast aspersions upon their motives because… of course… they
            are part of that huge and secret governmental conspiracy.

            Actually I mentioned three, the IPCC, the GISS and the
            CRU. Three leaders in the field, all guilty of either hiding data that didn’t
            support the claim, or outright lying (GISS and IPCC)

            You want more
            examples? I could give them. Three seemed enough at the time.

            >But — be sure to never, ever, really discuss the
            science.

            I think you are kind of done here. I did discuss the
            science. It is you who seem to refuse to confront the fact that for some weird
            reason, all the fudging of number or outright lying seems to be in the direction
            of support of AGW.
             Again, I will ask the both of you two to
            answer my central question – Can either of you provide the name of one
            scientist, receiving government funds for research, that has skewed numbers or
            results in a way contrary to, rather than in support of the AGW hypothesis.

            That’s all I am asking for. I have given you three
            examples the other way. Can you give one counter example in an effort to counter
            my claim?

            I don’t think you can. The fact that you both obfuscate
            rather than confront the argument tends to confirm that.

          • valley person

            So you are arguing a negative. That there is no scientist who ever took government funds and reached a conclusion contrary to AGW. And since no such scientist exists, therefore global warming does not exist?

            OK then. If I take the time to find you one single scientist who took government funding and reached a conclusion contrary to AGW, will you pledge here and now that you will drop your silly theory and embrace reality?  That if a single scinetist cotradicting AGW with government funding exists, therefore global warming exists?

            The whole catalyst world is watching Rupert. Do we have your pledge?

          • valley person

            Conspiracies exist, therefore The Great Global Warming Hoax exists. Money influences outcomes. Government needs money. Therefore government lies and deceives about Global Warming to get more money.

            How am I doing?

            You have to admit, as a strategy, using TGGWH (The Great Global Warming Hoax) to get more money and power for government doesn’t seem to be working nearly as well as scaring the bejesus out of everyone about communism did. I mean, scientists have been telling us abut global warming for 25 years now and the government hasn’t managed to get a new nickel out of the deal. That is a way ineffective conspiracy given the grandness of its scale, don’t you agree?

             You just can’t face reality on this one, so you accept the least plausible hypothesis out there and make it your own. 

             

    • 3H

      Yes, why are the Dutch abandoning windmills?  Is it because because the Dutch government no longer believes in AGW?  As you are implying.  Or, is it because they are expensive to maintain?  

      • Rupert in Springfield

        It is because, as I contended, AGW is prettymuch a dead issue politically. People just arent into it anymore. When even the Dutch are clearly getting tired of it its time to move on.

        • 3H

          But that’s not true, and that’s not what the Dutch are saying.  Evidently you don’t actually read what they are saying.  Do you.  

  • Warmer

    Once and for all, let’s face it. We are getting warmer. We just are. It is that simple.
    And nothing anyone says can change my mind.
    Nothing.

    • 3H

      Well,  not anything that is said on Oregon Catalyst, that’s for sure.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        In this case the point is less
        to sway opinion one way or the other than to show that it is relatively easy to
        stand up to the arguments of the warmers. Your arguments, or rather evasion of
        mine, provide good example of that.
        It simply is ridiculous to dismiss
        the argument that governments clearly have a vested interest in the AGW
        hypothesis, and the ginning of numbers, outright lying, and historical precedent
        should give everyone pause in that concern.
        After all, if we accepted
        your premise, that to question government science is heresy, then we
        would still be thinking the Earth was the center of the universe and letting
        black guys dye of syphilis was perfectly ok!

        • valley person

          So let me get this straight. You are not actually making any argument that there is no such thing as global warming. You are merely demonstrating that it is easy to make such an argument?

          What is easy Rupert, is to be deliberately obtuse. 3 year old kids can do that trick. You don’t make, and as far as I can recall have never made, a single argument that refutes the science of global warming. What you do is wave your arms around and accuse people who are not here to defend themselves that they have hid data, lied, made the whole thing up, engaged in a conspiracy, and fudged research because the government wanted them to. You basically just echo whatever the latest anti-warming rumor happens to be, and you think you are making a cogent argument. But its more like a tantrum than a rational argument. Al Gore drives an $80K car and lives in a big house and flies places, therefore there is no global warming is not a great example of sharp logic dude.

          There is no “government science.” There is science, period. Scientists have a time tested system in place for determining what reality is, and sniffing out weak arguments. They have used their system to create an understanding of the relationship between burning fossil fuels, an increase in atmospheric carbon, and a steadily increasing global temperature. All the arm waving and accusations in the world can’t change the basic facts. They can only delay a decision to deal with the problem, which is the point I suppose.

          When Copernicus made his discovery, government was religion, and religion did not accept science that contradicted its theory of everything. Copernicus used a sinecure from the Church to take the time to research and write his theory. In other words, he took the government’s money and used it to overturn government theory. I guess that blows your own theory to bits.

        • 3H

          Well.. in order to question “my” premise that government science is heresy… I would have to make it first.  Or does that confuse you?  But don’t let me stop you, it’s much more entertaining when you put words in my mouth.  You obviously have such a problem knowing what you say, that it makes sense that you invent stuff for other people. 

          So, did you look it up?  Is the United States still in North America?