National governments are getting the message that the United Nations’ besieged climate panel (see one recent summary here) is not a group to stay snuggled up to.
First, from Pajamas Media:
During the review of the Environmental Protection Agency budget in [Tuesday's] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, both Senator Barbara Boxer — the chair of the committee — and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson distanced themselves from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Boxer and Jackson’s statements, in addition to being a striking change in policy, are problematic because U.S. climate science is very closely tied to the IPCC reports…
Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:
‘In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting the American scientific community here.’
When [Sen. James] Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the ‘gold standard,’ she answered:
‘The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this country.’
Jackson also noted:
‘[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events. The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]‘
The problem with that, as the PJM author, Charlie Martin, points out, is that
The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report…
So it would seem that a review of the data which the EPA used is in order. Such a review may become necessary due to a lawsuit filed against the EPA by the Atlanta-based Southeastern Legal Foundation. Fifteen 15 members of Congress, including Georgia’s entire Republican delegation in the House, are listed among the plaintiffs.
Elsewhere, Britain’s weather authority, the Met Office, is pushing for an independent review of all temperature data from the past 150 years. This is a significant development because the Met Office has been one of the biggest promoters of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW). Reports the Times of London:
More than 150 years of global temperature records are to be re-examined by scientists in an attempt to regain public trust in climate science after revelations about errors and suppression of data.
The Met Office has submitted proposals for the reassessment by an independent panel in a tacit admission that its previous reports have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
Two separate inquiries are being held into allegations that the CRU tried to hide its raw data from critics and that it exaggerated the extent of global warming.
In a document entitled Proposal for a New International Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data, the Met Office says: ‘We feel it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyse surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organisation.’
The new analysis would test the conclusion reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’.
The Met Office of course says it’s confident that nothing will change once the data are reviewed. But substantial questions have been raised about the quality of some temperature data, so that confidence may not be warranted.
At the very least, it’s good to see even grudging acceptance by the AGW crowd that declining public trust in its methods and results demands transparency and review — not more arrogance and cover-ups.