Congress to Probe Hacked Global Warming Emails?

by the Left Coast Rebel

Declan McCullagh at CBS News:

A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not,” according to a
transcript of a radio interview posted on his Web site. Aides for Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.

The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Read the rest of the story here….

Via Memeorandum


johnpmorris said…

Hi Rebel,

We can't let this one go.

This gets to a mild critcism I have of this blog. Far too often, you allow the normal "news cycle" to control the blog. Hello– the news cycle is is controled by the president, a socialist controled congress and a virtually marxist MSM.

We all know they have these powers for now and their hitting us with so much crap to keep us off guard.

However, look at some of the most powerful punches landed have come from "left field" like this and the Acorn tapes. It shows that we need to control the ball by doing our own research and using alternative media to push obscure stories onto the front page.

CJ said…

Is this saying that most of the data used in climatologically science is suspect? How frustrating to the scientists. Reading the excerpts of the e-mail, I cannot tell whether this is hyperbole from a frustrated scientist (I have written such e-mails.) or whether these data problems seriously call into question all the climatologically data we have.

It will be exciting to see what people turn up with this new information. I know you’re hoping that corrected data show human activities are not affecting the climate. That would be WONDERFUL. In science you have to be cautious about a) results whose significance is “wonderful” and b) drawing conclusions before you have all the facts.

lady-lyzar said…

CJ – I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, especially in regards drawing conclusions before you have all the facts.

However, that's exactly what global warming alarmists are doing. Human activity is automatically assumed to be the primary culprit, while other known climate forcing mechanisms are frequently glossed over or ignored. Climate change happens naturally whether human beings are here or not.

If it is true that the CRU has knowingly skewed or omitted data to support a forgone conclusion (which is also poor scientific practice), then these 'scientists' have a lot of explaining to do.

Left Coast Rebel said…

@ CJ – I totally agree with Lyzar here.

@ John Morris – I totally agree, in trying to grow my site here and break out of my readership numbers it is easy to chase 'state press' stories. We all need to control the issues and the debate better for our cause.

@ Lyzar – Well said!

CJ said…

Climate change happens naturally whether human beings are here or not.
Right, but the current models show that a significant portion of climate change is due to human activities. We're living in a period of receding glaciers regardless of human activity.

Human activity is automatically assumed to be the primary culprit, while other known climate forcing mechanisms are frequently glossed over or ignored.
It depends on who's doing the ignoring. There certainly are alarmists. The evidence we have so far (maybe it's changing!) shows a significant chunk (i.e. 30% to 70%) of climate change is anthropogenic.

lady-lyzar said…

If you talk to any meteorologist, they can explain how forecasting and climate models are inherently flawed. Straight "modelcasting" is often frowned upon, because computers lack human intuition. In addition, it is currently impossible to simulate weather conditions in a controlled lab environment for experimentation. All we have is observations from non-controlled, often less than ideal environments. I have seen some horribly set up weather stations.

Imagine how mucked up a model that uses doctored data and purposely skimps off "undesirable" values must be. That is where I think the bombshell is really going to be if these allegations prove to be true.

Regarding anthropogenic climate change – I honestly believe that they are drawing a correlation when there is little to no significant value in the comparison. Carbon dioxide makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, even with human contributions.

What is typically ignored is solar forcing, which is far more influential.

Post a Comment

Comments that contain cursing, threats, David Plouffe trolls, circular reasoning, incendiary language, or general leftist hate and moonbattery may be deleted by the Left Coast Rebel….

Related Posts with Thumbnails