Congressman Raul Grijalva’s Witch Hunt

Update: I now learn via Judith Curry’s blog that Pielke is not the only scientist being pursued. In addition to Pielke and Curry herself, David Legates, John Christy,  Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling,  Steven Hayward.

This is scary.

I am a registered Democrat most recently living in Nancy Pelosi’s district in San Francisco. I am more than a Democrat–I am a liberal progressive who supported Barack Obama (and who thinks he has done a very good job as president).

Some years ago I wrote an open letter to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli regarding his investigation of Michael Mann. I told him it was a witch hunt and that absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing he had no business going after Mann, who is someone I have criticized for getting on for a decade.

Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva is also a Democrat. Anything else we share is a mystery to me.

Witch Hunt

People get burned in modern times for being witches. McCarthyism is not such a distant memory. Persecuting scientists because you don’t like their science is not that old either–just ask about Lysenkoism, something that happened within living memory.

Grijalva is investigating 7 scientists including Roger Pielke Jr. to ascertain if they are receiving funding from sources Grijalva does not like. This is in the wake of the recent controversy over Willie Soon’s funding.

Apparently Grijalva has a particular dislike of scientists receiving funding from the Koch brothers. I assume physicist Richard Muller of BEST had best get his papers in order.

Pielke has already disclosed his funding to Congress. He receives no funding from fossil fuel interests. Even if he had received such funding, it is clear that he is being harassed because the data he presents to Congress is not welcome politically.

Pielke has researched the effects, incidence and impacts of large scale climate events. He has found consistently that, although he accepts the science of climate change, it is impossible to impute it as a cause for more or stronger weather disasters. And he is correct. Even the IPCC has said that extreme weather events would not start impacting our planet until 2030 in some cases and even later in others.

The fact that the data he presents to Congress is accurate seems not to matter. Pielke has blogged that he intends to drop all research related to climate issues.

Grijalva’s investigation is resulting in a defeat for science. It is a wicked act and a shame, not just for Democrats such as myself but for the country I love.

When Republican Cuccinelli did this I felt a little smug–my party would never stoop so low. Congressman Raul Grijalva is proving me wrong–Democrats can be as stupid, short-sighted and dirty as any other party.

This is a witch hunt. Representative Grijalva, call off your dogs. You make me ashamed of my political party.

24 responses to “Congressman Raul Grijalva’s Witch Hunt

  1. The best way to combat this nonsense is to keep pointing out the alarmists like Muller who have also gotten money from the Koch’s. The Koch’s are playing a clever and dangerous game. They benefit from the EPA declaring co2 a pollutant and they benefit from the ethanol subsidy. But they want the public to look elsewhere when the bills come in.
    Americans aren’t that stupid. They’ll figure it out.

  2. These quotes from Judith Curry say it well.

    ” Are we not to be concerned by fossil fuel funding of consensus climate science (there is plenty of that, see below)? ”
    “The reality is that fossil fuel money is all over climate research, whether pro or con AGW. Gifts of $100M+ have been made by oil companies to Stanford and Princeton. Anthony Watts notes the prominence of oil companies in funding the American Geophysical Union [link]. The Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy take fossil fuel money [link]. The UKMetOffice has stated that energy companies are major customers.”

    Why do alarmists think that oil and gas companies are funding them? We have to make that an issue.

  3. There will almost certainly be a Barbara Streisand effect. Pielke, Jr.’s detailed description of the disconnect between weather extremes and global warming will be more widely known.

    • How is it to be more widely known? Because of the extensive investigative jourmalism from the NYT, NPR and pals?
      What universe are you in?

  4. Thank you I am Libertarian leaning science loving recovering Republican. Thank you for standing up for the truth..

  5. I am a social progressive and political conservative. and agree with everything you say here.

    I am a skeptic but in the sense of lukewarmist. I do not supports the alarmism. But I do understand and support the physics as set out by Goody and Yung and taught in most atmospheric physics couses, which is what you would expect since my most recent masters was in Earth Science.

    I would prefer you to say, “Pielke has researched the effects, incidence and impacts of large scale * weather * events.” which fits better the context.

    As part of my research for the M.S. I studied the rejection of continental drift. In the days before plate tectonics, you could not safely present Wegener’s theory in an American university. A few did but they were so well established that nothing could have prevented them. But graduate students were advised to keep secret any ideas they had that continents were not fixed in place.

