Senator Inhofe seeks to recall Gore to testify over Climategate

Washington, DC—Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has put forth he would like to recall former Vice President Al Gore to testify before the Environmental and Public Works Committee in light of recent discoveries that climate scientists have been manipulating and suppressing data.

In an interview with the BBC, climate scientist and former head of the East Anglia’s University Climate Research Unit in the UK, Phil Jones, stated that he cannot produce original data to verify his conclusions and that skeptics may be correct that the period known as the Medieval Warm Period might have seen temperatures higher than today and went on to say that there has been no statistical warming in the last fifteen years...(continue to Helium News)

The IPCC has now admitted they used unscientific data in their report, relying on information comprised by activist groups. In one report, the IPCC asserts the Himalayas would melt by 2035. The predication came not from scientific data, but from literature distributed by the World Wildlife Fund.

Senator Inhofe released the following statement in regard to his call for a criminal investigation, “Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed ‘consensus’ and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.”

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Climategate, the beginning of the end of environmental alarmists?

Though weeks old, news consumers aren’t being given details on the biggest scandal in the history of modern mankind; the headlines about Climategate aren’t there and the way it looks to-date, aren’t forthcoming either.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit is still in full swing, with dire predictions dictating the direction and way-of-life the free world enjoys. The policies and goals being sought are to the alarmists and precautionists necessary, no matter the fiscal or technological price. They subscribe to scientific data (now indisputably questionable at best) and put full faith and credit behind conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence.

We who have long questioned the science and methods behind the environmental movement are now vindicated on the release (whether by hacker or whistleblower) of thousands of documents from Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit database have been published. Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s Director has stepped-down while and investigation is conducted. Meanwhile, in the United States, Dr. Michael Mann finds himself the subject of an inquiry at the University of Connecticut. This is no small turn-of-events considering who these men are.

As the push for green living, green hobbying, green working, green this-and-that has grown in the marketplace, 72% of Americans believe that global warming exists (down 8% from last year), but not all of that percentage believes climate change is anthropogenic. Still, why is it that we are subjected to so much pressure to be environmentally conscience? The answer lies behind former Vice President Al Gore, who has been delivering the clarion call for the green movement. But Mr. Gore is not a scientist, so where does he get his information? Mr. Gore relies on a consensus of scientists, as does the United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But they like Mr. Gore are too politicians, so where is it they get this scientific consensus? From none other than Messrs Jones and Mann, the same two scientists are at the heart of the scandal known as Climategate.

Philip Jones is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports and Michael Mann is the creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph which shows an impending steep rise in global temperatures (which in 2003 was empirically demonstrated by Canadian statistician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick to be fundamentally flawed).

Skeptics have been right to question the “science” behind global warming alarmists, in no small part due common sense and the large gaps that have gone unexplained in climate change models and now we have the proof to demonstrate it.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact