Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’

By Melanie Hunter-Omar | December 1, 2009 | 5:50 PM EST

U.N. Undersecretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Sha Zukang, back to camera, talks to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, right, as Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, left, and Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, second from left, look on at an international conference on technology and climate change in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)

( – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.
Inhofe said the recent disclosure of emails between several prominent climatologists reveal “possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program” and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
He suggested “a possible conspiracy by scientists, some of whom receive or have received US taxpayer funds, to stifle open, transparent debate on the most pressing issues of climate science.”
Inhofe also noted that there appeared to be “a campaign to vilify scientists who question global warming alarmism.”
“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.
“Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added.
The controversy “could have far-reaching policy implications,” Inhofe wrote,” affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs,” and the Section 202 (a) of the EPA’s Clean Air Act – policies that “will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses.”