Read/Watch/Listen: Inhofe Continues Fight for US Transportation Needs

Senator Inhofe was relieved the Senate was able to work out a deal this week on a 30-day extension of the Federal Highway Program.  However, as he explained in a statement shortly after the vote, "this is only a short-term victory. This simply means that we will go back to the Highway Program being funded $1 billion a month lower than 2009 levels and living with the uncertainty of short-term extensions.  In fact, the states won't receive the new funding provided by this extension for close to a month-just when this extension is expiring." The Senate is set to take up the long-term extension next week. Senator Inhofe was also pleased to welcome Gary Ridley, Oklahoma's Transportation Secretary, to Washington this week to help resolve the crisis.  As Senator Inhofe noted before the EPW Committee hearing on transportation Wednesday, "Gary is an asset to both Oklahoma and the nation."   

Oklahoma DOT Secretary Gary Ridley speaks with Sen. Inhofe Before EPW Committee Hearing on Transportation

Inhofe and Ridley Making Radio Calls This Week Back to Oklahoma Discussing Congressional Action on Highways

Tulsa World: Senate breaks impasse

Watch: Inhofe Welcomes Okla Sec Transportation Gary Ridley To EPW Hearing

Listen: Inhofe Discusses Federal Highways Extension on the Reid Mullins Radio Show - KTOK

Watch: Inhofe Senate Floor Speech: Inhofe Urges Congress To Put Partisan Politics Aside To Get Highway Extension Passed ASAP

Watch / Read: Sen. Barrasso Releases Senate Report Detailing Lack of Committee Oversight

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Oversight, yesterday released a report detailing the Majority's lack of oversight on a number of key Administration activities that undermine transparency and sound science.  Barrasso discussed the report on the Floor of the U.S. Senate.

WATCH:  Floor Speech of Sen. Barrasso Releasing Oversight Report

US SENATE REPORT: The Status of Oversight: A Year of Lost Oversight 

"Mr. President, I rise today because the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will soon be meeting to discuss the nomination of Mr. Arthur Elkins to be Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency.

"I support Mr. Elkin's moving out of the committee.  To date he has truthfully answered the questions that I have posed to him.

"Before the full Senate vote, I do have some additional questions based on a report that I am releasing today.

"Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I care a great deal about ensuring oversight over the agencies within our jurisdiction, the most important of which is the EPA.

"Over the last few months, the Minority on the Subcommittee have compiled a report.

"The report is entitled ‘The Status of Oversight:  A Year of Lost Oversight.'

"This report details the severe lack of oversight by the Majority on the committee and the Administration.

"When the Majority created the Subcommittee on Oversight, it was stated that they planned and I quote ‘to use the subcommittee to explore ways to restore scientific integrity at the EPA and other federal agencies focused on the environment, and to strengthen environmental protections by once again making the regulatory process more transparent.' 

"Well, Mr. President, I agree.

"One year later, as my report details, there have only been two subcommittee hearings.

"As this report concludes, the result of this is that the Majority has let a year go by where they failed to pursue their stated goals. 

"Over the last year Mr. President, my colleagues and I have requested a series of investigations and hearings into key matters related to whistleblowers being silenced, data being manipulated, and shadow czars holding meetings where nothing was put into writing to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.

"We have asked for these hearings and investigations because we believe that the public needs to have trust in their government. 

"At the beginning of this Administration, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson herself stated unequivocally that ‘the success of our environmental efforts depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve.'

"As this report demonstrates, this Administration and the Majority have shown little interest in pursuing these matters.

"Let me read to you the findings and recommendations of the report.

 - In 2009, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Majority chose not to conduct oversight over the relevant agencies within the executive branch. 

 - The lack of any oversight over the activities of the federal agencies weakens the system of checks and balances, and invites the potential for larger abuses.

 - Action must be taken to investigate oversight issues from the last year.

 - Further coordination within the Committee regarding the oversight jurisdiction and responsibility is needed. 

"Mr. President, I believe that finally having a nominee, finally receiving a nominee for Inspector General at EPA gives the public another opportunity to get to the truth about the issues raised in this report. 

"In his answers to my questions to date, Mr. Elkins has signaled that he is absolutely willing to chart a new course from where this Administration and the Majority have taken us.

"When I asked: Do you believe it is the responsibility of the EPA Inspector General to investigate instances where whistleblowers are silenced by their superiors at the agency, he said yes.

