A report titled, "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy," was released last week by the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW). The report covers the controversy surrounding e-mails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

The report examines the extent to which those e-mails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impact the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

According to a statement on the EPW minority website, the report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the EPW minority staff believes the e-mails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

The committee staff also found that the scientists obstructed release of damaging data and information, manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions, colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus" and assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

"This EPW minority report shows the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills or a little e-mail squabble," says Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "It's about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world's leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus – except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It's time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases (GHG) rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon GHG regulation under the Clean Air Act – a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."

To access the full report and supporting information: go to epw.senate.gov/public/.

You can also read the transcript and view Inhofe's questioning of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson regarding the CRU controversy and the agency's GHG Endangerment Finding at epw.senate.gov/IPCC. (Part 1) and at epw.senate.gov/CO2 (Part 2).
-- Texas Cattle Feeders Association Newsletter