In The News
LISTEN: Sen. Inhofe on the Grandy and Andy Radio Show - New Climategate Report
Wednesday February 24, 2010
Posted by David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
Video and Transcript: Sen. Inhofe Questions EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - Part 1
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Video and Transcript: Sen. Inhofe Questions EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - Part 2
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Administrator Jackson: Do you want me to answer now? Or wait til the next round?
Senator Inhofe: Sure.
Senator Boxer: I think you should answer the questions.
Administrator Jackson: I will be brief, and we will talk about it in the next round, Senator. But, just to be clear, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, found that greenhouse gases are a pollutant, they ordered EPA to make a determination as to whether they…
Video and Transcript: Sen. Inhofe Questions EPA Administrator Jackson - Part 3
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Video and Transcript: Sen. Inhofe Questions EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - Part 4
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
Senator Inhofe: …That’s my question.
Administrator Jackson: I have a two word answer – I disagree. But, just let me respond to three things, Senator, and I’m happy to do additional things for the record if that’s necessary. I do not agree that the IPCC has been totally discredited in any way. In fact, I think it’s important to understand that the IPCC is a body that follows impartial and open and objective assessments. Yes, they have had concerns about email, I do not defend the conduct of those who sent those emails. There is peer review, which is part of the IPCC process. There are numerous, numerous groups of teams and independent researchers all a part of coming up with IPCC findings, such that even the IPCC has said, “Wow, we need to investigate and ensure that our scientists are held to a standard of scientific conduct that we can be proud of. We stand behind our findings.” And so, I can’t agree with you there. I’m sure you’re not surprised. I don’t agree with you on the job killing. I actually believe as the President does that we have to have a foundation for growth in this country, and that Americans want clean energy and see the value of investing in a future for generations to come. And if we want to make that investment, we have to change from being totally dependent on fossil-based power without controls for carbon, without a price for carbon, and we have to do that. And I have to tell you that it strikes me when I hear about these doom-and-gloom forecasts for economic ruin that you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments predicted a quiet death for business across the country, that’s what we were told. A cap-and-trade program, a program to reduce pollution through market incentives, and what really happened is that the US economy grew by 64% even as acid rain pollution was cut by 50%. There are ways to make smart environmental investments and policy. I commit to you, sir, that I would do nothing less. As I sit in the chair, it is too important to our country, economically but also environmentally. But to sit here and say that these policies and a move towards clean energy won’t be good for jobs in this country, I simply can’t agree.
Senator Inhofe: You know, I would appreciate it if I were the one who was saying this, but this is MIT, the Wharton school, they talk about the economic destruction of our country. And then of course, the comment you made I do appreciate, except that is the reason why I quoted all the, the Atlantic, the Guardian, all these newspapers, all these publications, who are now saying that the science wasn’t right. So, it’s not me saying it, I’m quoting others, because I don’t have the credibility – I understand that, but certainly when the whole nation turns around and people say – this should be a wake-up call, we’re basing this major step, this endangerment on science that we know now is flawed. And that’s the reason I quote other sources, so I don’t have to quote myself.
Administrator Jackson: Well, I think we have to quote sources like the National Academies of Science. I think we have to talk about the…
Senator Inhofe: What about the IPCC, isn’t that a pretty good source?
Administrator Jackson: Well, we just talked about the IPCC, and said that I absolutely agree you can look into emails and any allegations that come up, but that, you know, science can be a bit messy, the dust will settle, but I have not at this point seen anything that changes my belief that the endangerment finding is not only on sound ground but will stand up to scrutiny and challenge.
Senator Inhofe: And the IPCC said the science is not settled. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
WATCH: Sen. Inhofe on FOX News - Neil Cavuto
Tuesday February 23, 2010
The Oklahoman: Jobs bill clears Senate hurdle
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Senate Democratic leaders needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle on the bill, and they got help from five Republicans to score a 62-30 victory.
Oklahoma Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, and Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, voted against it. Once the Senate gives final approval to the bill, the House will have to concur.
"This is going to create jobs," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada.
