Republican lawmakers battling planned Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules said Thursday that EPA has run afoul of federal data standards — and they’re citing the now-infamous hacked climate science e-mails to bolster their case.
Four GOP lawmakers say EPA’s recent “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health — a finding that’s a precursor to regulation — violates the Data Quality Act (DQA).
The lawmakers — Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Sen. David Vitter (La.), Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.) — made the allegation in a Thursday letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
The DQA is a very brief statute that was buried in a 2000 appropriations bill. It says federal agencies must ensure the integrity of data they disseminate and allows outside parties to submit petitions for corrections.
Six Republicans who sit on the Senate Commerce Committee are calling on its chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, to investigate the trove of recently leaked e-mail messages from climate scientists for evidence of data manipulation.
In a letter dated Tuesday, the Republicans assert that the committee “needs to provide confirmation that American taxpayer dollars are not being misused,” and open a bipartisan investigation into an episode that some are calling Climategate.
The senators signing the letter are Sam Brownback of Kansas, John Ensign of Nevada, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
It is continually stunning to me that people can see the evidence before their eyes” and continue to doubt the reality of climate change, he said. He turned to Holdren and said, sarcastically, “I just want to ask you if you’re a member of a global conspiracy.
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 scientific community enjoys a tremendous amount of public trust. Unfortunately, the themes exposed in the CRU documents led to a loss of confidence in certain individuals as dispassionate arbiters of climate science,” Broun said in his letter. “At the least, the contents of the emails point to a troubling trend of groupthink where data is manipulated and withheld, scientific journals are intimidated, and reputations are attacked for political expedience,” the letter continued.
The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity.
However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it.
On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among — most people — in dispute anymore.
Well, first of all, we’ve all seen bits and pieces, we haven’t seen the full e-mails. But I think more importantly there has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible.
What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
Opponents of climate change legislation are trying to deceive the American public on climate science. After years attacking the science on its merits and failing, they’re now using stolen e-mails to attack climate scientists directly.
Our understanding of climate science is based on decades of research from thousands of scientists. These e-mails don’t affect what we know about human activity driving dangerous levels of global warming or the measures we must take to address it.
I think it is important for scientists to clearly state that if basic data were withheld, or if there was unprofessional tampering with the peer-review process, we do not condone these acts. It is equally essential to emphasize that alleged problems with a few scientists’ behavior do not change the consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences.
Scientifically, it means little. All scientists know that this kind of language and kidding goes on verbally all the time. Some of us forget that email has the potential to become public at any time. The public perception is another matter. There may be some people who do not know any scientist personally and think they are lily pure, dedicated (do-gooder) nerds. These private comments might lead to less confidence in science. It is a shame, since our country is so scientifically illiterate and is easily swayed by perceptions that have little to do with scientific method and culture. They have very little influence on my opinion.
The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.
t is not unlikely that this event may have some real repercussions for the public perception of climate science, however unfair it may seem (unfair both in terms of the actual intended meaning of the emails, as in terms of the way they were obtained). ”Skeptics” will certainly try to get as much mileage out of this as possible, in order to undermine the science and the political process (e.g. Copenhagen). However, there are also plenty of sane voices commenting on the issue.
One of the issues with how the UEA emails are perceived is whether the reader understands the context of the dubious pseudoscience and constant harassment the field faces. If you understand that, the emails are understandable and mostly excusable. If you don’t, if you think that normal science is being stymied, then you come away with a very different impression.
This episode is not a window into how climate science works. It’s a window into how electronic communication has altered our standards and the way we work. Nobody looks good here. We should all be embarrassed.
Most of the contents that have had people getting so excited about on the blogs seem pretty innocuous to me – the usual to-and-fro of scientists discussing, arguing, sometimes exhibiting frustration. We are, after all, human. A handful of messages hint at something a bit worse, and I’m not going to excuse anyone who has behaved in an unethical manner, but it is hard to condemn anyone based on a few cherry-picked emails, many of which in any case have straightforward explanations. If there was a lot of serious malpractice, I’d expect to see more substantial evidence from the past decade of email at one of the world’s leading climate research centres. On the whole it is thin gruel indeed. It is clear that most of what people are getting excited by is just the typical banter of scientists engaged in debate and discussion, and many of the commenters just don’t have a clue about the scientific process. The person who quoted our email correspondence about the edits to the manuscript claimed that this proved how political all us scientists are! In fact we were simply improving the paper in accordance with various comments from reviewers (which we basically agreed with), which is how the peer review process normally works.
