Climate Change

Congressional Democrats Climate Change Investigation: Witchhunt or McCarthyism?

Progressives launch smear campaign against climate researchers they dislike

|

Burning Witches
unattributed

Earlier this week, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee embarked on a public campaign to smear the reputations of climate researchers whose results he evidently dislikes. He launched his despicable campaign by sending letters to the presidents of seven universities demanding that they release information about the funding of the targetted researchers. The not-at-all subtle implication is that they are producing suspect research after having been bought off by evil purveyors of fossil fuels. The real intention is to gin up a "controversy" with the goal of making journalists squeamish about ever quoting them or ther work again in news stories about climate change.

The researchers being "investigated" for heresy are David Legates from the University of Delaware; John Christy from University of Alabama in Huntsville; Judith Curry from Georgia Tech; Richard Lindzen from MIT; Robert Balling from Arizona State University; Roger Pielke from the University of Colorado; and Steven Hayward from Pepperdine University.

For the record, I was against a similar witchhunt launched against former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann by then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R-Va).

Grijalva claims to be motivated by the New York Times story earlier this week about the industry funding that supported some of the work by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics researcher Willie Soon. As an advocate of research transparency, I believe that Soon made a mistake if he failed to disclose some of his funding.

Consider Grijalva's letter to the University of Alabama in Huntsville:

Professor John Christy at the Earth System Science Center has testified many times before the U.S. Congress on climate change. His December 2013 testimony to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology said of the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible—not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments are highly susceptible to the disease."

I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution's name and greatly assist me and my colleagues in making better law.

Nice touch mentioning the Nobel Prize. And researchers are scholars whose views are their own and who do not make policy recommendations in the name of the universities for which they work.

I have long cited the temperature data work of Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer. Every monthly email from Christy and Spencer updating their data includes the following phrase:

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

I have known Christy and Spencer since the early 1990s and have no reason to think that that statement is not correct. 

And consider also Grijalva's letter to the University of Colorado:

Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impact. His July 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim often repeated, that it is "incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases." John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change and his (Holdren's) position on the issue.

Pielke's research on weather damage trends is peer-reviewed and widely cited, including in the latest reports from the IPCC.

By the way, Pielke does an excellent job of showing just how off the mark Holdren's assertions about his research were. Obviously the congressman was too busy to bother reading Pielke's response. And being familar with Holdren's career as an activist scientist I believe that his testimony was scientifically dishonest at best.

The folks over at the Breakthrough Institute where Pielke is an unpaid senior fellow have published a strong rebuttal, "Climate of Incivility: Climate McCarthyism is Wrong Whether Democratic or Republican," to the Grijalva's witchhunt:

Grijalva's beef with Pielke is plainly ideological. Pielke is not a climate skeptic. He has long affirmed the view that human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and his work on weather extremes has been widely cited by the IPCC. Moreover, he has endorsed a carbon tax and President Obama's carbon pollution regulations.

But because his research finds that there has been no identifiable increase in the cost and human impacts of natural disasters due to human-caused global warming — a finding that the IPCC has endorsed — he has become a target of environmental activists and now, the ranking Democratic member of the House Natural Resources Committee. 

In advance of multiple testimonies before Congressional committees, Pielke has affirmed that he has no financial conflicts of interest. Grijalva has offered no evidence to the contrary. Rather, Grijalva's investigation is part fishing expedition, part innuendo campaign. It won't find nefarious funding of Pielke's research. But it will drag his good name and reputation through the mud — especially in an era where long debunked accusations take on a life of their own in the blogosphere. Long after Pielke's name is cleared, accusations that his research is funded by the fossil fuels industry, and old links to the news stories that ran when Grijalva publicized the letters, will live on in cyberspace. 

Efforts to delegitimize one's political opponents are, of course, nothing new in American politics. But they become especially toxic when they get mixed up with scientific controversies. Pielke's sin after all, is not that he has questioned the consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, but rather that his research strongly suggests that human-caused warming has not to-date made natural disasters worse — a finding that has proven inconvenient for activists and Democratic politicians, including the President, who regularly claim that human emissions are playing a significant role in the rising toll of natural disasters in hopes that doing so will galvanize public support for climate action.

The Breakthrough article concludes:

McCarthyite attacks on climate scientists were un-American and inappropriate when Republicans practiced them. They are neither less toxic nor more appropriate when initiated by Democrats in the name of saving the planet. The party of liberals and progressives should be the first to be outraged by the use of such tactics.

