U.S. Senate EPW Committee Found Climate Scientists Obstructed, Concealed, Manipulated, Colluded, & Lobbied Influence Upon Political Processes.
The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws.
In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.
CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
• 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.
It should be noted that the headline on this post is misleading. The Senate EPW Committee did NOT make those findings. They were the conclusions of staff employed by the Republican minority headed by Senator James Imhofe who is himself a major climate change denier.
The hacked emails from the East Anglia CRU have been taken out of context and selectively published to embarrass the researchers there;the important question is whether the CRU put any false or misleading data into the last IPCC report. On that point, the conclusion of scientists who have independently reviewed the CRU inputs is that they were neither false nor misleading.
Science is different from politics. Scientists seek to establish truths, politicians deal in opinions. When scientists stray into politics, they are usually lousy at it because their scientific training gets in the way. By the same token, when politicians like Sen. Imhofe and Lord Moncton stray into science, they are usually lousy at it because their political habits get in the way.