"When I asked: Will you pursue those instances, he said yes.

"When I asked: Do you believe it is the responsibility of the EPA Inspector General to investigate and report instances where scientific procedures at EPA are circumvented, he said yes.

"When I asked: Will you investigate instances where agency employees are smeared publicly in the press by higher ups in the agency or in the Administration, simply for providing their best advice and counsel, he said yes.

"All of these things are not hypotheticals, Mr. President.

"They all occurred over the last year.

"My fellow colleagues and I in the minority have asked for investigations into each of these instances by the majority and this Administration. 

"The response we have received each time was a resounding no.

"So Mr. President, if the Administration and the majority refuse to provide proper oversight, then someone else has to.

"That is why I plan to share this oversight report with Mr. Elkins, the nominee to be Inspector General at the EPA.

"Before a floor vote, I will seek confirmation that he will give the matters that I raised in this report due consideration.

"I am confident, based on his responses so far, that he will answer in the affirmative.

"If so, we will have to see change at EPA that will restore the public's confidence in that agency."

Human Events Exclusive: Inhofe Blasts Gore Over Climategate

Human Events

Inhofe Blasts Gore Over Climategate

by Connie Hair

03/02/2010 ET

Link to Article

Former vice president Al Gore made his first public remarks since the Climategate scandal broke in a very lengthy New York Times op-ed published on Saturday. Gore, a green technology hawker and, as a result, the first reported green technology billionaire, appeared completely out of touch with the reality of the magnitude of the worldwide climate hoax scandals.

I caught up with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), top Republican on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee yesterday for an exclusive chat about Gore's new diatribe and the EPA endangerment finding.

SEN. JIM INHOFE: In a way, it's kind of humorous. And yet, you have to feel a little bit sorry for Al Gore. He's not been available ever since the first Climategate took place. And that was before Copenhagen. And he's still in denial. ... He has played it down. It's something that is just a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. And it just seems like, this article that he wrote, if you dissect it, everything in there is stuff that has been refuted. And he can't deny it. Although he's in denial, so he is denying it."

I asked Inhofe a series of questions keyed to Gore's claims in the NYT piece.

GORE CLAIM: "We would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world."

SEN. INHOFE: "We're dependent on foreign oil for one reason. We have all of the recoverable resources here in America. We're number one in the world. We're ahead of China, and of Russia. The problem is, the political problem, that the liberals and the Al Gores don't allow us to develop our own resources. And so if we did, we would be-we could be totally independent in a very short period of time if we could just develop our own resources, such as our shale, the oil, our gas-we have enough gas to run this country for ninety years. But we can't get to it."

GORE CLAIM: "We would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy -- the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century."

SEN. INHOFE: China [has] an all-of-the-above approach. We want oil, and gas, and nuclear, and coal, and renewables, wind and all that stuff. So if you take these ones that are currently working, that is, the fossil fuels, out of the mixture, we can't run this machine called ‘America.' And so, as far as China's concerned, they're rejoicing thinking that we'll pass something like the Kerry bill that he's talking about now, which is going to be a CO2 tax, carbon tax. Or cap-and-trade, because they know that they are cranking out, in China, today, two coal-fired generating plants every week. Every week. Now they're doing that so that they can provide the energy necessary so that we start rationing even more than we're already doing it in this country, our jobs will go over to them.

GORE CLAIM: Gore ignores most of the myriad Climategate scandals, writing off emails to over-demands for FOIA information and says the UN's IPCC made innocent mistakes. "What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged."

SEN. INHOFE: All these non peer-reviewed studies that the IPCC's had... the Himalayan Glaciers, said they'd melt by 2035. They've admitted they're wrong. This is Climategate. Global warming would endanger 40 percent of the Amazon Rainforest. They've backed down from that. They've talked about melting the mountain ice caps in Africa and the Andes, the Alps. They've backed down from that. And slashing crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020 -- these things are just fabricated, and they've all been disproven. Everything science that's been in his science-fiction movie has been disproven. ... He's just in total desperation right now to try to come up with something."

GORE CLAIM: "Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation."

SEN. INHOFE: [Saturday] Lindsay Graham said cap-and-trade is dead. What they're trying to do now is rename cap-and-trade. And if you read what they've said about it, about people in different segments, in the agriculture segment, the manufacturing segment of our economy, all of them admit it'll be very costly for the public. ... Now when they say this is almost the same as cap-and-trade, but they're not going to use cap-and-trade anymore, and they're going to talk about corporate responsibility and joining in this thing.

