http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...intentionally/
Posted By Myron Ebell On December 5, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

When the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing [1] on the
state of climate science on December 2, the Republicans were ready to focus it on the Climategate
fraud scandal [2]. And the first witness, President Obama's science adviser, Dr. John P. Holdren,
was ready to respond.

Instead of summarizing his written testimony in his oral remarks, Holdren read a prepared statement
on Climategate. He said that the controversy involved a "small group of scientists" and was
primarily about one temperature dataset. He said that such controversies were not unusual in all
branches of science and that they got sorted out through the peer review process and continuing
scrutiny. Holdren also said that openness and sharing of data was important, which is why the Obama
administration is strongly committed to openness. In the case of the disputed dataset (the "hockey
stick" graph [3]), the National Academies of Science (NAS) undertook a thorough review of it and
all other similar datasets and concluded that the preponderance of evidence supported the principal
conclusion of the research. Holdren concluded by predicting that when the dust settles on this
controversy, a very strong scientific consensus on global warming will remain.

Well, that sounds pretty plausible, but anyone who has followed Dr. Holdren's amazing career knows
that he is a master of plausible buncombe that disguises his "outlandish scientific assertions,
consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices," as my CEI colleague William
Yeatman has put it [4]. Everything that Holdren said in his opening statement is incomplete and
misleading. But explaining that is a job for another day. The point is that the alarmist
establishment and environmental pressure groups have settled on these talking points in order to
try to contain and sanitize the scandal.

When Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and other Republicans on the committee challenged
Holdren's analysis of Climategate, the president's science adviser responded by repeating that it
was just a small group of scientists engaged in some narrow research. Any mistakes or misdeeds on
their part couldn't possibly compromise the scientific consensus, which is as strong as it is vast.

But when asked about some of his own extreme statements and predictions, Holdren replied that
scientific research had moved on from the latest UN assessment report in 2007. The most up-to-date
scientific research was contained in a report written by some of the world's leading climate
scientists and released last summer. Holdren mentioned and referred to this report, Copenhagen
Diagnosis [5], several times during the course of the hearing.

I remember when Copenhagen Diagnosis came out because nearly every major paper ran a story on it.
Global warming is happening even faster than predicted, the impacts are even worse than feared, and
that sort of thing. I also remembered that the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis included many of the
usual conmen who are at the center of the alarmist scare. So I asked my CEI colleague Julie Walsh
to compare the list of authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis with the scientists involved in Climategate.

I'm sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The "small group of
scientists" up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the
Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of
Copenhagen Diagnosis [6] belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn't it?

Here's the list of tippity-top scientists who both wrote the authoritative report that Holdren
relied on to support his statements and belong to the "small group of scientists" who are now
suspected of scientific fraud:

Nathan Bindoff, also a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007
Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter LA-IPCC FAR)

Peter Cox, also LA-IPCC FAR

David Karoly, also LA-IPCC FAR and the Third Assessment Report (TAR)

Georg Kaser, also LA-IPCC FAR

Michael E. Mann, also LA-IPCC TAR (the hockey stick scandal made him too radioactive to participate
in writing FAR)

Stefan Rahmstorf, also LA-IPCC FAR

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, merely "a longstanding member of the IPCC."

Stephen Schneider, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and the First and Second Assessment Reports (SAR) plus
two of the IPCC's synthesis reports

Steven Sherwood, only a contributing author to IPCC-FAR

Richard C. J. Somerville, co-ordinating LA-PCC FAR

Eric J. Steig, no connection to IPCC listed

Andrew Weaver, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and SAR

In the interests of space, I've left out all of their distinguished positions as professors,
editors of academic journals, and heads of institutes. You can search for their Climategate emails
here [7].

Then there are those Climategate figures who didn't help write Climate Diagnosis, but who have been
involved in the IPCC assessment reports. Here are three that come to mind:

Phil Jones, contributing author IPCC TAR

Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating LA-IPCC FAR and SAR, LA-IPCC TAR, and an author of the summaries for
policymakers for FAR, TAR, and SAR

Ben Santer, convening LA-IPCC First Assessment Report

Now, I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the "small
group of scientists" caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast
and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and
other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I'm sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President
Obama's science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation. He always does.