Todays announcement by Penn State University that climate scientist Michael Mann has been cleared of all scientific misconduct charges should put an end to the baseless attacks on Mann and his research, including the ongoing investigation by Virginia’s attorney general, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Michael Mann has been the target of political attacks from members of Congress, industry-funded groups, and now Virginias attorney general, said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at UCS. This harassment has succeeded only in wasting taxpayer dollars and distracting Dr. Mann and other scientists from doing valuable research. Its time for it to stop.
Penn State first responded in February to allegations of scientific misconduct against Mann stemming from emails stolen from the University of East Anglia last fall. The universitys investigatory committee cleared Mann on three allegations but decided to gather more information to determine whether Mann had adhered to accepted practices within the academic community that studies climate change.
On April 23, while the Penn State committee was still investigating the last charge, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli essentially subpoenaed the University of Virginia, Manns former employer, to obtain extensive documents related to Manns work at the school. Cuccinelli cited the stolen emails as his rationale for launching his investigation of Mann for fraud. UVA has rejected Cuccinellis demand for the documents. (For more information, see a timeline of events related to the UVA investigation as well as a debunking of individual claims Cuccinelli made in a court filing.)
The report released today by Penn State was unequivocal. The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation..., it stated. [Mann] did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. Previous investigations of Mann and his colleagues also have found no evidence of scientific misconduct.
The Penn State report shows that universities and scientists have effective systems in place to police themselves, Grifo said Michael Mann has been exonerated by multiple investigations. It’s clear that the Virginia attorney generals inquiry is baseless. This is another sad episode in a long history of politicians attacking scientists whose findings dont match their worldview.
Politically motivated harassment can have a chilling effect on scientists, Grifo said. Virginia has a reputation as a state that fosters an environment where scientists can pursue cutting edge research that improves the quality of life and drives economic growth, she said. The attorney generals investigation could make scientists think twice about working in a state where they have to worry about attacks from government officials.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-biased nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org.
Icecap supports the continuation of the Virginia investigation. The emails are likely to reveal the truth that prior investigations avoided. The whitewash like the whitewash of the CRU were not unexpected as there is too much to lose for the Universities. It will be their reputations that will suffer if the truth is unveiled. The UCS is not now nor ever has been interested in scientific truth. They have become an advocacy organization.
IBD Editorial
According to the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, prices at the gas pump would leap 58%, and residential electricity costs would “necessarily skyrocket” 90%.
Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. Net job losses (after green job creation) could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses about 1 million jobs in 2035.
On Wednesday, the Institute for Energy Research will release an analysis of the American Power Act, pushed by Kerry and Lieberman (sans Graham). IER says it will cut U.S. employment by roughly 522,000 jobs in 2015, rising to more than 5.1 million by 2050.
“Gross annual burden” imposed by the current Senate version of cap-and-trade is put at a paltry $125.9 billion a year or $1,042 per household, with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households.
According to IER, Kerry-Lieberman will redistribute roughly $12.3 billion per year from the bottom 80% of earners to the highest quintile. As the average age of each household rises, so does the economic burden imposed on it. Health care rationing and Kerry-Lieberman — a double whammy for seniors.
Whether through the front door, the back door or behind another closed Senate door, cap-and-trade will put a price not only on carbon, but also on freedom. The power to tax is the power to destroy, but it is also the power to control.
According to Eilperin, “Under this scenario, the final product of any House-Senate conference could come up for a final vote in a lame-duck session after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact.” Lame ducks would save oil-soaked ducks.
They would sneak through a watered-down “comprehensive” energy bill in reaction to the Gulf spill, and then in conference make sure the worst parts of Waxman-Markey are in there, including the cap-and-tax provisions on American energy. As with health care reform, we’ll be told we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.
But we know what will be in it. Cap-and-trade seeks, as President Obama says is his desire, to put “a price on carbon.” The government would sell or auction off emission credits based on a predetermined cap on the total amount of carbon emissions arbitrarily set for the U.S. economy.
Lower-polluting companies could then trade their excess credits to higher-polluting industries. The cap would gradually be lowered as companies are forced to be more energy-efficient, “green jobs” are created, and the earth is saved. At least that’s the theory.
The practice is that the only thing that is capped is economic growth. The cost of these carbon credits amounts to a hidden tax that is passed on to consumers of energy and everything that energy is used to make or transport. Money that could be spent on creating jobs will be wasted trying to save the polar bear.