Of course, the big farce there is that the notion, the thing that I said seven years ago, that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic global warming just flat isn't true, it is a hoax. And the general public now realizes, and the majority of the people understand this. So I think they're going to try to rename it, and they're going to try to put together something, I think that Lindsay Graham's always willing to throw in with the Democrats on something that might be, you know, be enhancing to him personally. But this isn't going to work, they can say it all they want, they've been trying to work, by their own admission, for now months and months and months to come up with something where they can pass as cap-and-trade without calling it cap-and-trade, and all I can say is, it's not going to work.

[And on the subject of Lisa Jackson, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA "endangerment" finding:]

SEN. INHOFE: "There are two things that Lisa Jackson has said that are very significant. ... If you pass anything in the United States, it will not reduce worldwide emissions of CO2. China and the main developing countries are the ones that are the major problem. And so, as our jobs move to China, India, Mexico, and places where they don't have these emissions restrictions that we have, that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing CO2. ... Lisa Jackson said the science [for the endangerment finding is] based on the IPCC. Now the IPCC has been totally debunked. ...

"When the lawsuits start coming in March -- well, it's March already -- from people against the endangerment finding, the fact that it's based on science that's been debunked, the judges are going to be aware of that. ...

"Every institution that makes America different from other countries is under attack by this administration. And they are I guess responding to pressure from the Left, ‘Well you can't control Congress, you do it without Congress.' And that's exactly what they're trying to do."

That's what's going to precipitate another 1994 in November.

(HUMAN EVENTS Intern Matt Hadro contributed to this report)

CONSENSUS EXPOSED

The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works recently released a new 84-page report, titled, "‘Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." Recognizing the severe time constraints of interested readers-how can one read 84 pages amidst the daily maelstrom over global warming?-we issued a series of excerpts from the report this week. We hope this provides our readership with the report's essential findings, and a clear understanding that the CRU email controversy is more than just "a little email squabble." To the contrary, the report shows that the climate science "consensus" is far from settled, and it reveals unethical and possibly illegal behavior by the world's leading climate scientists, many of whom wrote and edited the IPCC's science assessments. It demonstrates that the IPCC's science is seriously flawed - a fact that, among other things, undermines the critical scientific basis of EPA's endangerment finding.

Part 1 - Emails Show Scientists Arguing Over Key Issues 

Part 2 -  Politicized Science and Endangerment Finding

Part 3 -  "Hide the Decline"

Hearing Statement: Legislative Hearing on S. 2995, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010

Yesterday, Sen. Inhofe released the following statement for the EPW legislative hearing on S. 2995, The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010:  

Chairman Carper, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss S. 2995, "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010," which you introduced along with Senator Alexander and others.  On the day this legislation was introduced, Sen. Voinovich and I released a statement extending a hand of cooperation in passing multi-pollutant legislation.  As we said, "The goal of combining greater regulatory certainty under the Clean Air Act with significant advances in public health and the environment is a worthy and attainable one.  We stand together today to begin a dialogue aimed at achieving that goal." 

Today, I repeat that pledge and I'm sure Sen. Voinovich will do the same.  I hope that you, Sen. Carper, as well as Sen. Alexander and others, will join us in trying to reach agreement on this important issue.  

There's a good deal of history behind legislative efforts to reduce sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides and mercury.  I won't belabor that history, but I will note that several of us, including Sen. Carper, made a good faith effort to reach bipartisan agreement on the Clear Skies bill in 2005.   Ultimately that didn't happen, and instead we settled for a regulatory approach to reduce emissions.  But without explicit authorization from Congress, the regulatory program, known as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, was struck down by the DC Circuit, because EPA lacked the necessary legal authority under the Clean Air Act.

So where do we stand?  We have emissions control projects on hold and a depressed allowance trading market.  Without a new law from Congress, the ability to secure additional emissions reductions from power plants over the next decade remains unclear.   Moreover, EPA is preparing a new emissions rule to answer the DC Circuit's CAIR decision, but, again, without specific legal authorization from Congress, just what EPA can propose in light of that decision is highly uncertain.  

