Democrats: "ClimateGate" Leak A Non-Scandal

By: Declan McCullagh
Topics: Environment

(CBS/EARLY SHOW)

If you're a U.S. politician calling for expensive new laws relating to global warming, you know you're in trouble when Jon Stewart lampoons the scientists whose embarrassing e-mail messages were disclosed in what's being called "ClimateGate."

But Democrats put a brave face on it on Wednesday, with Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey saying that the leaked files and allegations of scientific misconduct should not stand in the way of the U.S. Congress swiftly enacting cap and trade legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. (See earlier CBSNews.com coverage of ClimateGate and the costs of cap and trade.)

Markey, the head of a House global warming committee, said during a hearing that his Republican colleagues "sit over here using a couple of e-mails to (tell us) how to deal with a catastrophic threat to our planet." And: "There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing, other than that we know has been funded by the oil, by the coal industries that want to continue business as usual."

That's a bit of an overstatement. The leak includes over 1,000 e-mail messages, and another 2,500 or so computer files, many of which are still being analyzed. And the burden of proof should properly be on anyone -- even a House committee chairman -- proposing new taxes and extensive regulations, especially when climate science is anything but settled.

It is true that, if other independent data sets confirm what the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit claimed, ClimateGate's effect on the view of climate trends may be minimal. Then again, as Reason's Ron Bailey notes, University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. says the CRU data is not independent of NASA and other temperature data sets. Pielke had previously written that the CRU and its political allies have been trying to "manipulate the science, so that their viewpoints are the only ones that reach the policymakers."

Markets benefit from competition, not monopolization, and so do markets in ideas. That's the argument that Republicans advanced during Wednesday's hearing, with Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner saying that "the controversy over the leaked e-mails, and their contents, cannot be ignored because it goes to the very basis of the debate" over global warming and what laws are necessary as a result.

"We're being asked as a Congress to make major changes in American society, in energy use and how much the out-of-pocket cost is to everyone in this country, as a result of this debate," the Wisconsin Republican said. "We'd better get it right. The scientists may be able to change their story (but it's) as difficult to repeal the consequences of that law as it is to get milk back in the cow."

Fellow GOP Rep. Candace Miller of Michigan, who has called for hearings into ClimateGate: "I recognize that the e-mails are an inconvenient truth, perhaps, an embarrassment on the brink of Copenhagen... There is at least a debate on whether or not climate change is human-induced."

Meanwhile, Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who's a high-profile critic of the theory of global warming caused by mankind, has instructed the University of Arizona's Malcolm Hughes -- whose correspondence appears in the disclosed files -- not to delete any of those e-mail messages. Investigations into climate change researchers are already underway at Penn State and East Anglia, home of the CRU.

John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, didn't mention the leaked files in his prepared testimony, which said the U.S. must "act promptly to reduce global emissions to the atmosphere of carbon dioxide" or face "extreme" and "damaging" consequences.

But when Holdren showed up at the Rayburn House Office Building, he end up being pressed on ClimateGate and little else. He denied its significance, calling the embarrassing disclosures "not remotely sufficient to demonstrate a culture of corruption" and said "as to exactly what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen." He objected to the idea of an independent probe -- the CRU received U.S. government grants -- on grounds that he's not sure an "independent investigation by the Congress of the United States is a way to get at the truth."

Moderate Republicans who helped Ed Markey and Nancy Pelosi push through the cap and trade bill by a narrow vote are backing away from anything to do with the measure. Politico reports that Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois (who supported the idea) and Sen. John McCain of Arizona (ditto) have now become critics.

Does anyone really think that, in the wake of the CRU disclosures, cap and trade would clear the House of Representatives if put to a vote today? It certainly didn't this week in Australia's Parliament, where a vote to reject the idea garnered a 41-33 majority. What a difference only a few months, and a few thousand computer files, makes.

Update 9:21 p.m. ET: Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, says ClimateGate hackers should face criminal penalties. (Then again, if we're talking about an anonymous whistleblower, there's no hacking involved.) Ian Plimer, a professor who teaches earth science at Australia's University of Adelaide, has reiterated his criticism of the climate change lobby in no uncertain terms, calling it a "load of hot air underpinned by fraud."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Scientists Hide Global Warming Data

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com and can be followed on Twitter as declanm. You can bookmark Declan's Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »

145 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 145 Comments


by cjauregui10 August 6, 2010 2:20 AM EDT: Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

