Free Republic

Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms...

Climate scientists are not the least bit happy. They feel that none of the calamities that have befallen them over the past few months, are their faults. Climate-Gate, the IPCC mistakes, Michael Mann's broken hockey stick, all of it has been debunked, not because of the lousy science or the broke protocols etc, but thanks to the over zealousness of the global warming skeptics who would rather see the world destroyed than redistribute income from the wealthy nations to the third world. On the other hand, these scientists do believe in the Al Gore hoax, so can you really listen...

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, in testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, made it a point to declare that the agency was not using the IPCC report to develop policy. Charlie Martin at PJ Media reports: 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 Report (AR4). Boxer and Jackson's statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic...

House Republicans are pushing a resolution that would block the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases, throwing a wrench in the Obama administration's attempts to bypass Congress and regulate carbon emissions. The announcement comes as a growing chorus of lawmakers—mostly Republicans, but some coal state Democrats as well— have criticized the EPA’s decision to move forward on carbon regulations. Last year, the EPA issued a finding that the heat-trapping gases were harmful to the public, paving way for regulation under the Clean Air Act. Republicans say they’re concerned the regulations will hurt the economy. “The last thing we need in this...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a broad cap-and-trade system to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions is dead and will be replaced with a new approach, an influential Republican senator said on Tuesday. Lindsey Graham, one of three senators working against daunting odds to produce a compromise climate bill, has recently turned against imposing the kind of cap-and-trade system used in Europe, which involves companies buying and selling pollution permits.Graham did not specify whether another mechanism or some sort of cap-and-trade would be used more narrowly, such as to control emissions in the power utility sector. "The cap-and-trade bills...

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John Rockefeller introduced legislation on Thursday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from cracking down on carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants and other stationary sources for two years. The Obama administration has long maintained that the EPA would move independently to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for global warming if Congress failed to produce its own climate legislation. Rockefeller, who represents the coal-producing state of West Virginia, said he introduced the bill to "safeguard jobs, the coal industry and the entire economy as we move toward clean-coal technology." It was not yet...

Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed. Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking. The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So...

On his very first full day in office, President Obama sent a memorandum to his executive agencies extolling the virtues of transparency and open government and directing them to facilitate public access to information. To further that directive, Obama issued a second memorandum encouraging agencies to “adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” when responding to public requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

By now everyone knows that the threat of global warming is hanging over all our heads. In as little as five years the ice caps will have completely melted causing polar bears to grow flippers. In ten years the oceans will start boiling. The entire catastrophic failure will be complete by 2035, rendering the habitat unsuitable for even the mythic twinkie. This is all fact by the way. It has to be. Al Gore said so! Or is it? Could it be that the Left’s Holy Grail could be nothing more than a highly varnished, eco-friendly Dixie cup? I, for...

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 Contact: Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797 David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-5642 SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASESREPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSYShows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science WATCH: Inhofe Releases Climategate Report During EPW HearingLink to Press ReleaseLink to EPW Minority Report on CRU ControversyLink to a Sampling of CRU EmailsLink: IPCC Gets the Science WrongLink: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed 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...

Link to 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy The following is Part 2 in our series of excerpts from the Senate EPW Minority Report, titled, "‘Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy."  Here the excerpts focus on two points from the report.  First is the distinction made between "utterly politicized scientists," such as those at the center of the CRU controversy, and scientists committed to disinterested, objective science in the field of climatology (and all other fields), who deserve praise and support.  It points to the importance of openness and transparency in practicing good science-and shows how those principles were, at times, ignored...

The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt. “Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.” From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work...

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate By JOHN M. BRODER WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings. But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively...

Thanks to Symon at Australian Climate Madness (ACM) the video of yesterday’s testimony by Dr. Phil Jones of UEA/CRU is now online via YouTube, making it viewable by millions worldwide. There are five parts, each of about 9 or 10 minutes. Jones is accompanied by the Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof. Edward Acton. Symon sums up the questioning: “They don’t exactly give PJ a tough ride, do they? To quote the former UK Labour Chancellor Denis Healey, it was like being savaged by a dead sheep…”. Fred Pearce of the Guardian commented that: “…the Commons committee...

So much for transparency in science!  Dr. Phil Jones, the former chief of the East Anglia CRU, testified yesterday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology to defend himself after the exposure of e-mails from the climate-research team reaching back a decade.  Jones admitted sending the “pretty awful e-mails,” but insisted that the MPs didn’t realize that secrecy is a critical part of the scientific method: But yesterday Professor Jones – in his first public appearance since the scandal broke – denied manipulating the figures. Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told...

Parliament isn’t the place where climate sceptics go to make friends. Just over a year ago, just three MPs voted against the Climate Act, with 463 supporting it. But events took a surprising turn at Parliament’s first Climategate hearing yesterday. MPs who began by roasting sceptics in a bath of warm sarcasm for half an hour were, a mere two hours later, asking why the University of East Anglia’s enquiry into the climate scandal wasn’t broader, and wasn’t questioning “the science” of climate change. That’s further than any sceptic witness had gone. In between, they’d wrought an admission from CRU...

In his first public appearance since the beginning of the emails row Phil Jones tells MPs he will be cleared of accusationsProfessor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, gives evidence to the science and technology committee. Photograph: parliamentlive.tvThe scientist at the centre of a media storm over global warming research admitted today he had sent "awful emails" but said he expected to be cleared of accusations that he tried to pervert the scientific process.Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, told a parliamentary inquiry that there was nothing in the hundreds...

<p>A BRITISH climate researcher at the centre of a row over global warming science has admitted he wrote some "pretty awful" emails to sceptics when he was refusing their requests for data.</p> <p>But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, yesterday defended his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not "standard practice" to do so.</p>

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility. The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming. The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data. The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered...

The integrity of climate change research is in doubt after the disclosure of e-mails that attempt to suppress data, a leading scientific institute has said. The Institute of Physics said that e-mails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had broken “honourable scientific traditions” about disclosing raw data and methods and allowing them to be checked by critics. Professor Jones admitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee yesterday that he had “written some very awful e-mails”, including one in which he rejected a request for information on...