In my view the Emails and computer files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain may prove to be of some importance to the USEPA’s current attempts to control greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. This is because EPA, perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama Administration, has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and reports primarily based on these reports. This is highly unusual in EPA’s almost 39 year history. I cannot think of any instance where EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action.
As a result of this EPA decision, EPA’s fortunes in regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports. Although it is hard to argue that any one CRU Email or computer file notation proves the IPCC conclusions wrong, taken as a whole they do strongly suggest two conclusions: First, the CRU and many of its associates (and Email recipients) elsewhere (henceforth CRU et al.), are very tightly tied to the IPCC both in influence and belief and do not appear to be paragons of scientific objectivity and ethics. Second, their data handling leaves something to be desired in terms of data retention, database documentation, and questionable data manipulation.
CRU et al’s Lack of Scientific Objectivity
It seems clear to me that if a group (such as EPA) wanted to get an objective scientific judgment on climate change science, CRU et al., and therefore the IPCC, might be the last place that they would want to rely on. Each “trick” CRU et al used to torture the data they had to yield what appears to be their desired conclusions may have fooled a few more readers into thinking that their basic arguments were valid, but has to decrease the overall assessment of their objectivity. Attempts to manipulate peer reviews and journal acceptances are not acceptable scientific activities. Withholding key scientific data can only make one question their dedication to scientific principles. Hiding their alleged destruction of the basic temperature data that would allow reconstruction of what they have done is almost as bad as discarding such critical data in the first place. Using data that cannot be reproduced is not very useful scientifically or from a regulatory viewpoint.
Yet despite these now evident problems with the CRU et al’s data and research, EPA is now stuck with the IPCC reports, and therefore the closely associated CRU et al’s data and research has become central to its attempts to regulate GHGs. Given that it currently appears unlikely that the Senate will agree to anything resembling the current cap and trade bill, this EPA decision may well greatly decrease the chances that the US will in the end implement serious regulation of GHGs since EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act must survive judicial review of any regulatons that EPA may promulgate.
Need for New Approach
If EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem using the highest standards of scientific intergrity which does not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al. Although I did not know of the recent revelations concerning CRU et al last March, my Comments strongly called for such a reappraisal. This problem will not go away and may even get worse if we should learn more about the CRU et al’s work. There exists a possibility that EPA’s current approach might succeed by some judicial fluke, but the chances seem to be decreasing with each new revelation concerning the CRU et al.
Presumably one of the reasons that EPA decided to rely on the IPCC and indirectly on the CRU is that the Obama Administration may have felt some urgency to move rapidly on global warming control. Given the downtrend in global temperatures over the past 11 years and the likelihood that this will continue for some time (see Section 2.4 of my Comments) because of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), there would appear to be ample time to start over and do it carefully and thoroughly this time with full input by everyone that may be interested.
Basic Problem Remains
Despite the uproar concerning CRU et al’s data and research, the basic problem remains that the UN hypothesis that increases in GHGs/CO2 will result in significant increases in global temperatures has not been confirmed by comparisons with real world data. Unless it is, attempts to decrease GHG/CO2 emissions in order to significantly change global temperatures are very likely to fail. This is the primary question that EPA and climate scientists need to address before any control efforts are undertaken. Happily we appear to have the time to do so, and to do so objectively using reproducible data.
Gorgeous Information! My partner and i had been merely contemplating that there’s such an abundance of false instruction at this topic and yourself actually switched our opinion. Reading through an enjoyable article.
Commenting on posts is not my thing, but I just cannot resist here. Your post is awesome and helpful! Thanks!
The International Panel on Climate Change has (deservedly) lost its reputation. I suggest they refocus their attentions: I understand the name “American Trial Lawyers Association” is not currently in use.
In Canada, successive Liberal government stacked the Supreme court and used it to advance policies that were not politically doable. They were then able to claim that the imposition wasn’t their fault but a requirement of the law of the land. With this subterfuge the leftist agenda (definition: Leftism is a power grab by the incompetent)
was advanced with little political risk in a land famously steady if not stodgy and level headed. It worked like a charm!
Your description of goings on in USEPA and the Obama administration sound only too familiar. The external authority of IPCC and global governance is a political dream but a national nightmare.
There are several very good arguments debated here.
Normally, I am not awfully fond of politics. but, at times all of us have to pause for thought. Food for thought, thanks.
Your blog is always interesting with good fresh information. Thank you!
HmI hadn’t never thought the simple ways the big G works. The truth of the matter is that while it looks at your page countless times, it takes a metric tonne of effort on your part to get a site to become relevent to the spiders. I guess this just adds to my knowledge of Google!
I really enjoy the quality information you offer to your visitors
Echoing the kudos; great site.
The overwhelming atmosphere that I sense in the Climategate emails — particularly from Mann and Jones — is one of constant fear of exposure. The tenor is not that of participants on a debating team, as one might expect from scientists strongly committed to one theory or another, but that of hustlers aware that they are running a con game and willing to go to any lengths to keep up the con.
Kudos for hosting such a informative weblog. this site is not just useful but also very inventive too. There normally are a limited number of experts who can create not so easy articles that creatively. I keep searching for information regarding this subject. I Myself have looked through several blogs to acquire knowhow about this.Keep writing in !!
[…] Carlin Economics and Science » Climategate and EPA […]
This entire mess may just be surreal political theatre, with an inbuilt logic.
They allow the UN to make their decisions about science. Move accountability and responsibility outside the US. The UN has no gumption and self restraint, so it will come up with nonsense, as it has.
But then if you rely on the UN to do your thinking, in the long run this will not work out, in US courts and is doomed to failure.
Maybe it is cleverly designed to fail!
The real underlying intent could be to stimulate your voting base with fantasy fears. This becomes cover for obtaining political power and then giving lots of money to your friends under the guise of research on new energy technologies. There can be lots of lawsuits and hot-air about fighting against oil companies and coal baddies. And not much will happen to CO2 emissions, because everything is spin.
Its not good, in terms of helping society advance, but if you do not know how to help with good ideas, maybe the global warming cover story can cover up for the absence of better ideas.
[…] what everyone is using, so……… How does the EPA tie in with climategate? Not in a good way. Carlin Economics and Science Climategate and EPA One professor says “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not […]