Repubs Demand 'Climategate' Investigation, Voice Doubts on Afghan Strategy

For the first time in decades, congressional Republicans are aggressively on the offensive in the fight against the manmade global warming hoax. 

The eco-theocracy — from ayatollah Al Gore to the lowliest document shredder at the East Anglia University’s “Climate Research Unit” — has been dealt a body-blow by an unknown hacker responsible for leaking emails exposing collusion between the movement’s top scientists.  In the emails they seemingly plot to evade Freedom of Information Act laws, suppress scientific data that contradicts their pre-conceived notions and manipulate the once-sacred scientific peer review process.  

The scandal, inevitably dubbed “Climategate,” offers an inside glimpse into potentially the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the public, relegating Bernie Madoff to the back bench.  Only the UN’s “oil for food” scam was bigger.  

The scientific peer review process is intended to act as a guarantor of the honesty of data, acting as the ultimate arbiter of what is considered “settled science.”  The leaked emails expose a sect of agenda-driven pseudo-scientists manipulating and even strong-arming the process to squelch publication of dissenting views, seeking a “consensus” of published scientists to authenticate their inconsistent data.  

Therein lays the fatal, manmade defect in consensus-driven science.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.), top Republican on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, joined Senators David Vitter (R-La.), ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and John Barrasso, M.D. (R-Wyo.), Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee ranking Republican, in formally requesting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Carol Jackson suspend action on climate policy initiatives until investigations can be conducted.

From the letter (pdf):

“We request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the questions raised by the disclosure of emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU).  Additionally, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule until the Agency can demonstrate that the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.”

The legislators issued tough statements in conjunction with the letter’s release.

“This Administration used flawed science created by a community of bullies to push through ideologically based policies,” Issa said.  “The suggestion that there is a scientific consensus on climate change is itself a myth.”

“These e-mails betray the true thoughts and motives of many leading climate scientists,” Sensenbrenner said. “It shows a pattern that’s closer to scientific fascism than the scientific method.”

“The actions by scientists and others to suppress data that contradicts their conclusions is unacceptable,” Barrasso said. “The EPA’s climate change regulations are based on compromised scientific reports and heavily flawed data.  The EPA must now withdraw all proposed climate change rules and regulations and conduct their own research.”

“The information that is coming to light concerning the data on global climate change looks to be a serious hit to the scientific community, as the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom has been a nerve-center of sorts for global warming research,” Vitter said.  “We have already seen instances of potential data corruption come forth, and further investigations may shed more light that significant biases in the peer review process were present.  If so, that is antithetical to the scientific method — good science must present all data, regardless of what you want the conclusion to be.”

Phil Jones, the director at the British CRU (the man at the center of the email firestorm), has been temporarily relieved of his post until an internal investigation is completed.  The CRU investigation is merely to determine if Jones violated British Freedom of Information law, not an assessment of the manipulated data.  CRU administrators have announced they will release their global warming data, however Jones claims the raw data at the center of the global warming scheme has been destroyed.

McCain Corners Gates on Arbitrary Afghanistan Withdrawal Date

Sen. John McCain (D-Ariz.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, grilled Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the President’s arbitrary withdrawal date during testimony before the committee yesterday.  McCain got fed up with Gates’ non-answers regarding the plan to end the deployment before it has even begun; pointing out that if conditions on the ground are truly the driving factor in troop withdrawal plans, there was no valid reason for the President to announce an arbitrary withdrawal date.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN:  I say with great respect, Secretary Gates, the President announced that we would begin withdrawing with a hard date of July 2011, I don’t know why that date was particularly picked — so he’s announced that.  But at the same time you said that conditions on the ground would [dictate withdrawal plans].  Now, those are two incompatible statements.  You either have a winning strategy and do as we did in Iraq — and then once it’s succeeded then you withdraw.  Or, as the President said, we will have a date beginning withdrawal beginning 2011.  Which is it?  It’s got to be one or the other.  It’s got to be appropriate conditions or it’s got to be an arbitrary date.  You can’t have both.

SEC. ROBERT GATES:  Where we being the transition is, I think, what is, what is, uh, is the key factor here, Senator.  As I suggested, we will have a thorough review in December of 2010 and if it appears that the strategy’s not working, and that we are not going to be able to transition in 2011, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself.

McCAIN:  Well, I say with respect, I think the American people need to know whether we will begin withdrawing in 2011 and conditions are ripe for that or whether or not we will be withdrawing no matter what.

GATES:  Our current plan is we will begin the transition in local areas in July of 2011.  We will evaluate in December 2010 whether we believe we will be able to meet that objective.

McCAIN:  I think that’s got to be made very clear because right now the expectation level of the American people because of the President’s speech is that we will be withdrawing as of July 2011 regardless of conditions on the ground.  I think that’s the wrong impression to give our friends, it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies, it’s the wrong impression to give the men and women who want to go over there and win that we not start withdrawing on an arbitrary date.

Coburn Amendment Seeks to Strike Louisiana Purchase

Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.) yesterday filed an amendment to the Senate health care bill that would strike the earmark that Hill staffers call the Louisiana Purchase.  The earmark offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) which would fund projects in Louisiana was included to garner one vote for his health care bill: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

The Congressional Budget Office scored the Louisiana Purchase earmark at $100 million, yet Landrieu claims she’s not that cheap of a date, insisting the earmark is worth closer to $300 million.

Coburn’s email announcement said, “Dr. Coburn believes it’s immoral for the Reid bill to cut Medicare benefits for seniors while financing special-interest, pork-barrel projects for vulnerable incumbents.”