Restraining Obama on climate agreements
The key word is "independent." The skeptics are already skeptical of the UN review since they are heav8ily invested in the global warming scam and plan to profit from it both monetarily and with added powers.Climate-change skeptics, fired up by the controversy over a series of British scientists' e-mails, are putting President Obama on notice: Don't commit the United States to any long-term goals at next week's climate summit in Copenhagen.
One of the strongest such warnings has come from a member of the president's own party, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.
"Recent statements by Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission-reduction program," Mr. Webb wrote in a letter to the president.
"As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."
Some prominent skeptics are going further, arguing that Mr. Obama should not attend the summit at all.
"Every time he attends, he will give something away," said Fred Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
"He is expected to bring presents. If he doesn't attend, less will be expected of us, and that is better," Mr. Singer said. "My hope is that the U.S. Senate will not approve any kind of treaty obligation."
Referring to the British e-mails, he said, "We finally have proof of what we have always suspected - that these guys have been fudging the data. My hope also is that there will be an independent science panel who will go over their data and methods and come up with a report that will set the matter straight."
...
Merv, you are spot on saying that "independent" is the key word.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the EAU initially announced an "internal review" and stated that Phil Jones would be temporarily be stepping down pending the results of the review.
In those initial PR materials that they posted announcing the internal review, they included a joint statement from Phil Jones and Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, in which the two of them took the opportunity to essentially attack a few strawman arguments -- hardly an indication of anything resembling an "independent review."
Since then, the University has further announced that Sir Muir Russell will head the internal review, stressing his independence from the University and from the climate science community. They have specifically asked that he complete his review by this coming Spring.
"The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEA’s response."
Interesting. Given the fact that they have repeatedly failed to comply with several FOI requests over substantially longer periods of time, it is hard to imagine how their timeline squares with the notion of a thorough review.
Looks to me like the damage had already been done with the initial announcement, and their insistence that this will be an "independent" review should be viewed with skepticism.