Absolutely right.

However, progressive "outrage" is no less partisan than that of conservatives. Progressive politicians don't care more about science than do conservatives; distorting science to justify preconceived views and policy preferences is just politics by other means.

The answer to the headline question: Witchhunt or McCarthyism? It's both.

Advertisement

NEXT: Elderly Man Ends Up Topless, On His Knees, and Handcuffed After Cops Mistake His Collector Car for a Stolen One

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The climate has been changing from inside the house this whole time!

    1. They need a new Mickey Mouse thermometer.

      The old one keeps reporting the temperature on Pluto

  2. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

    1. Yeah, Grijalva is way off base here. Good to see you coming around.

      1. Climate scientists for years have been harassed and targeted by people funded by oil money to convince idiots of ludicrous falsehoods and conspiracy theories. In fact, those same bullies and charlatans, without the slightest shred of evidence, have demanded that we all accept that government funding makes climate science, the world over, totally corrupt. And it’s all a fucking oil-funded misinformation campaign, period. Someone asking whether scientists are being compromised by their source of funding? Isn’t that you people’s entire shtick? Ron’s crime is not criticizing this, it’s the implied false equivalency.

        1. Not sure if this is fallacy, or just delusion…

          1. Doubt if Tony is capable of differentiating.
            If it were written by anyone with an IQ above room temperature, it would be satire. In Tony’s case, it’s a laughable attempt to show those poor, poor, gov’t-paid folks as victims! VICTIMS, I tells ya!

            1. Yes, the scientific community has been victimized by a propaganda campaign aided very generously by willful participants. If oil. were paying you, you’d be a greedy sadist. But they’re not even fucking paying you. You’ve discovered a moral depravity beyond greedy murderous sadism, and it is precisely equated with willful ignorance. What an accomplishment. Moral philosophy has an object of curiosity in you.

              1. Derpy derp herp a derp

              2. In case you have not noticed, tony, not all of us have cars that run on plutonium.

                Oil companies have a purpose. Greeniacs do not.

              3. Yes, the scientific community has been victimized by a propaganda campaign

                You’re right. That’s exactly the same as being victimized by Congressional investigations.

        2. Put. The. Bottle. Down.

        3. We should stop their bad money by banning their denial ist websites.

          1. What limits of principle would you place in front of saving the biosphere?

            1. Show me the evidence the biosphere is in danger.

        4. Citation needed for all those climate scientists harassed and targeted

        5. You mendacious little piece of shit.

          You should just shut the fuck up and sit in the corner after what your team pulled with de Freitas, von Storch, Tol, Michaels, even Curry (ffs!) not to mention the blatant FOIA violation by Jones. And how did he get away with it? Well he just ran out the clock on the statute of limitations. Yup, the way to avoid punishment for violating the FOIA rules is to simply continue to withhold the information he was required to provide by law.

          http://judithcurry.com/2014/12…..ars-later/

          There sure is hell is false equivalency here, and it’s that the high priests of climastrology are in any way legitimate.

          1. I’m well aware of the bonanza of horseshit available to you morons. I’m trying to explain, there is a lot of fucking money, much of it hidden, behind the media program that has turned you into a drooling simian on this issue. And it’s too easy. Want to believe something? That want trumps a devotion to actual facts. For people like you anyway. People who never really gave much stock to facts–libertarians, who live a faith-based life at the church of the market. Your lives would be equally wasted awaiting Hale-Bopp.

            1. I’m well aware of the bonanza of horseshit available to you morons.

              Go back to worshipping at your Gaia shrine, you pathetic waste of carbon molecules.

        6. Everything is binary in this one’s world. Trouble is, the science isn’t nearly so clear cut. So…”denier.”

        7. Climate scientists for years have been harassed and targeted by people funded by oil money to convince idiots of ludicrous falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

          Tony is really an idiot.

          http://nofrakkingconsensus.com…..-for-thee/

          Guess it is only money from oil companies that go to the wrong people that count. It is perfectly okay, by Tony logic, that the AGU is partially funded by oil companies.

          AGU Fall Meeting

    2. When an over-reaching Dem loses Tony…

      1. No such luck; Tony’s still licking those private parts.

    3. Right? He should just be sending out Eric Holder to arrest, try, convict, and execute those rat bagging tea fucker deniers.