Answer: Infinitesimal

The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What?s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?; Reply to this comment


by johnson_2711 December 13, 2009 2:53 AM EST: I have long wondered about the "science " of a causal link between mankind and climate change - I dont believe the is one or at least it cant be proven despite all the propaganda of the list of so-called eminent nameless scientists who say there is. The East Anglia leak and the almost complete media blackout -I Australia little press coverage - is understandable because if the content of the emails and documents is believed then the whole premise for Copenhagen is defunct. I think the East Anglia leak was in the words of that great climate savior Al Gore and "inconvenient truth" - This whole thing is the biggest hoax ever.; Reply to this comment


by johnson_2711 December 12, 2009 6:43 PM EST: I have long wondered about the "science " of a causal link between mankind and climate change - I dont believe the is one or at least it cant be proven despite all the propaganda of the list of so-called eminent nameless scientists who say there is. The East Anglia leak and the almost complete media blackout -I Australia little press coverage - is understandable because if the content of the emails and documents is believed then the whole premise for Copenhagen is defunct. I think the East Anglia leak was in the words of that great climate savior Al Gore and "inconvenient truth" - This whole thing is the biggest hoax ever.; Reply to this comment


by Mokkie57 December 10, 2009 9:55 PM EST: The world wants the US to lead the way. Then lets lead the way. Lets start putting research dollars into industrial hemp. Lets start talking about bio mass energy. Lets talk about using hemp for paper instead of trees. Lets talk using hemp for clothing, food, building materials, fuel yes diesel and ethanol. If we dont look at this issue How will we know if the world is being scammed or not?; Reply to this comment


by MPHgrad December 9, 2009 9:12 AM EST: It is funny that the wool is once again being pulled over the eyes of the ignorant. This is not a scandal, rather sensationalism. During the Bush administration, scientists quit in protest as their environmental reports were modified and censored in order to minimize the appearance of a problem. So once again, this is being made an issue by those who seek to damage the reputation of scientists & environmental activists.; Reply to this comment


by conscious1s December 8, 2009 7:39 PM EST: Paranoid conspiracy theories?? Anyone who has ever done studies knows that those paying for the studies expect certain results. If those results are not forthcoming you don't get anymore funding. The history of propaganda is well documented. Are you enjoying paying for wall streets gambling debts in this predatory consolidation of financial power that's being billed as a financial crisis? If so I'm sure you will be fine with sending billions to 3rd world dictators so the "powers" can continue to exploit the resources of those countries without benefit to the people who live there.; Reply to this comment


by wrighter1 December 8, 2009 2:18 PM EST: I think the "powerful may be the One World Government elite that profit by consolidating power and taxing mankind for the air we breath. It's beginning to look that way. The warmists, media, and politicians (scribes and pharisees in the old parlance) being their puppets.

The old hoohaa about the oil companies being the bad guys concerning manmade global warming may stand open to review also.

I wonder who will be most in favor of a complete open National discussion / debate / informational. Those who only want the truth seemingly would be for it. Those who have something to hide - against it - would be my guess.; Reply to this comment

by wrighter1 December 7, 2009 1:37 PM EST

I think the "powerful[ may be the One World Government elites that profit by consolidating power and taxing mankind for the air we breath. It's beginning to look that way. The lying wamists and poloticians being their puppets.

But the old hoohaa about the oil companies being the big bad guys may stand open to review also.

I wonder who will be most in favor of a complete open discussion / debate / informational. Those who have something to hide would be my guess.

Reply to this comment


by wrighter1 December 8, 2009 2:17 PM EST: I think the "powerful may be the One World Government elite that profit by consolidating power and taxing mankind for the air we breath. It's beginning to look that way. The warmists, media, and politicians (scribes and pharisees in the old parlance) being their puppets.

The old hoohaa about the oil companies being the bad guys concerning manmade global warming may stand open to review also.

I wonder who will be most in favor of a complete open National discussion / debate / informational. Those who only want the truth seemingly would be for it. Those who have something to hide - against it - would be my guess.

by LibertyCapJane December 7, 2009 1:12 PM EST

Time Magazine
Science: Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
...
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years".

Global warming is a convenient truth - for Al Gore's wallet and for the wallets of carbon traders everywhere.

Reply to this comment


by grant58 December 7, 2009 7:30 PM EST: I knew Reid Bryson. Even he would not have claimed that our understanding of climate today is the same as it was in 1974. That was in the early infancy of climate science, and global warming wasn't really on anyone's radar yet.

by RalphGMas December 7, 2009 8:55 AM EST

After reading all sides it is clear that there we should immediately HOLD any investments based on climate science. It is impossible to create any computer program to model global weather given the nearly infinite number of variable such as turbulence, cloud cover, sun rotation, to name a very few. Add to this the fact that we have no real global temperature data over the course of the historical base - its a mess and any rational scientist who looks at this can probably agree.

It is understandable that the IPCC climate scientists needed to get to the conclusion they were expected to get (lots of pressure) - and sad that they swished the statistical formulas to get there. Perhaps they need a code of ethics and a certification system - like Doctors have.

Reply to this comment