We have a heavy burden on our shoulders to get this done.  Yet, I believe we can provide EPA with the legal authority it needs to get CAIR up and running again.  At the same time, we can find common ground and pass a bipartisan 3-P bill.  Now this won't be easy; Sen. Voinovich and I have several concerns about S. 2995.  I would say my leading concern is that the bill superimposes fairly strict emissions reductions over a short time frame on top of several impending EPA regulations facing power plants.  In my view, we should require significant emission reductions from power plants, but we also should provide flexibility for how those plants meet those targets. 

So again, I say to my colleagues, let's work together on achieving the long-sought goal of passing 3-P legislation.  This could be a significant milestone that would produce real health benefits as well as ensure affordable, reliable electricity to consumers.  Thank you.

In the News... Global warming Alarmists Circle the Wagons - A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC - Climate-gate goes to Parliament

Washington Times:  Climate scientists plot to fight back at skeptics  - "Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails. Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work. The scientists have been under siege since late last year when e-mails leaked from a British climate research institute seemed to show top researchers talking about skewing data to push predetermined outcomes. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative body on the matter, has suffered defections of members after it had to retract claims that Himalayan glaciers will melt over the next 25 years.

"Graham's remarks appear to be more political than substantive"  - Is cap and trade really "dead"? After all, didn't Sen. Lindsey Graham say so? The South Carolina Republican's recent remarks -- or snippets of them -- have ricocheted around Capitol Hill and beyond in recent weeks, lending momentum to the notion that the congressional effort he is helping lead no longer plans to implement a system that requires companies to buy and sell emission credits.  But Graham's remarks appear to be more political than substantive. Indeed, cap and trade remains very much a part of the debate on what legislation will look like when the closed-door negotiations are finished.  Graham was quoted Saturday in The Washington Post telling environmentalists "cap-and-trade is dead." The New York Times carried a similar quote in January that the senator later clarified, explaining he was referring to the large-scale, House-passed climate bill and a Senate counterpart approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee. In fact, Graham remains committed to putting a price on carbon emissions. And the proposal he is working on with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is likely to utilize the cap-and-trade mechanism when it comes to the electric utility industry, and later to manufacturers.

Wall Street Journal : Editorial : More Carbon Dissidents  -  So eight senior Senate Democrats think that Congress-instead of the Environmental Protection Agency-should decide whether or not to regulate carbon. Imagine that: Policy choices that carry enormous consequences for "the workers, industries, taxpayers and economic interests of our states" should be made by duly elected representatives. That's how the coal-state Senators-led by Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and including Ohio's Sherrod Brown and Michigan's Carl Levin-put it in a recent letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson, who is set on using clean-air laws written in the 1970s to impose the carbon limits that Congress won't pass.  A bill is pending in the Senate that would strip the White House's green bureaucrats of this "endangerment" authority. Last week House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton introduced a resolution that would effectively veto the EPA's ruling.

NYT: "Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon." - To meet the Obama administration's targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy. The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget for fiscal 2010.

Washington Examiner: A gas tax to cure global warming? Compromise looks to revive stalled plan - Even without creating a cap and trade system, such a proposal would face opposition among Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, particularly those who will not support any bill that threatens to raise prices or impose a fuel tax, which could happen under this proposal. "No bill that collides with the urgent imperative of job creation has a chance right now and to the extent that a climate bill has that feature or is seen as having that feature, it can't go anywhere," said William Galston, a political scholar at the Brookings Institution. Senate proponents of the bill are up against a daunting deadline, with a little more than six months left to tackle legislative business before the chamber adjourns for 2010 campaigning. Few, if any, endangered Democrats will be willing to vote on a bill that could be unpopular among economically struggling constituents.

Washington Post : Raising the gas tax might be the only way to wean Americans off oil -  No one knows exactly how America will find its way to a cleaner economy. That's why, as a rule, Congress shouldn't pick winners and losers in climate-change legislation and instead leave those calls to private actors operating in an environment in which emitting carbon becomes progressively more costly. But there are a few cases where it's clear who should lose -- and as soon as possible. Because of the range of social costs it exacts, oil is one of them.

WSJ:  Democrats Revolt Over Energy  - The actions add up to a significant challenge to Mr. Obama, who took office promising a fresh approach to energy policy that would promote jobs, slash greenhouse-gas emissions and put the U.S. in the forefront of new energy-technology development. More than a year into his presidency, Mr. Obama's policies are encountering resistance from big industries and members of his own party. Under federal law, Yucca is the designated site for the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. But the repository is more than a decade behind schedule. As a result, the waste generally remains at the nuclear reactors and DOE sites where it was generated.