      Oh who am I kidding, they just need to drone them.

  3. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Denialist Party?

    1. Just wait until the Grijalva commission unearths the Woodstock typewriter these industry shills used to type up their seditious blasphemy…

  4. Grijalva claims to be motivated by the New York Times story earlier this week about the industry funding that supported some of the work by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics researcher Willie Soon. As an advocate of research transparency, I believe that Soon made a mistake if he failed to disclose some of his funding.

    The nasty implication being that only government funding makes the research pure and perfect and its validity irrefutable and beyond controversy.

    1. Or if you get money from Soros or Greenpeace or unions or whatever. Funding sources never taint the left, they only taint people not on the left.

    2. All money is government money.

    3. Soon really should have disclosed his funding sources. It goes against journal policy to not disclose it.

  5. So government funding is OK, because it’s so impartial?

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. You mock, but there are several goverment-funded studies that prove just that.

      In fact, those same studies also show that government-funded studies are necessary for the promotion of the nation’s health and well-being. Why do you hate science and America, Epi?

      1. It’s his jam.

        1. And that jam pairs quite nicely with a slice of toast and a scrambled bald eagle egg.

        1. My erection spontaneously generated an American Flag.

          1. Consult a physician if your flag last more than 4 hours.

  6. If the 7 university presidents don’t respond with some variation on a politely worded “fuck you”, the faculty senates at each institution are morally obligated to tar and feather them.

    1. UVA is clearly dedicated to academic freedom and integrity. Tells you everything you need to know.

  7. The party of liberals and progressives should be the first to be outraged by the use of such tactics.

    The IRS vs. Conservative-leaning 501(c)(4) groups scandal should tell you that the reverse is the exact case: the little red Marxians only feign outrage when the investigations affect them.

    1. But those conservative groups were just partisan!! Unlike Media Matters and OfA and Ms. magazine, which are educational and not partisan at all!!

  8. But because [Pielke’s] research finds that there has been no identifiable increase in the cost and human impacts of natural disasters due to human-caused global warming ? a finding that the IPCC has endorsed ? he has become a target of environmental activists and now, the ranking Democratic member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

    Nobody can question the One True Faith. Science Is Settled?. Its tenets are NOT subject to interpretation or second-guessing from wavering minds.

    By the way, when I asked idiots like Jackass Ass why exactly is Global Warming a bad thing, he consistently points to the clearly untrue assertion that AGW increases the destructive power of natural disasters.

    1. The cost and human impacts are now said to be hiding in the deep ocean, from which they will eventually emerge, to devastating effect.

      1. The cost and human impacts are now said to be hiding in the deep ocean, from which they will eventually emerge, to devastating effect.

          1. My mind immediately went to Cthulhu and the BP oil spill.

      2. “That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die”

      3. Just like Dagon!

      4. “..The cost and human impacts are now said to be hiding in the deep ocean..”

        Cold air balloon rides will be all the rage soon…

      5. My gawd, the malevolence of global warming – flaunting thermodynamics!

      6. Why did they not predict this would happen before?

  9. Grijalva’s investigation is part fishing expedition, part innuendo campaign. It won’t find nefarious funding of Pielke’s research. But it will drag his good name and reputation through the mud[…]

    Because, after all, the validity of scientific research rests entirely on the reputation of the researcher and not on the merits of the research itself – if the researcher happens not to be one of the flock.

    This is pure Lysenkoism of the 21st Century.

    1. Are you denying that Lysenko was a Darwin denialist ?

  10. If they had that button that would cause people’s heads to literally explode they would use it. In fact it would break from being used so much.

  11. It’s been 34 years of debate delaying climate action to SAVE THE PLANET with science’s laughable; “99%” certainty.
    Are they 99% sure the planet isn’t flat? Exaggerating vague science just to blame conservatives begs who’s the neocon?

  12. The real intention is to gin up a “controversy” with the goal of making journalists squeamish about ever quoting them or the[i]r work again in news stories about climate change.

    I don’t think Grijalva needs to go through this charade for that. Most journalists have swallowed the Climatey Changey claptrap hook, line and sinker and are devoted helpers in the spread of the One True Faith. Anything that can serve the cause for anti-capitalism will be dear to their beating hearts, the little souls. He has issued his fatwa against the unbelievers.