LISTEN: Sen. Inhofe on the Mancow Show - Climategate Showdown
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Sneak Peek into New Senate Report on Climategate
Tuesday February 23, 2010
What emerges from our review of the emails and documents, which span a 13-year period from 1996 through November 2009, is much more than, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it, scientists who "lack interpersonal skills." Rather, the emails show the world's leading climate scientists discussing, among other things:
Obstructing the release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
threatening journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.
Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report
Tuesday February 23, 2010
Posted by Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
Excerpts of New Senate Climategate Report
INTRODUCTION
The emails (and the data and computer code released to the public) were written by the world's top climate scientists, many of whom had been lead authors and contributing lead authors of various sections of the IPCC reports and were thus intimately involved in writing and editing the IPCC's science assessments. This is no small matter. As noted science historian Naomi Oreskes wrote, the "scientific consensus" of climate change "is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." According to one top Obama Administration official, the IPCC is "the gold standard for authoritative scientific information on climate change because of the rigorous way in which they are prepared, reviewed, and approved...
These scientists work at the most prestigious and influential climate research institutions in the world. For example, Dr. Phil Jones was director of the CRU until he was forced to temporarily resign because of his role in the scandal. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), CRU is "among the renowned research centers in the world" on key aspects of climate change research. It also has "contributed to the scientific assessments of climate change conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." CRU's CRUTEM3 is one of the key datasets of surface temperatures utilized by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report...
The IPCC's work serves as the key basis for climate policy decisions made by governments throughout the world, including here in the United States...
In short, the utility and probity of the IPCC process and its results are crucial to policymaking with respect to climate change here in the United States.
SECTION 1: Inside the Email Trail
As noted, the CRU controversy features emails from the world's leading climate scientists-emails that show disturbing practices contrary to the practice of objective science and potentially federal law...
The emails also raise a fundamental question: What, if any, are the boundaries between science and activism? Wherever one draws the line, many scientists confront, and engage in, the political process at some level. As the National Academy of Sciences wrote in "On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research," "science and technology have become such integral parts of society that scientists can no longer isolate themselves from societal concerns."...
Along with apparently hiding data and information, the scientists complained that mainstream scientific journals were publishing work by so-called "skeptics" who disagreed with their views about the causes of climate change...
These emails do not read as a group of scientists in full agreement about the fundamental issues in paleoclimatology. Rather, they put the lie to the notion that the science is "settled," and that key facets of the climate science debate are no longer in dispute. As one pulls back the veil, and gets beneath the "nice, tidy story," one sees serious disagreement over the extent of 20th century warming and whether it was anomalous over the past millennium. As Phil Jones admitted to the BBC recently, "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not." "Of course," he continued, "if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."
SECTION 2: Inside the IPCC "Consensus"
The scientists involved here played key roles in shaping and editing the very IPCC reports adduced as dispositive proof of a scientific consensus on catastrophic global warming. The emails and documents reveal, among other things, an insular world of scientists working within the IPCC to generate reports that reflected their biased conclusions on the causes of climate change. In this section, we describe the IPCC in more detail, and try to explain its somewhat opaque inner workings. We also show the links between this controversy and the IPCC, specifically by identifying the scientists in the CRU scandal who exercised great influence over the IPCC assessment reports.
SECTION 3: Legal and Policy Issues in the CRU Controversy
The released CRU emails and documents display potentially unethical, and illegal, behavior. The scientists appear to discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Moreover, there are emails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees.
These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct. Discussed below are brief descriptions of the statutes and regulations that the Minority Staff believe are implicated in this scandal. In our investigation, we are examining the emails and documents and determining whether any violations of these federal laws and policies occurred.
SECTION 4: Endangerment Finding and EPA Reliance on IPCC Science
As we noted in the introduction, the significance of the CRU scandal potentially affects domestic climate change policy. We are investigating the extent to which the CRU scandal reveals flaws in the IPCC's Assessment Reports, as many of the scientists at the center of this scandal drafted and edited those reports (for more on this point, see Section 2). In turn, we are examining whether flaws in the IPCC's work weaken or undermine EPA's "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act."