Guardian UK: Pielke Jr.: Major change is needed if the IPCC hopes to survive  - The IPCC also needs improved mechanisms of accountability to its own admirable objectives. For instance, while the IPCC has a mandate to be "policy neutral," its reports and its leadership frequently engage in implicit and explicit policy advocacy. For instance, IPCC leaders often take public stands in support of, or opposition to, certain policies on climate change, such as when its chairman weighs in on U.S. domestic legislation. The IPCC reports, particularly Working Group III, reflect a particular policy orientation, which is decidedly not "policy neutral." To cite one example, the IPCC has concluded that the world has all the technology that it needs to achieve low stabilization levels. However, this conclusion ignores a significant body of academic work (such as by New York University professor emeritus Martin Hoffert and colleagues) suggesting that the world does not in fact have all the technology that it needs.

Strassel:  Environmentalists pressure the insurance industry  - Copenhagen was a flop. Congress's cap-and-trade bill is stalled. The EPA has delayed its climate rules. If you think this means American business is escaping the threat of carbon restraints, think again. Most of the climate debate focuses on Washington. This misses a more clever and committed force-environmental groups that impose their agenda on companies via pressure, legal threat and sympathetic regulators. A textbook example has been quietly unfolding in the insurance sector. The question is whether governors will stand by to let green activists effectively regulate their businesses.

Washington Post:  Senators to propose abandoning cap-and-trade  - Three key senators are engaged in a radical behind-the-scenes overhaul of climate legislation, preparing to jettison the broad "cap-and-trade" approach that has defined the legislative debate for close to a decade. The sharp change of direction demonstrates the extent to which the cap-and-trade strategy -- allowing facilities to buy and sell pollution credits in order to meet a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions -- has become political poison. In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, "Cap-and-trade is dead." Graham and Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have worked for months to develop an alternative to cap-and-trade, which the House approved eight months ago. 

The Hill: Senators rebrand, recast climate bill as 'cap and trade' becomes politically toxic - Senators trying to salvage a climate bill hope to put plenty of distance between themselves and cap-and-trade. It's an acknowledgment that the term cap and trade has itself become a political liability."Cap-and-trade in conservative circles is widely considered a dirty phrase, right up there with abortion on demand," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. That leaves Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) moving on two fronts: Crafting a wholly different bill than last year's House cap-and-trade plan, and continuing a re-branding campaign to revive the fortunes of climate legislation. Graham is quoted in Saturday's Washington Post stating that "cap-and-trade is dead." But what he told New York Times columnist Tom Friedman for Sunday's column is probably closer to the mark: "Cap-and-trade as we know it is dead."

Washington Post:  Climate scientists quizzed by British lawmakers  - But a former researcher at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit admitted he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures collected from around the world and written some "awful" e-mails to critics who asked to see his data. The academics were questioned by lawmakers because a cache of e-mails stolen from the research center and leaked online last year appeared to show that scientists stonewalled climate skeptics, tried to pervert the scientific peer review process, and discussed ways to dodge Freedom of Information requests. Their disclosure energized skeptics of man-made global warming, who seized on the e-mails as proof that scientists were conspiring to overstate the extent to which the earth was warming or making up the phenomenon entirely. Questioned Monday by parliament's science committee on why the center did not make its raw climate data and methodology public, former UEA climate researcher Phil Jones said the data was withheld because it wasn't "standard practice" to release it.

Nature Blog:  Climate-gate goes to Parliament  - British politicians got their turn to ponder the climate-gate incident today, as the House of Commons science committee held its inquiry into the email theft furore.  Today's meeting is only one of several inquiries into allegations stemming from the theft and publication of a huge number of emails from and to climate researchers at the University of East Anglia. These allegations range from the university not dealing properly with freedom of information requests to the suggestion that the emails show global warming is a huge conspiracy. The star witness at the actually rather disappointing hearing was undoubtedly the scientist at the centre of the email web: Phil Jones, head of UEA's Climatic Research Unit. However, people who have read any of the recent interviews with Jones (such as Nature's) will probably not find any shocking revelations from today's sparing.

