The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works released a report today titled, "Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails
and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic
Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and
documents affect the scientific work of the United Nations IPCC, and how
revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment
finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU
controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded
research and possibly federal laws.  

In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

– Obstructed release of damaging data and information

– Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions

– Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"

– Assumed activist roles to influence the political process

"This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  "It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science.  And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system.  It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this.  Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science.  It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-apolicy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."