The full text of the release is after the jump.

Inhofe Begins Hadley Center “Climategate” Investigation

Warns Participants to Retain Documents

Washington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific “consensus” of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the Hadley Center’s Climate Research Unit.

“The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Moreover, it appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated.

“I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”

The letters are the first step in the investigation of the Hadley Center climate scandal. Last week, emails released by a computer hacker revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.

“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” asked one headline. Another piece called the scandal “one of the greatest in modern science.” Today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called for an investigation.

So what exactly in these emails is causing such celebration among the deniers? The Daily Telegraph compiled “the most contentious quotes,” and while they’re certainly embarrassing for their authors, they don’t come close to undermining the very basis of climate science. Here are three of the six they list:

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the [global warming-denying] idiots in the near future.”

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome [global warming-denying] editor.”

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these [global warming-denying] papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

These emails demonstrate a deep disdain for global warming skepticism that does not befit scientists in objective pursuit of the truth. But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of. These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda. But that this leak threatens to undermine next month’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen strikes me as more than a bit excessive.

Marc Morano, the former spokesman for climate change denier-in-chief Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), features clinking champagne glasses atop his anti-climate legislation Website. Meanwhile, at the Center for American Progress, influential liberal climate blogger Joe Romm calls the development “some very good news.”

What gives?

Well, of course, Morano and Romm aren’t really in agreement; they’re just drawing wildly different conclusions. Morano proclaims in an email this morning, “Climate Fear Movement Collapsing at Last!” Romm takes a more nuanced position, arguing that Copenhagen has been doomed for some time now, and this recognition of reality allows for incremental progress next month and also buys American lawmakers more time to craft strong climate legislation. before global negotiations start in earnest.

Romm writes:

The new plan for Copenhagen makes the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely — and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen Lieberman (I-CT) are negotiating with the White House. [...]

Indeed, had leaders gone into Copenhagen without this recognition of the obvious and let the whole effort collapse under the weight of unrealistic expectations, that would have been all-but-fatal to the domestic bipartisan climate bill.

Now it will be obvious when the Senate takes up the bill up in the winter that the rest of the world is prepared to act — that every major country in the world has come to the table with serious targets and/or serious commitments to change their greenhouse gas emissions trajectories.  Every country but ours, that is.

Over at Grist, Dave Roberts takes a less exuberant but similarly reasoned tack:

[I]f the world’s nations had headed into Copenhagen expecting a legally binding treaty complete with targets and timetables, the result would have been disappointment, acrimony, and worst of all, wasted time. By taking some of the pressure of Copenhagen, the two-steps agreement has avoided disaster and maintained momentum. It’s also given the Obama administration time to engage in more climate diplomacy. Now if something could just be done about the Senate …

I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer’s decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee. The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer. Instead, she decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate. Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.

I’m not so sure Boxer violated the rules — by passing the bill without amendments, she would appear to have obviated the need for a quorum with GOP representation — though she certainly circumvented precedent. As for the “clear path forward to a bipartisan markup”: what Inhofe and his colleagues were demanding was a re-analysis of the bill by the EPA, after EPA officials insisted that a new analysis would be nearly identical to the previous one (which, by the way, was more thorough than any counterpart at this stage in the debate over previous climate legislation).

Elana Schor notes that Inhofe “seems to delight” in forcing Boxer’s hand, but the end result is that the legislation will now be molded by other committees and the Senate leadership, without input from Inhofe and his Republican EPW colleagues.

The vote for passage was an unusual maneuver. Without a quorum that included at least two Republicans, the committee was unable to open formal debate on amendments to the bill. But passage requires just a simple majority, and Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the Democratic leadership chose to forgo amendments in order to move the legislation quickly, given that the end of the GOP boycott was nowhere in sight.