    This witch hunt has ONE exact purpose, and that is to silence dissent and discourage others from speaking or even researching alternative theories on climate. Again, Nobody can question the One True Faith. Science Is Settled?. Its tenets are NOT subject to interpretation or second-guessing from wavering minds.

  13. 2015 is definitely shaping up to be the year of Peak Stupid.

    1. 2015 is shaping up to be the Stupidest Year on Record.

      1. Its going to be tough to beat last year.

    2. TheZeitgeist’s comment from 2.27.16 @ 6:22 PM:

      2016 is definitely shaping up to be the year of Peak Stupid.

      1. Oh my god! Puddin is from the future!

  14. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)

    I guess Raul Grijalva must Fucking Love Science.

    1. The “fucking” part tells you how much they really love science! Get it now?

      1. They’re so edgy and cool. I bet they also watch the daily show and voted for Obama.

        1. What’s edgier and cooler than that? Only fucking loving science, that’s what!

          Hold on, I need to link to a story about some object in space that has really pretty enhanced pictures of it, it’ll just take me a minute…

        2. Hey, the Bills (Nye and McKibben) are way more sciencey than YOU!

  15. If Climate Chang skeptics are just a bunch of kooks spouting nonsense why is it so important to silence them? If I went around shouting the earth is flat people would just point and laugh and say look at that idiot. So if cc skeptics were like flat earthers why wouldn’t the response be the same? When the government doesn’t want you to hear what someone is saying that is someone you need to pay attention to.

    1. Climate Chang is a fucking liar!

    2. Climate Change. Climate Chang hems my trousers.

      1. I thought he was Weather Chang.

    3. It’s because they have Changnesia.

      Seriously, though, it’s kind of hilarious how these people actually think going “uh, no, these people are super wrong so we have to shut them up at any cost!” isn’t unbelievably obvious. Maybe the fact that they’re bonecrushingly stupid is part of it.

    4. Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples in history where groups who believe they hold the truth seek to silence those they believe do not hold the truth. Usually, they seen their opponents as persuading more gullible people to believe something that is not true.

      Note: I’m not on board with this, I’m just saying you can believe you hold absolute truth and still want to silence others.

      1. Like, for example, the need to get money out of politics from persuading more gullible people from not Voting the Right Way.

        1. Yep, that’s another example. I was thinking of religious purges: most Catholics believed they were right in the 1500s but had no problem killing Protestants; and vice versa of course.

    5. They are like flat earthers but nobody is spending millions of dollars to promote that worldview in media.

      1. Tony|2.27.15 @ 7:10PM|#
        “They are like flat earthers but nobody is spending millions of dollars to promote that worldview in media.”

        Assertion masquerading as argument; you’re right on target!

        1. Google “oil money for climate deniers” and indulge yourself.

          1. Oil companies provide fuel for our cars; they have impeccable credibility.

  16. No one expects the climate inquisition!

    1. You know who else liked to silence dissent?

      1. Hmm, that’s a pretty long list.

      2. Your parole board?

      3. Your mom?

      4. Gunnery Sergeant Hartman?

  17. Grijalva has a degree in sociology. he has demonstrated the ability to go to sociology class.

    1. But he rocks a lab coat, hater.

  18. OT:

    I know ya’ll would be thinking I made this up if I didn’t post the link:

    SJWs, The Game

    1. Whoa.

      I’m having trouble telling if it mocks SJWs or lionizes them. Unfortunately and unbelievably, I think it’s the latter.

      1. “I chose not to depict social justice warriors as the negative stereotype but as a symbol for any human standing up against ignorant people. By pairing social justice warriors with the opposing label used to dismiss someone online ? troll ? in a modernization of a medieval fantasy RPG, I hoped to get people talking about how we interact online. I have a bad habit of scrolling through the comments sections of every article I read. Even mundane articles about the third quarter earning reports of aluminum smelting companies are prone to random outbursts of racism and sexism.”

        Yup.

        1. Oh man, I now want to buy it:

          “2) Players face an endless series of one-on-one arguments with trolls. There is no victory condition so only 3 eventual outcomes are possible for the player: their mental faculties are worn down by conflict, their reputation is obliterated by the troll’s defamation or their own, or they ragequit. I hope players become more cognizant of the personal cost of engaging caustic individuals relative to what society will gain from the argument.”

          1. That’s funny seeing as SJWs are the ones who go looking for people to attack for making what they consider to be racist/sexist/whatever comments. Projection? From an SJW?!? That’s un-possible!

            1. And note that it’s the SJWs, who are always calling people racist/sexist/homophobic, are often the same ones who think any criticism of Obama is “insulting” and “beyond the pale” etc.

              This is Social Justice – SJW Blog and Argument Generator

      2. That’s because you are blinded by your privilege, cis-shitlord.. rapist..

        1. I love it when you dirty to me

      3. I would’ve disagreed based on the description of the SJW Cleric – that is brilliantly subversive to SJW-dom, but I tend to agree given the rest.

        1. Yeah at first I was going “oh man this is a brilliant takedown of the way SJWs must view themselves”…and then I realized it was just the way SJWs view themselves.

          1. I didn’t make this game with grand ambitions of changing the world, but intending to change a few open-minded people’s perspectives. It wasn’t meant to mock people who have been labeled as “social justice warriors” nor even the game’s opponents, “trolls”.

            These terms, SJW and troll, are used by a small subset of the internet to dismiss people’s opinions. Every community tends to adopt similar language. On stock message boards you’ll see people calling each other out as “pumper” and “short” for the same reasons. However, since warriors and trolls match up perfectly with RPG fantasy tropes, the game was titled Social Justice Warriors and built to mimic online platforms for sharing opinions while conforming to typical RPG class attacks.

            After the game was released, my web traffic exploded with thousands of hits coming from Reddit, Tumblr, Youtube, 4chan, and personal blogs. Following back all these links brought me to hundreds of assertions about the game and its creator, far outnumbering the number of people who had actually bought and played it. Many comments ironically resembled the troll comments from within the game ? wild accusations, ad hominem attacks, and crude insults ? but the most striking aspect of the comments was how they contradicted each other.

            http://nonadecimal.com/site/re…..-warriors/

            1. I once made a comment on Slashdot that got maybe 20 mods, bouncing me up and down, hitting every possible point value, from 5 down to -1. It was Insightful – Interesting – Overrated – Underrated – Troll – Flamebait, depending on who read it.

    2. The music…

      If it was a parody, the music wouldn’t be so terrible. It’s got to be real.

    3. I’m sure the game’s SJW’s would be better than some of the trolls that hang around here.

  19. “Earlier this week, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee embarked on a public campaign to smear the reputations of climate researchers whose results he evidently dislikes.”

    Government funded science is like totally unbiased man. It’s the Truth! The Science is Settled!

  20. If Ron runs the bibliographies of the erstwhile suspects through an academic ranking engine like ReserchGate he may have to do some rewriting–

    What’s really interesting about inquisitor Grijalva’s list is that short as it is , it is really quite exhaustive– there are less than a dozen really contrarian climate scientist in this country because the only one on the scientific A-list, Lindzen , hasn’t made any converts of note in twenty years,

    Were it not for Fox News most of the remaining seven would be languishing oin deserved obscurity, and several are publicists and politicoes pure and simple .

    1. The list is not by any means exhaustive. There aren’t very many A list climate scientists in the US of any type. I like how Christy isnt of note. There’s only 4 datasets, and two basically use the same I formation. Cristy develops the most accurate global temerature measurement dataset through sattelites for NASA and he’s a nobody.

    2. an academic ranking engine like ReserchGate

      Depending on the methodology, this could be a confirmation bias engine, reflecting the corruption of climate science as a body.

  21. I agree this is all a tempest in a teapot, and meaningless. If true, it doesn’t mean data was falsified.

    But your moral equivalency to the past is ridiculous. What Grijalva called for isn’t close to what Cuccinelli was attempting to do with Mann. Cuccinelli wanted a broad range of documents turned over. Grijalva is asking that sources of funding get made public, which is something most scientists abide by anyway…you yourself constantly refer to funding you got and you are not even doing science research (I think).

    And I might add, the equivalency should have been to climategate, which you showed little qualms about. You said this about the real tragedy of climategate:

    “But the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.”

    Wrong. All six investigations into climategate concluded there was no manipulation of data. The real tragedy of climategate was McCarthyism and smears, all from STOLEN emails. That was the police conclusion…stolen emails. And for you that wasn’t an issue, but a Congressman asking for sources of funding to be revealed is.

    Did you have a problem when Senator Jim Inhofe asked for an investigation into climategate? No.

    You are right that what Grivalja is doing is wrong (and in fact some environmental groups agree with you). Sadly, you’re not consistent with your outrage.

    1. By the way, Judith Curry (another target) had the best and most sober response.

      “Bottom line: Scientists, pay attention to conflict of interest guidelines for journals to which you are submitting papers. Select journals that have COI disclosure requirements that are consistent with your comfort level.”

      Indeed.

      http://judithcurry.com/2015/02…..e-science/

    2. By the way, just to be clear about what Inhofe wanted, it wasn’t an investigation into the event of climategate…it was an investigation of the individual scientist’s work whose names were on those stolen private emails, and whether their work was manipulated.

      There was less hue and cry from them about it, than there is from the right about Grijalva. Anyway, the investigations proved nothing in fraudulent data, so lets see if Grijalva’s request proves anything. If not, he will look silly, like you all did about climategate.

      1. Anyway, the investigations proved nothing in fraudulent data

        You’re really going to claim this? The climategate emails showed The Team manipulating data, manipulating the peer review process, intimidating other scientists, admitting to each other that maybe they’re blowing climate change out of proportion among other acts of lower integrity.

        Jones to Mann imploring him to delete incriminating emails to avoid being exposed by FOIA: “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [IPCC 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. ? We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [Climate Audit] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

        1. Worse than that. The emails show that raw source data was destroyed. The pretext was that they just ran of memory to store all that stuff.

        2. Let me refer you both to all sources of investigation that occurred into climategate. There were 6 of them:

          http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w…..PMHSnk5Ccw

          Here is what the National Science Foundation said, which was the investigation requested by Inhofe:

          The research in question was originally completed over 10 years ago. Although the Subject’s data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results. Much of the current debate focuses on the viability of the statistical procedures he eniployed, the statistics used to confirm the accuracy of the results, and the degree to which one specific set of data impacts the statistical results….Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

    3. Grijalva is asking that sources of funding get made public

      Well, they were public. The reason this is a story is because people went and found publicly accessible documents and saw that Soon did not disclose a funding source on one or more papers.

      1. The reason this is a story is because people went and found publicly accessible documents and saw that Soon did not disclose a funding source on one or more papers.

        The reason this is a story is because it is a hit piece. Read this. Take note that the contract included the following:

        Publicity. Smithsonian shall not publish and utilize the name or otherwise identify SCS or its affiliate companies in any publications or other advertisements without the express written consent of SCS. As further consideration to SCS, Smithsonian shall provide SCS an advance written copy of proposed publications regarding the deliverables for comment and input, if any, from SCS.

        The other reason it is a hit piece is due to the fact that the targets are always the skeptics. Meanwhile true believers are given a pass.

        Had you bothered to read any of the documents you would have known that:
        1. Soon is an employee
        2. Soon did not sign any of the documents related to the contract agreement.
        3.

    4. Cuccinelli wanted a broad range of documents turned over.

      The nerve, asking for documents bought and paid for with public money to be made available to the public.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    http://www.work-mill.com

  23. Rather than wasting time on this non-story (it feeds into all the conspiracy theory nonsense that permeates the right wing and many libertarians), you could post each week another scientific article or study that just keeps indicating how potentially serious this issue is.

    This week there were two such pieces on the subject of sea level rise. It turns out that recently on the east coast we have seen unprecedented rise in sea levels…5 inches in two years.

    “The coastal sea levels along the Northeast Coast of North America show significant year-to-year fluctuations in a general upward trend. The analysis of long-term tide gauge records identified an extreme sea-level rise (SLR) event during 2009?10. Within this 2-year period, the coastal sea level north of New York City jumped by 128?mm. This magnitude of interannual SLR is unprecedented (a 1-in-850 year event) during the entire history of the tide gauge records.”

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150…..s7346.html

    And then further reports that the amount of ice loss in the Antarctic is becoming alarming to scientists.

    “Before Antarctica was much of a wild card,” said University of Washington ice scientist Ian Joughin. “Now I would say it’s less of a wild card and more scary than we thought before…Over at NASA, ice scientist Eric Rignot said the melting “is going way faster than anyone had thought. It’s kind of a red flag.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/na…..story.html

    1. Can any of you fuckers explain how anything melts when the average maximum temperature in Antarctica in February is around -40?

      1. Yeah, genius. Its the water temperature that is warming not the air temperature. And its the water temperature that is melting the ice on portions of Antarctica.

        Try keeping up. Or at least read.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.