Fox News: Gore Feels the Heat, Comes In From the Cold  - Despite an attention-grabbing appearance at an Apple shareholders meeting last week and a speech at a private IBM conference in Las Vegas, the politician-turned-Earth-advocate had been uncharacteristically silent on the topic of global warming. Meanwhile, Climate-gate has besmirched the science, scientists and politicians who back the theory of manmade climate change. Last week, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe -- a prominent skeptic of global warming theory and the Republican leader of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee -- issued a request for Gore to come testify on global warming. In an interview with FoxNews.com, Inhofe said he wants Gore to appear because "it will be interesting to ask him on what science he based his movie," a film the senator considers "science fiction."

AP: Warming panel, under attack, seeks outside review  - One example of the criticism was a Senate speech earlier this month when Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called problems with the IPCC "the makings of a major scientific scandal." "There is a crisis of confidence in the IPCC," Inhofe said Feb. 11. "The challenges to the integrity and credibility of the IPCC merit a closer examination by the US Congress." The panel shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former Vice President Al Gore. The panel was created by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization.

Telegraph UK: A perfect storm is brewing for the IPCC  - The news from sunny Bali that there is to be an international investigation into the conduct of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri would have made front-page headlines a few weeks back. But while Scotland and North America are still swept by blizzards, in their worst winter for decades, there has been something of a lull in the global warming storm - after three months when the IPCC and Dr Pachauri were themselves battered by almost daily blizzards of new scandals and revelations. And one reason for this lull is that the real message of all the scandals has been lost.

Wall Street Journal:  Climate Group Plans Review  - The IPCC, which won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for a report that called climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity, now says it will ask a committee of independent experts to assess why the report contained some factual errors, and to make recommendations as to how the IPCC can prevent such mistakes in the future. Among the incidents that have cast doubt on the organization's credibility: More than 1,000 emails hacked from an influential U.K. climate-research lab whose research has figured in IPCC reports suggested that scientists there were trying to squelch other researchers who challenged research linking climate change with human activity; and the IPCC expressed "regret" last month that its 2007 report erroneously claimed that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Daily Mail UK: Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data -  The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.  The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.  They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.  Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.  In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.

Guardian UK: MPs' grilling over climate emails    - Jones survives MPs' grilling over climate emails  Gaunt and nervous, but with his ever-smiling University of East Anglia vice-chancellor beside him, Phil Jones survived his grilling by MPs - probably profoundly grateful that he did not have to face questioning from an earlier witness, the equally gaunt but far from nervous climate sceptic, Lord Lawson. Jones did his best to persuade the Commons science and technology committee that all was well in the house of climate science.

E&E:  U.N. global warming panel to seek outside review   - But the controversy has provided fodder for climate skeptics and, according to recent polls, appears to have weakened public trust in science. That's a far cry from just three years ago, when the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for creating "an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Now, officials announced Saturday, the panel will seek an independent review of its procedures -- even as the IPCC begins work on its next assessment report, due in 2013.

Investor's Business Daily : A Blizzard Of Lies From Al Gore - If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore's op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it." Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean.

Newsmax:  Al Gore Admits Errors in Climate Claims - Former Vice President Al Gore admits that mistakes have been made by the scientific community regarding the issue of climate change. In an op-ed piece for The New York Times, Gore said: "It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."

NY Post:  Al's latest global-warming whopper - Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth's greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere -- but clouds have the opposite effect (called "albedo") by reflecting the sun's energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC's predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds. What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the ef fect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).  This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulation carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

The Foundry:  Morning Bell: The Edifice Falls - The latest attempt to force the U.S. economy to turn away from readily available, affordable fuels and leaving it to the tender mercies of untried, experimental and expensive technologies is a bipartisan effort by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). A legislative package from them, according to The Washington Post on Saturday, would individually cap how much traditional energy the main pillars of the American economy would be able to use. This would of course cripple our economy and threaten our prosperity. Any doubts about how broad and deep this effort is are dispelled by reading the following paragraph in the Post:

Fox News:  What Gore Missed When He Broke His Silence -  Despite one Climate-gate revelation after another, Al Gore has been remarkably silent. Indeed, since the Copenhagen Climate Summit he hasn't said anything. That is until now. He broke his silence on Sunday in the New York Times with his 1,900+ word op-ed piece. Although some of the piece responds to recent scandals involving the "e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain" and the errors found in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, much of the response is filled with snide remarks about "climate deniers."