by Charlie Martin
February 23, 2010
Inhofe intends to
ask for a probe of the embattled climate scientists for
possible criminal acts. And he thinks Gore should be
recalled to explain his prior congressional testimony.
here for the just-released Senate Environment
and Public Works report behind Inhofe's announcement.)
is a Colorado computer scientist and freelance writer.
He holds an MS in Computer Science from Duke University,
where he spent six years with the National Biomedical
Simulation Resource, Duke University Medical Center.
Find him at
and on his blog at
See below Charlie Martin’s
“Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus“.
James Inhofe (R-OK) today
asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the
greatest scientific scandal of our generation” - the actions of
climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the
subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President
Al Gore to be called back to
the Senate to testify.
science fiction movie, every
assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said.
He believes Vice President Gore should
defend himself and his movie before Congress.
Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a
minority staff report from the
Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, of which he is ranking member.
Senator Inhofe is asking the Department
of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct
or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr.
Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James
Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for
This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before
today’s hearing, alleges:
[The] Minority Staff of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists
involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles
governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal
In addition to these findings, we
believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously
compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central
conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading
to environmental catastrophes.
As has been reported here at Pajamas
Media over the last several months, the exposure of the
Climategate files has led to a
reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth
report (AR4), published in 2007.
The IPCC AR4 report was named by
Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the
major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment
Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon
dioxide as a pollutant.
Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced
to retract a number of specific conclusions - such as a prediction
that Himalayan glaciers
would disappear by 2035 - and has
been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on
reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed
Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the
IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the
London Daily Mail that he
had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the
“purely to put political pressure on
Based on this minority staff report,
Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential
research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers
At the same time, Inhofe will ask the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for
carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and
will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of
carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding,
Inhofe joins with firms such as the
Peabody Energy Company
and several state attorneys general (such as
objecting to the
Obama administration’s attempt to
extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the
Senator Inhofe believes this staff
report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys
Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a
member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into
research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists
The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the
Climategate files and the
The emails suggest some climate
scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of
damaging information and counter-evidence.
They suggest scientists were
manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
They show some climate
scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to
publish work questioning the “consensus.”
They show that scientists
involved in the report were assuming the role of climate
activists attempting to influence public opinion while
claiming scientific objectivity.
The report notes a number of potential
legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:
It suggests scientific
misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment - requiring
open access to the results of government-funded research -
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced
December 12, 2000).
It notes the potential for
violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims
Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
The report also notes the
possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress
in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an
obstruction of justice.
If proven, these charges could subject
the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research,
and even to criminal penalties.
By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the
stakes for climate scientists and others involved.
Dr. Phil Jones of the
University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has
already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate
Dr. Michael Mann of Penn
State is currently under investigation by the university for
Adding possible criminal charges to the
mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may
choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.
Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let
go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”
The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority
will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama
administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2
following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The
Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to
investigate issues with climate science.
For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read:
Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson...
Throw IPCC Under the Bus
by Charlie Martin
February 23, 2010
release of the Inhofe Report, Boxer claimed she was only
quoting "American scientists," and Jackson reversed
herself on the use of the IPCC as the "gold standard."
During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in
today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both
Senator Barbara Boxer - the chair of the committee - and EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking
change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is
very closely tied to the IPCC reports (as Christopher Horner showed
in his recent
PJM series on the NASA FOIA emails.)
The statements by Boxer and Jackson followed Senator Inhofe’s
release (see the PJM exclusive
report above) in his opening statement of a minority
staff report documenting many flaws in the IPCC report and the other
evidence revealed in the Climategate files. (See
video with the full hearing on CSPAN, the exchanges with Senator Boxer and Inhofe, and
Administrator Jackson begin at about 56 minutes into the video.)
Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA
from the IPCC report.
In my opening statement, I didn’t
quote one international scientist or IPCC report… We are quoting
the American scientific community here.
When Inhofe directly asked Jackson if
she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she
The primary focus of the
endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this
Jackson also noted:
[The errors Inhofe had presented
were] international events. The information on the glaciers and
other events doesn’t weaken… the evidence we considered [to make
the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]
The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC
AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to
make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant.
In the past, the worldwide nature of the
climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the
reasons for using the IPCC report, but now it appeared that Jackson
was trying to separate the Endangerment Finding from the IPCC.
However, when Inhofe asked Jackson if she was considering asking the
EPA inspector general to investigate the IPCC science, she answered:
If anything changes… certainly I
would call for a review of the finding, but I haven’t seen that.