In summary, there are probably some minor lapses in there, but everyone who has read any of the emails is already guilty of something worse and there’s no firm evidence of major crimes.
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
The following letter was sent today by Senators Barasso and Vitter, and Representatives Issa and Sensenbrenner to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
Dear Administrator Jackson:
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.
As you are aware, the scandal involves a number of climate change scientists and institutions that have played prominent roles in the development of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, most recently, the Fourth Assessment. EPA heavily relied on the IPCC’s findings and conclusions in its development and justification for the controversial proposed Endangerment Finding.[1] Given the multiple regulatory efforts that hinge on the Endangerment Finding and consequently the integrity of the IPCC reports, it is imperative that EPA act swiftly and with transparency to analyze the numerous questions that have been raised by the disclosure of the emails.
A large volume of email messages and documents, sent by prominent American and British climate researchers, were recently released from the CRU. The content of the emails raises serious questions that demand your attention. The scientists involved are climate science experts whose work is integrated into the fabric of the IPCC and its reports. The CRU wields significant influence in climate change circles and works closely with the U.N.’s IPCC.[2] According to the British Telegraph, “Their importance cannot be overestimated.”[3] Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director and the author of some of the most controversial emails, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports.[4] His global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely.[5] Therefore, the questions raised by these emails regarding the ethics and integrity of these scientists go to the very core of the discipline and work relied upon by the EPA.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in the emails, “Scientists appear to urge each other to present a ‘unified’ view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the ‘common cause,’ to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as to not compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to ‘hide the decline’ of temperature in certain inconvenient data.”[6] According to the New York Times, the emails provoke three fundamental questions – whether “the correspondence reveals efforts by scientists to shield raw data, preventing it from being examined by independent researchers”; whether the documents “prove that the data underlying climate scientists’ conclusions about warming are murkier than the scientists have said”; and whether “the email messages indicate that climate scientists tried to prevent publication of papers written by climate skeptics.”[7]
The answers to each of these questions are of great importance. The suggestion that these scientists prevented the dissemination, peer review, and publication of dissenting views is particularly alarming. Since the IPCC only considers peer reviewed publications, any effort to control the peer review process is the equivalent of controlling the content of IPCC reports.
During your tenure, EPA has rapidly advanced several regulatory schemes to reduce domestic emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs). The key regulatory decision is the Proposed Endangerment Finding, which finds that Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases endanger human health and welfare.[8] In drafting the Technical Support Document, the scientific basis for the regulatory decision, EPA relied heavily on the findings and conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (“Fourth Assessment”).[9] Given the multiple regulatory efforts that hinge on the Endangerment Finding, it is imperative that EPA act swiftly and with transparency to answer these questions.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court made clear that the EPA has discretion in the timing of its issuance of any regulations.[10] The D.C. Circuit has also stated that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision “imposes a specific deadline by which EPA must determine whether a particular air pollutant poses a threat to public health or welfare.”[11] Therefore, 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 the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.
In addition to its own investigation, we respectfully request that your agency turn over all documents and records related to the communications or other interactions with Hadley CRU dating from March 2007 through December 1, 2009 to our respective Committees. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Kristina Moore, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at 202-225-5074, Brian Clifford, Subcommittee on Oversight, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at 202-224-6176, Bryan Zumwalt, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at 202-224-4623; or Raj Bharwani with the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming at 202-225-0110.
Embracing the fevered speculations of right-wing bloggers, a top Republican Senate staffer has accused climate scientists of orchestrating a planetwide conspiracy to convince the public that global warming is real. In an error-ridden email acquired by the Wonk Room, Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), claims hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) are evidence for what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history.” Zumwalt’s attacks are part of a global right-wing effort — from Rush Limbaugh to right-wing members of the British House of Lords — to Swiftboat climate scientists on the eve of international climate treaty negotiations. He argues that the “theory of global warming” is now tainted with “data corruption and fraud.”
This has got to be one of the sloppiest emails in goofy GOP Senate staffer history.
“Any Senate energy and climate bill should provide statutory guidance to harness this important resource and stimulate and support even more activity in this sector of our nation’s diverse energy portfolio,” states the letter from Sens. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), David Vitter (R-La.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).
Natural gas provides a fifth of U.S. electric power and also powers some vehicles, such as municipal buses. Its lower carbon emissions — along with new U.S. supplies available through increased shale gas development — are prompting calls to expand the fuel’s role in climate policy.
Here is the letter the nine Senators sent to Chairwoman Boxer:
