Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:05 AM
Original message
Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails
Source: Wall Street Journal

Congressional Republicans have started investigating climate scientists whose hacked emails suggest they tried to squelch dissenting views about global warming.

An aide to Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said investigators are studying the documents, which unknown hackers stole last week from the computer of a prominent British climate-research center.

Investigators are focusing on the correspondence of White House Science Adviser John Holdren, he said. Dr. Holdren, a point man for the Obama administration on climate change, sent one of the hacked emails. In the 2003 email, Dr. Holdren, then at the Woods Hole Research Center in Woods Hole, Mass., defended research by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a scientist who believes global warming is man-made and who also sent some of the hacked emails.

On Monday, Dr. Holden said: "I'm happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of 'burden of proof' in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute."

Read more:

It appears that Republicans are going to try to Acorn climate science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. These people really don't give a fuck about their kids
or they stupidly think their money will protect them.

I am so getting tired of this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Jesus will return and make all things new soon! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's the next target.
HCR is winding down and now they will go after this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. From the spate of climate change deniers here
with low post counts, it seems that has already started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. wishful thinking by Issa and the other assclowns
a monumental grandstanding waste of time, and the e-mail hack will be as big of a smoking gun as the recently discovered Obama 'kenyan' birth certificate....

I guess they think by keeping the so-called 'climategate' story in the news long enough, enough people will assume it to be fact or evidence of a cover-up, just like the birther story...Of course, it's not like the GOP and other industry-connected denier loons are even looking for a smoking gun they already know doesn't exist -- All they care about now is stalling any meaningful action...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Calling congressional republicans "lawmakers"
surely seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm sure the climate change deniers on this site will applaud them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Geez, how about a probe looking for those responsible for the security breach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BennyD Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Inhofe says he will call for investigation on "climategate."
Here's a link to the story link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Not so fast - global warming man made, earth changes or another scam?
The jury is still out on this one if you ask me. Some scientists believe the global warming, global cooling are natural cycles of the earth and man has little to do with cause or control of it.

Some believe this is an agenda by a group of "shadow" rule makers and shakers to coerce us all into a world government with taxing authority and regulations.

This article posted today discusses the "fixing" of the data for a global warming agenda. You can read it and reach your own conclusions.

November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In
By Robert Tracinski ...

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate."

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU.

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.

This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.

I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.

And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.

The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma.

For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money - Phil Jones has raked in a total of 13.7 million in grants from the British government - which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
twitomy Donating Member (756 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. I have always had suspicions about the "Climate Change"
Thing as its defenders where so voicerfous and unwilling to listen to counter arguments that it
appeared to be like a "religion"...And here we have this "clergy" attempting to shut down, villify,
and censor "heretics" of the "Faith" The Galieo incident has come full circle.

So much for the "reasoned scietific inquiry", the "neutrality" of the researchers, and the "scientific method" GW is now a cult religion, and a lot of people are making a lot of money off this scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. It is disconcerting that areas of possible agreement and compromise are ignored
The argument is monopolized by the extremes from both sides, who are absoultely invested in their point of view. It really is akin to a religious conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Even if the jury was still out (it's not), risk management and common sense apply
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 10:55 PM by MH1
and that means we ought to be taking steps to minimize human activity contributions to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

anyone who's worked in a technical environment and is honest with themselves, know that those emails are being taken way out of context; or could be out of context - and that is the point - they are private emails part of a larger discussion that we are not privy to, nor do most of us know or use that technical terminology in our own jobs - there is no way we would know the context.

But why am I bothering? obviously you don't meet those criteria or you wouldn't have posted this item.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. PrisonPlanet? This isn't the dungeon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SandWalker1984 Donating Member (533 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. HR2454 will force homeowners to retrofit to comply or you can't sell your home
Under H.R. 2454 Cap and Trade Bill, homeowners need upgrades and a license to sell a house
Published on 11-22-2009

This is a long excerpt, but you should read the entire post by Frank Carrio at /

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.

No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

A year from now you won't be able to sell your house.

Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.

In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.

To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.

Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.

Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.

If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Trying to read now, but
these bills are so friggin' hard to read/comprehend/understand!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Bullshit
You're busted. stop spamming the boards with death-panel style, conspiracy bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. So, You're Saying That A Cap and Trade Bill That The U.S. Chamber Opposes...
Is actually designed to benefit big business? If so, why does the U.S. Chamber, which is made of "FAT CATS AT THE TOP" oppose it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
19. these republicans are sick in the head and a danger to us all
Edited on Wed Nov-25-09 09:42 AM by fascisthunter
it is obvious these monster care about nothing but their damn warped ideology of selfishness. When there is a disease or a tumor, do you stand by and argue with it? Because right now, that is what they want us to do, so they can try to seed ignorance in their efforts to protect big polluters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Steerpike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-25-09 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
20. So now I'm f****ing Confused...
Edited on Wed Nov-25-09 10:09 AM by Steerpike
Does this mean there is no such thing as global warming? Or does it just make the theory of global a little more in question...or is this just more disinformation to be used as fodder for Rush and The rest of the Thuglican Broadcast Squad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan 21st 2018, 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC