Who’s sounding alarms now?

Multiple investigations have opened due to the contents of e-mails swiped from computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain. The university is delving into the issues raised in the e-mails and has sidelined the head of the climate unit. The chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said allegations stemming from the e-mails would be investigated. Penn State University said it would probe the work of one of its scientists, Michael Mann.

Good. Many of the e-mails expose some bitter battles and possible collusion in avoiding public records requests. Getting to the bottom of that makes perfect sense. Transparency is wise.

Anything is better than the hyperbolic and unsubstantiated charges being tossed around by amateur scientists and wannabe detectives. Some Republicans in Congress are calling for hearings, though you have to wonder why since they’ve already donned their rumpled trench coats and cracked the case.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., called global warming a gigantic hoax several years ago, so it wasn’t surprising when he called for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw its endangerment finding on greenhouse gases and halt any actions to limit them. And he complains of “alarmists”?

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., claimed: “These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit.” He then tried to broaden the case by stating that the National Academy of Sciences discredited Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” research, which shows that the past 50 years have been the hottest of the past several centuries and that man is to blame.

Wrong. In 2006, the academy essentially upheld Mann’s conclusions, though it did find some technical errors.

And the academy’s take on global warming in general? “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

Lacking authoritative sources, perhaps these politicians could’ve turned to industry-funded organizations. Bet they have some interesting correspondence about research on this issue or smoking or asbestos or acid rain or the hole in the ozone layer or lead in paint, all of which has failed to tip the scientific consensus. In the interest of transparency, perhaps they’ll produce it.

If these e-mail-inspired investigations undermine the overall case for human-caused global warming and cause major scientific organizations and national and international academies to reverse their positions, I’ll change my mind.

If the probes fail on that score, how many skeptics will do the same?

Outsource the bosses. The New York Times reported on Thursday that pay limits could hurt General Motors’ search for a new chief executive officer after the board bounced CEO Fritz Henderson on Tuesday.

“Most executives of that caliber expect a boatload of money to join a new company,” said Jerome York, a former GM director.

The pay limit was imposed as a condition of accepting government bailout money.

Toyota and Honda have done pretty well over the years without exorbitant executive pay. At a time when Rick Wagoner was pulling down $15.7 million as the CEO of GM, Toyota’s president was making about $900,000. In 2006, Honda’s top 21 executives made $11.1 million in salary and bonuses.

As economist Dean Baker noted on his blog, “This suggests that CEOs in the United States have simply priced themselves out of the market. The obvious solution would be to outsource top management.”