Exclusive Hot Air interview: Inhofe to release report blasting IPCC on Climategate

posted at 8:00 am on February 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Last night, I got an exclusive interview with Senator James Inhofe in his Senate office to discuss a new report his office will release today, ahead of an appearance by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at an Energy and Public Works Committee hearing. Jackson once dismissed the Climategate scandal of the East Anglia CRU as nothing more than a demonstration that some climate scientists “lack interpersonal skills.” An initial inquiry by the minority members of the EPW Committee comes to a much different conclusion — that the e-mails reveal unethical and potentially criminal activities within the IPCC:

  • Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
  • Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
  • Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
  • Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

The new report will also include in its findings the scandals of the bogus claims on Himalayan glacier retreat, Amazon rain forest damage, and African crop projections.  The latest scandal hit too late for this initial inquiry report, which was the withdrawal of IPCC claims on rising sea levels (via Watts Up With That):

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

The IPCC has insisted that their report consisted of solid, peer-reviewed science that was unassailable.  Over the last three months, we have seen repeated exposures of advocacy and unsupported student theses masquerading as science, as well as evidence of conspiracies to silence skeptics and ruin their careers.  This paper was the first ever retracted from Nature Geoscience in three years of publication.

Most of you know I’m on vacation for a few days, but I’m still in DC, and I jumped at the chance to get the interview with Inhofe. I should add that just before our interview last night, two administrators from the EPA arrived at Inhofe’s Senate office just before me. Inhofe later told me that the pair informed him that they wanted to proceed full steam ahead with their endangerment finding and the enforcement efforts they had planned. Inhofe expressed surprise that the EPA hadn’t reconsidered its position after the exposure of the IPCC’s incompetence and potential fraud — and he plans to demand answers from Jackson today.

Inhofe will have the report at his website later today, so be sure to download it when you can.  Meanwhile, here is my exclusive interview with one of the men who have warned for years — since at least 2005, according to numerous quotes provided by Inhofe’s office — that the IPCC was promulgating a religious belief more than a science.  In the second half of the interview, Inhofe discusses the aims of the AGW movement, which has less to do with changing the weather than with expanding government control of private property and enterprise.

Update: Pajamas Media has an exclusive early look at the report. (via Drudge)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

As evidence mounts showing a man-made component to the present warming, concern will increase.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Too bad evidence continues to mount that AGW is, at best, based on manipulated data to reach a pre-determined conclusion or, at worst, a politically-driven scam.

Face it oakland, the Medieval Warm Period was real, as was the Roman Optimum, and human civilization flourished. Not so during the Little Ice Age. We as a species are better off when the climate is warmer.

Spiny Norman on February 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM

I love WUWT. It’s one of my several sites (along with HA) I hit every single day. Make sure to read through the comments as well, some very intelligent conversation on the issues goes back and forth there.

bikermailman on February 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Not likely. “Getting a little warmer” can have major consequences to the life on this planet, especially if weather patterns shift significantly (and there is evidence of that happening presently). As evidence mounts showing a man-made component to the present warming, concern will increase.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM

It was warmer in the 1940′s, although NASA and NOAA have done their best to hide that fact. It was warmer in the MWP and humanity flourished. It’s not warmth that’s the problem … it’s cold. Cold kills, cold prevents good harvests, cold requires more fuel for heat.

Besides, there’s no evidence of what you claim.

darwin on February 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Besides, there’s no evidence of what you claim.

darwin on February 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM

oakland is firmly in the camp that believes if the claim is stated enough times it will become fact, and it will be correct. That aberration itself, in their minds, is a settled fact.

Yoop on February 23, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Exclusive content? I knew right away this wasn’t an Allah post.

As much as challenging the data that has been manipulated and misrepresented skeptics need to ask why redistributing our money to other nations is the answer.

Mr Purple on February 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I just heard on Florida News Radio that coral off the Keys in 10 ft. of water all died because the water got so cold last month. Darn global warming.

Cindy Munford on February 23, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I just heard on Florida News Radio that coral off the Keys in 10 ft. of water all died because the water got so cold last month. Darn global warming.

don’t you know – everything is evidence of AGW “climate change”. You see, as it gets warmer, it forces certain areas to get colder. If there are no strong hurricanes this year, it is because of AGW. If there are strong hurricanes this year, it is because of AGW. If it is cold, AGW. If it is hot, AGW. If it is cloudy, AGW. If it is sunny, AGW. If the polar bear population decreases – AGW. If it increases (which it has) – AGW.

Monkeytoe on February 23, 2010 at 3:46 PM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-senator-barbara-boxer-and-epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-throw-ipcc-under-the-bus/

And the wheels continue coming off the bus. Today, both Boxer and Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from IPCC reports on alleged climate change. Check Charlie Martin’s stuff at pajamasmedia.com. I think SEN Inhofe grilled them.

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Time for the temp to be turned up on all these frauds who have been raking in the bucks on this global hoax.

Gee–haven’t noticed if McCain is using this as a big part of his Arizona campaign as he was running for Prez.

chickasaw42 on February 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusion;

I don’t think what is being done under these auspices merits the accolade of “science”.

unclesmrgol on February 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Face it oakland, the Medieval Warm Period was real, as was the Roman Optimum, and human civilization flourished. Not so during the Little Ice Age. We as a species are better off when the climate is warmer.

The MWP may be completely irrelevant as it is not known if it was a global event. Therefore, we don’t know if the human species in general was “better off”, do we?

Let’s suppose, however, that human kind would be better off if the global temperature were to rise. How would humans adjust in and during the transition? To assume that we would fare well with a changing climate seems to me to be a dangerous supposition. A changing climate would introduce unpredictability in the weather and climate, and it is predictability that is so vital to being able to maintain a stable food supply. The idea of going without eating because farmers can’t count on necessary weather patterns to grow their crops doesn’t appeal to me.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM

oakland is firmly in the camp that believes if the claim is stated enough times it will become fact, and it will be correct. That aberration itself, in their minds, is a settled fact.

Actually, when evidence mounts up in support of a theory, that theory becomes more plausible. In science, however, there is no “proof”, but only varying degrees of uncertainty.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Actually, when evidence mounts up in support of a theory, that theory becomes more plausible. In science, however, there is no “proof”, but only varying degrees of uncertainty.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM

which one of your degrees taught you that little dogma….? the first or the second one?

ted c on February 23, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Stick a fork in it, Gore- this scam is done!

2ipa on February 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3143?utm_source=daily%2Bpromo&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pjtv

another interview w/ Inhofe yesterday almost as nearly as good as Ed’s.

ted c on February 24, 2010 at 6:10 AM

Let’s suppose, however, that human kind would be better off if the global temperature were to rise. How would humans adjust in and during the transition? To assume that we would fare well with a changing climate seems to me to be a dangerous supposition.

oakland on February 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Are you presuming the existence of technology, or human activity (or lack thereof), which could concievably halt the warming of the planet? If so, what technology or human activity are you proposing?

The reason I ask is, IF a dramatic warming would force the need to resettle large numbers of people, then — given that there’s no way for man to influence this warming one way or the other — it’s high time we spend more time figuring out how to cope with the fallout, and a little less time pretending we can change the climate.

And for that reason it’s doubly important to be sure we get as accurate — and non-controversial — estimate of sea-level rise as possible, with data from more than 3 trees in Siberia and no “the dog ate my data” excuses, so that “the planet” diverts as little of its economic production as possible and fights only what is truly necessary.

RD on March 1, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2