So where does it go from here? Prospects for passage by the full Senate are murky at best. Several other committee chairmen want to get their hands on the bill, and the Senate leadership will have to merge some dramatically different pieces of legislation before the full Senate vote. In the end, it’s likely that the Boxer bill won’t have legs, writes Dave Roberts; other players will likely decide the legislation’s fate:

[The Boxer] bill will be a dead letter. Already there’s an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it’s associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body’s most liberal committees. The Senate isn’t like the House. There is no party discipline among Democrats; in fact, Democratic senators are fond of explicitly disclaiming party discipline. It’s a chamber full of large, jostling egos and not a little old-boy sexism. They’re not about to let a combative liberal woman run the show.

So a bill that’s Pure Boxer won’t fly. That’s why you saw, on Wed., the Senate’s perceived centrists—Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman—swoop in and and open a “dual track” of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. [...]

[B]y stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It’s pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

Update: Sen. Carper’s office informs me that Carper showed up to the hearing late and voted for passage. I’ve amended the vote tally from 10-1 to 11-1 to reflect this change.

Well, today we’re seeing a repeat performance — only it appears genuine. The Chamber has posted a letter on its Website that it sent to the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) — “outlining [its] continued support for strong federal climate change legislation.” The description is peculiar, given the Chamber’s unequivocal anti-cap-and-trade stance, but the message is nonetheless important:

The challenge of drafting comprehensive climate legislation is not “whether” to do something, but “how.” There are many good ideas out there that can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense and realistic foundation on which to craft a bill. The Chamber commends Senators Kerry and Graham for their recent New York Times editorial on the need for comprehensive climate legislation. The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue, and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill.

If that seems absolutely game-changing … well, don’t get too excited. The letter continues:

The Chamber will continue to oppose bad policies that resemble the failed climate proposals of the past, such as bills that jeopardize American jobs, create trade inequalities, leave open the Clean Air Act, open the door to CO2-based mass tort litigation, and further hamper the permitting process for clean energy.

Which is basically code for: “We’re open to hypothetical legislation that liberal Democrats would never endorse, but we couldn’t possibly support anything resembling what’s actually been proposed.”

Still, you get the sense that the Chamber felt it was swimming against the tide. Its anti-climate legislation stance has led a number of its prominent member companies to leave the Chamber. Now, with a conservative Republican (Graham) getting behind the effort to reduce carbon emissions, the Chamber appears to have sensed it was the right time to shift its position.

Last week, Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) threatened to boycott the markup unless the committee received an Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill that was more to his liking (the EPA did release an analysis two weeks ago, but Republicans charge that it is incomplete). This morning, environmentalists were pleasantly surprised to see Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) at the hearing — but after a 15-minute monologue, he promptly departed, leaving the Republican side of the table empty.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) chided his Republican colleagues for their tactic, arguing that the EPA analysis was as complete as could be expected and pointing out that Inhofe and most of his colleagues will oppose the bill no matter what the EPA says. He referred to a comment Inhofe made about health reform this summer, when he told a town hall audience, “I don’t have to read the bill or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyway.”

Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) extended something of an olive branch across the aisle last night, when she wrote a letter to the ranking Republicans on the committee, pledging:

To meet your concerns, however, and in the spirit of collegiality, I have arranged for a recess of the markup to take place Tuesday, November 3, at 2:30 pm, so that EPA can be available to answer questions from EPW members on its analysis. In addition, we are offering to extend the deadline for first-degree amendments on the Minority side until close of business tomorrow.

It appears unlikely that the committee’s Republicans will view this as a sufficient concession.

The committee’s opening hearing on the bill is underway (Webcast here), and it’s a fairly one-sided debate. Right now, the Democrats are discussing the implications of energy policy with members of the Obama administration, while every Republican seat is empty.

As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) just pointed out, it’s a pretty clear sign of the uphill battle ahead for climate legislation.

Although the ratio of committee Democrats to Republicans is 12 to 7, under committee rules two Republicans must attend a markup in order to have a quorum.

“We’re not being unreasonable,” Inhofe said. “The only leverage we have is the quorum leverage, and if we get stonewalled, we’ll use it.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), probably the best-known climate change skeptic in Congress, is jumping on the news.

“Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll,” said Inhofe in a statement, “aside from the precipitous drop in the number of Independents who believe global warming is a problem, is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade. And this explains quite clearly why Democrats don’t want the public to know about it.”