Senator Inhofe has produced a Minority Report for the United States Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works. It concerns the Climategate leaked emails from the CRU.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F....15-12b7df1a0b63
This is the sort of documentation that the UK committees of Sir Alastair Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh, also investigating the CRU emails and science, would produce if they had any integrity. I wonder if they will consult it for ideas?
It’s a brilliant exposé of the so-called ”Climate Consensus” illusion fostered by the IPCC.
Those who doubt that a small clique of American and British climate “scientists” (so-called) controls the IPCC and that the CRU is the hub should read this report. There are 17 of them swapping hats as Co-ordinators, Co-Chairmen, Lead authors, Contributing authors and Expert Reviewers over the last three IPPC Reports. It’s an IPCC version of musical chairs, in fact.
(A very similar picture emerges to that revealed by Professor Wegman’s Congessional Committee Report into Michael Mann’s Hockeystick in 2006. Wegman created charts of the network of co-authorship and peer-review between a similar clique of 43 climate researchers many of whom overlap with the CRU emailers and all of whom are co-authors with Michael Mann.. See his Report herehttp://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf )
Senator Inhofe’s is an informative and well presented report, too. Not a dry read at all! How could it be with all that skull-duggery going on?
Inhofe is keen to expose that the “consensus” clique has produced bad science because it is their “research” promoted by the IPCC which is quoted by the US Environment Protection Agency in support of its Endangerment Finding.
This is the strategy to use the US Clean Air Act to get CO2 classed as a pollutant, just like the particulate matter from car exhausts, sulfur dioxide and carbon Monoxide etc. The Clean air Act is being used to act on CO2 via the back door because it would be impossible to get primary legislation on CO2 through Congress.
The Clean Air Act was never intended for use against CO2 because CO2 is a clean trace gas which we all exhale and which plants need to photosynthesize and grow. On the critical issue of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the EPA administrator relied nearly exclusively on the work of the IPCC. That’s why it is important to discredit it, from Inhofe’s point of view.
There are only seventeen American and British IPCC climatologists in the clique implicated in the CRU emails. Or as George Smiley might have said, “There are sixteen of them, and Michael Mann.”
It’s a damned good read! Go have a look. It’s a cross between “The Crutape Letters” and “The Hockeystick Illusion.” I don’t expect the British enquiry results will be anywhere near as readable.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F....15-12b7df1a0b63
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F....15-12b7df1a0b63
This is the sort of documentation that the UK committees of Sir Alastair Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh, also investigating the CRU emails and science, would produce if they had any integrity. I wonder if they will consult it for ideas?
It’s a brilliant exposé of the so-called ”Climate Consensus” illusion fostered by the IPCC.
Those who doubt that a small clique of American and British climate “scientists” (so-called) controls the IPCC and that the CRU is the hub should read this report. There are 17 of them swapping hats as Co-ordinators, Co-Chairmen, Lead authors, Contributing authors and Expert Reviewers over the last three IPPC Reports. It’s an IPCC version of musical chairs, in fact.
(A very similar picture emerges to that revealed by Professor Wegman’s Congessional Committee Report into Michael Mann’s Hockeystick in 2006. Wegman created charts of the network of co-authorship and peer-review between a similar clique of 43 climate researchers many of whom overlap with the CRU emailers and all of whom are co-authors with Michael Mann.. See his Report herehttp://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf )
Senator Inhofe’s is an informative and well presented report, too. Not a dry read at all! How could it be with all that skull-duggery going on?
Inhofe is keen to expose that the “consensus” clique has produced bad science because it is their “research” promoted by the IPCC which is quoted by the US Environment Protection Agency in support of its Endangerment Finding.
This is the strategy to use the US Clean Air Act to get CO2 classed as a pollutant, just like the particulate matter from car exhausts, sulfur dioxide and carbon Monoxide etc. The Clean air Act is being used to act on CO2 via the back door because it would be impossible to get primary legislation on CO2 through Congress.
The Clean Air Act was never intended for use against CO2 because CO2 is a clean trace gas which we all exhale and which plants need to photosynthesize and grow. On the critical issue of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing climate change, the EPA administrator relied nearly exclusively on the work of the IPCC. That’s why it is important to discredit it, from Inhofe’s point of view.
There are only seventeen American and British IPCC climatologists in the clique implicated in the CRU emails. Or as George Smiley might have said, “There are sixteen of them, and Michael Mann.”
It’s a damned good read! Go have a look. It’s a cross between “The Crutape Letters” and “The Hockeystick Illusion.” I don’t expect the British enquiry results will be anywhere near as readable.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F....15-12b7df1a0b63
No comments:
Post a Comment