Congressman Markey dismisses the climategate facts with a joke – Siberian tree ring cirus

Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass) is chairman of the House Select Energy and Global Warming Committee and co-author of the energy bill (cap and trade) that passed in the House earlier in the year.  Representative Markey on Fox News Sunday stated:

“The deniers want to create a Siberian tree ring circus,” Markey said. “They want to take a small percentage of this entire study, a couple pages of it — 1,000 pages — and throw out the conclusion. … The real scandal will be is if we don’t solve this problem for coming generations.”

It would seem that rather than cracking jokes and calling those asking for answers, “deniers”, Congressman Markey is himself in denial.  As one of our elected representatives and chairman of the global warming committee, he should be the very person calling for an investigation into the possibility of wrong doing at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University.

The leaked emails and files have raised a lot of questions, but only for those truely seeking the truth.

A review of code files and emails, show what appears to be temperature data being changed to show an increase in temperatures that the data does not show.  The programmer that did the work used the term “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL
correction for decline!!” when describing a ‘fudge factor’ he applied to show an increase in temperature readings, because the raw data did NOT show an increase.

If manipulation of data (that the EPA used to justify its rulings to regulate CO2 output) wasn’t enough, the emails also show that Michael Mann (Penn State), Phil Jones, the head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, and others worked to keep any researched that didn’t support their position out of peer reviewed journals.

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it
until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but
papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Cheers

Phil [Jones]

And Michael Mann’s reply:

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they
wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole…

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m
not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.

This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
“peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…

What do others think?

mike [Mann]

Congressman Markey and other Democratic Congressmen and Senators keep saying the emails don’t change the fact that it is a scientific fact that the earth is warming and man is the prime cause.  They stick with Gore’s the “debate is over on global warming” line, and refuse to even acknowledge opposing viewpoints and research.

If the Democrats in Congress are really interested in the truth, rather than just furthering their political positions, they should be leading the cries for an independent review of the data that Congress, the IPCC and EPA have relied on.  If the data is innacurate due to intentional manipulation, or incomplete due to suppressing opposing views, then how can Congressmen like Markay KNOW that their conclusions and subsequent legislation are in the best interest of the citizens of this country.

Congressman Markey’s job is not to defend questionable ethics by the VERY scientists that Congress has relied on when writing and passing global warming legislation.