The House Energy Independence and Global Warming Select Committee’s Democrat leadership actually held a hearing yesterday to complain about what they called the “politicization” of climate science in the wake of the Climategate scandal.
I am not making this up.
Led by Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade national energy tax bill, Democrats complained that Climategate scientists are being harassed after data and emails leaked by a whistleblower exposed the leading scientists hawking the anthropogenic global warming scam worldwide had cooked their numbers.
Leaked correspondence also showed the Climategate scientists colluded to discredit and ostracize other scientists for honest inquiry into the bona fides of their “consensus” science.
In his opening statement, Markey chastised Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli over his recent civil investigative demand for data and information from the University of Virginia in relation to grants sought by former professor Michael Mann.
Mann is one of the Climategate warmers admitting in email that he used “tricks” to manipulate the data.
Cucinelli has opened an inquiry into whether Mann used manipulated data to seek taxpayer grant money to fund his research.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), ranking Republican on the committee, cited some of the more damning Climategate email at the hearing.
“The Majority has repeatedly tried to dismiss the Climategate emails,” Sensenbrenner said in his opening statement. “But no number of politically-motivated studies will change what the emails actually say. I want to read a few quotes:
• “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”
• “There is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
• “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
• I got a paper to review written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. (…) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. . . . It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially, I now need a hard and, if required, extensive case for rejecting”
• “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
“There are literally thousands of these,” Sensenbrenner said. “The emails expose an intolerant scientific culture and they raise legitimate questions about the strength of the so-called ‘scientific consensus.’”
Sensenbrenner also had to bat cleanup on harassment and attacks on Lord Christopher Monkton by Democrats over testimony before the very same committee. The full report with links to testimony transcripts is available in my original report on HUMAN EVENTS here.
“Two weeks ago, the minority’s witness, Christopher Monckton, argued that there have been three distinct periods of warming in the past 150 years and that the rates of warming in each of these periods were parallel,” Sensenbrenner said. “He demonstrated that both the EPA and the IPCC were wrong to claim that the rate of warming in the most recent period was higher than the previous two periods of warming. Finally, he questioned whether CO2 was the most likely cause of warming if previous temperature rises were identical when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were much lower than they are today.”
“Neither the majority nor its witnesses responded to any of these arguments,” Sensenbrenner continued. “Instead, they attacked Lord Monckton for not presenting scientific information — even though he clearly did — they ridiculed his name, and they wrongly accused him of falsifying his credentials and then refused to allow him to respond.”
“I encourage everyone to read the transcript or watch the video on the Committee’s website. It was bullying and it was embarrassing,” he said. “As Lord Monckton said in response, ‘a certain amount of politics has crept in on one side of this debate — and, therefore, inconvenient science has been dismissed as not being science at all.’”
Funny how Democrats see a legitimate fact-finding inquiry by a sitting attorney general as harassment yet see no problems with personal attacks on Monckton nor in the collusion to perpetrate a hoax by the Climategate warmers.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter