Feb 23 2010
Final Update: (previous updates at the end) I am listening in on the hearings and I can tell you the Democrats are a pretty ignorant lot, which explains why they are so gullible on AGW. Senator Udall blathered on about ‘super computers’, as if processing power guarantees accurate results. Ugh!
Good news: The EPA has decided to delay any ‘restrictions’ until next year, which will bring in a new Congress and bring the EPA back on track. I might live blog the hearings if I hear something interesting. If I do I will start a new post. – end update
There is going to be some interesting developments today in the Senate regarding the debunked theory of man-made global warming. Senator Inhofe is going to be releasing a minority report very soon, prior to a 10 AM session with the EPA on their silly endangerment finding (they claim EPA must control Green House Gases as a pollutant, thought the top GHG is water vapor – a.k.a clouds!).
Inhofe has the outline of the report up which looks quite interesting. It reviews the CRU emails and data files leaked and reviews how the ‘settled’ science was all a mirage made by manipulating data, the peer review process and what the IPCC would allow reported.
It then takes an interesting twist about the regulations surrounding federal contracting and grants:
The released CRU emails and documents display potentially unethical, and illegal, behavior. The scientists appear to discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Moreover, there are emails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees.
These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct. Discussed below are brief descriptions of the statutes and regulations that the Minority Staff believe are implicated in this scandal. In our investigation, we are examining the emails and documents and determining whether any violations of these federal laws and policies occurred.
The public trust in spending our tax dollars has been codified over the years in a maze of rules, regulations and laws. They were designed to stop fraud and abuse, but they do apply to all activities.
I look forward to what they have found. One thing the AGW scientists are about to learn is that once you make the big leagues, you have to survive the proper scrutiny and quality tests. And if you fail, you will be crucified in public. All these jet setting arrogant know-it-alls (how they wish!) are now going to face a real test.
And if I were working for NASA GISS or NCDC, I would be watching how this unfolds very carefully. If it goes as I suspect, we will see some more ‘confessions’ by people not caught up on the zealotry of AGW religion.
Update: Reader Tarpon notes there is a 2001Â Data Quality Act which is probably going to be one of those legal levers used to expose the shoddy math behind AGW:
Congress enacted the DQA primarily in response to increased use of the internet, which gives agencies the ability to communicate information easily and quickly to a large audience. Under the DQA, federal agencies must ensure that the information it disseminates meets certain quality standards. Congress’ intent was to prevent the harm that can occur when government websites, which are easily and often accessed by the public, disseminate inaccurate information.Â See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication, 67 F.R. 8452, 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).
The agency must present the information in the proper context and identify the source (to the extent possible consistent with confidentiality protections) along with the supporting data or models so that the public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to question the objectivity of the sources.Â Id. Second, the substance of information disseminated must be accurate, reliable and unbiased.Â Id. Agencies must identify the sources of the disseminated information, the methods used to produce it, and provide full, accurate, and transparent documentation. 67 F.R. at 8460. Sound statistical research methods must be used to generate original and supporting data and develop analytical results.Â Id. at 8459. Data subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, is presumed to be of acceptable objectivity, although such a presumption is rebuttable.Â Id.
Yep, that should do it.
Update: More here at PJM