Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation ... The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations: The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.” They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity. The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation: It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000). It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice. If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties. By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves. Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.” The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.
At our current level of technology, I don't think there's much we could do to change its course. We could attempt to do all the things currently discussed to cut emissions in order to not speed that course along. We'd like it, ideally, to happen as far in the future as possible, because the later it happens, the better our technology will be to help us adapt to and survive the change in climate.
there are some quick fixes actually. I can't list them off hand, but I watched a show about some crazy ideas that may or may not work.
Been a long time since we talked about climate change, but I came across this today in a liberal rag. barfo
Its too hot in Portland. I don't care if Global Warming is man made or not just strap a giant fan to my back and I wont care.
That investigation carries about as much weight as Democrats investigating Charlie Rangel for ethics violations.
And I suppose you dismiss the results of the other two investigations, as well. Who would you have investigate this matter? barfo
He misrepresented data, held back information and still got his job back. This isn't politics, this is science. The quest for truth has to be paramount and you must have confidence that the people in charge share that view. He's tainted and shouldn't have been reinstated.
And you don't have confidence in the various commissions that have reviewed this case (and come to a different conclusion than you) why, exactly? Because they disagree with you? barfo
I don't have confidence in them because by every account I read, they were sympathic with Dr. Jones' viewpoint. And I don't have confidence in Dr. Jones. If he twisted the facts before, why should I expect him to play it straight again? IMO, any infraction should have resulted in him losing his job permanently.
Don'tcha think it is possible they looked into the matter a little more closely than you, and have a better perspective on the subject to boot? barfo
BREAKING NEWS! Skeptics will believe an expert when they agree with their preconceptions, reject expert opinion that disagrees with them. More at 11.
Maybe because they didn't distort the facts? http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