Cap-and-tax would impact almost every aspect of our lives, from higher gasoline prices to soaring utility bills, to restrictions and regulations related to the “energy efficiency” of our homes. It is a hidden tax on our freedom and our prosperity. It will limit our choices and our actions. It will reduce our supply of energy and thereby increase its costs, another hidden tax.
An analysis prepared by the Treasury Department and obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through a Freedom of Information Act request put the total in new taxes at $100 billion to $200 billion a year.
The upper end of that range translates to a cost per American household of an extra $1,761 a year. Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15% increase.
The FOIA’d document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department’s Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, contains this odd line: “It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.” The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line. Why would it want to hide the true total cost?
According to the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, prices at the gas pump would leap 58%, and residential electricity costs would “necessarily skyrocket” 90%.
Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. Net job losses (after green job creation) could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses about 1 million jobs in 2035.
On Wednesday, the Institute for Energy Research will release an analysis of the American Power Act, pushed by Kerry and Lieberman (sans Graham). IER says it will cut U.S. employment by roughly 522,000 jobs in 2015, rising to more than 5.1 million by 2050.
“Gross annual burden” imposed by the current Senate version of cap-and-trade is put at a paltry $125.9 billion a year or $1,042 per household, with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households.
According to IER, Kerry-Lieberman will redistribute roughly $12.3 billion per year from the bottom 80% of earners to the highest quintile. As the average age of each household rises, so does the economic burden imposed on it. Health care rationing and Kerry-Lieberman — a double whammy for seniors.
Whether through the front door, the back door or behind another closed Senate door, cap-and-trade will put a price not only on carbon, but also on freedom. The power to tax is the power to destroy, but it is also the power to control. See editorial here.
Standoff suggests Senate would give up on climate change law that would result in far more limited proposals
Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Barack Obama’s hopes of leveraging public anger at the Gulf oil spill into political support for his clean energy agenda fell flat today after he failed to rally a group of Democratic and Republican senators around broad energy and climate change law.
The standoff suggests the Senate would formally give up on climate change law, and recast energy reform as a Gulf oil spill response, that would roll in far more limited proposals such as a green investment bank, or a measure to limit greenhouse gas emissions that would apply only to electricity companies.
Such a move would come as a personal rebuff to Obama who has put energy and climate change at the top of his agenda, and who called on the 23 senators at the White House meeting to establish a cap and trade system.
“The president was very clear about putting a price on carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions,” John Kerry, the Democratic senator leading the push for climate change proposals in the Senate said after the meeting.
“He was very strong about the need to put a price on carbon and make polluters pay,” said senator Joe Lieberman.
White House officials say the spill is a wake-up call for the urgency of breaking the US economy’s dependence on fossil fuels, and had hoped to build momentum behind a cap-and-trade bill now before the Senate.
Supporters of action on climate change had been pressing Obama to make a strong push for legislation.
The oil disaster’s ability to dictate events was underlined again today when BP and the coast guard suspended oil skimming operations because of rough seas from tropical storm Alex.
Senators at the much-anticipated meeting acknowledged there was political support only for modest reforms.
Kerry told reporters he was prepared to scale back his proposals.
“We are prepared to scale back the reach of our legislation in order to try and find that place of compromise because we believe and I think the president believes very strongly that what is important for America to get started,” The Hill website quoted him saying.
Republican Senators, even those purportedly supporting energy reform, have been adamant in their opposition to putting an economy-wide price on carbon. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican at the meeting, told reporters such moves would be too costly for the average family.
Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said Congress needed to focus on the spill.
“Priority one, two and three for any meeting on energy is to make sure we give the president whatever he needs to clean up the oil spill and to help people who are hurt and to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
The stand-off suggests the Senate will now try to roll energy proposals into a broader Gulf-oil-spill bill that would impose tougher offshore drilling regulations, and higher penalties for oil companies.
The Senate is expected to take up such a bill soon after the 4 July break. But energy proposals could still be in the mix.
Among the measures gaining in support is the establishment of a clean energy deployment administration, or a green bank. The bank would offer direct financing as well as loan guarantees to new energy infrastructure, energy efficiency and manufacturing technology.
The Senate version of the proposals would also extend such loan guarantees to nuclear industry as well as carbon capture and storage projects.
Another key proposal would be a pilot project for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from electricity plants.
See more here.