    • Frederick
      The Wegner lesson is meaningful to climate fanatics only as a way of illustrating how the suppression of Wegner failed to preserve the status quo and what should have been done to preserve it longer.

  6. I decided to support the Grijalva 7 by coming clean my self with my own disclosure to the Congressman.

    • I recall getting plastic dinosaurs from Sinclair when my parents bought gas there. Do I have to report that?

      • Only if:
        You became a scientists AND those plastic dinosaurs influenced your decision to become a scientist AND you still have one sitting on your desk at work while you conduct research. If all of the above apply to you, then declare your lifelong unholy alliance with evil and tender your resignation immediately. 🙂

  7. How could anyone possibly be surprised by this action? People have been shouting down skeptics for over a decade now. This is definitely a dog bites man story. I say let them go crazy. Legislate speaking about climate out of existence. We need a “conspiracy to subvert the scientific consensus” law. For the public good.

    “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”

    The fact that many feel this is a “safe action” in their tribe and will have no negative consequences shows how warped this debate has become. The more warped it becomes, the more obvious it is to everyone that science exited stage left a long time ago.

    It is noted that some climate scientists have spoken out against this action. I guess we will have to reschedule the burning at the stake for a later time.

    • Tom,
      Please do recall the reaction of the NYT and the rest of the legacy media when NASA asked Hansen to please clear his public statements with his employer and to not misrepresent NASA’s position on climate. We are nowhere close to a situation where the climate obsessed are willing to have an actual discussion on the matter.

  8. Anyone voting Obama twice and thinks he’s a great press-ident, sorry that was enough for me.

  9. Apparently there is “good” McCarthyism and there is “bad” McCarthyism.

    So what’s the next step…signed loyalty oaths? A mark on our foreheads?

    By all means let’s line up the accused before the grand inquisitor…

    Beyond sickening…

  10. Recently NOAA and NASA have demonstrated where science stands on climate. (lip-synch the administration). NASA came out with a claim that 2014 was the “hottest”. Both NOAA and NASA use terrestrial temperature recording stations, so the coverage is less than 30% of the earth’s surface — much less than that, actually, because there are no thermometers in large uninhabited regions (the poles, deserts, jungles, mountainous regions, grasslands, etc.) Actual coverage less than 20%, with distances between some stations as much as 1200km. Then there is the fact that the miniscule differences between recent warm years involves no more than a few hundredths of one degree whereas the measurement uncertainty is 1/10 of a degree, probably larger when you take into consideration whats been done with the raw data. Most of the thermometers are located within urban heat islands, so the raw data must also be significantly “revised” by several degrees. This information was, fortunately, well enough known that it created a ruckus.

    NOAA and NASA responded by revising positions. Each decided, separately, to assign probabilities to each of the recent candidate (for hottest) years. The probabilities were independent for each such year, so added to 100%. Those numbers are, of course, also dubious. It turns out that 2014 was assessed at 38% by one agency and 48% by the other. This indicates that, while 2014 had a higher probability than any one other year, it was still less than 50/50 that 2014 was the hottest !

    On the other hand, the two satellites accruing global temperature data both measure almost the entire earth (but the troposphere rather than the earth surface). If the same original (albeit bogus) analysis had been used with the satellite data 2014 would have been ranked 3rd hottest by one satellite and 7th hottest by the other. (Ranking remains bogus because of miniscule temperature differences).

    How could any supposed government science organizations make such ludicrous claims without at least providing caveats about miniscule differences and conflicting data from satellites? Certainly the satellite data agrees quite well with weather balloons, and the RSS satellite uses very accurate calibration techniques. Why are both government agencies ignoring satellite data?

    Could it be because the satellite data shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 3 months? Or is it because a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the AGW hypothesis to be valid is that the troposphere be warmer than the earth’s surface?

  11. You should be ashamed of your political party and its leadership. They have screwed the pooch on climate from the get go. Now they have witch hunted Pielke jr. out of climate science.

    • Paul Kelly, both parties are filled with idiots and henchmen for hire. I’m just impressed that Mr.Fuller had the integrity to SEE and ADMIT the error in his own party just as readily as he did in another one. In today’s world, that takes guts.

      I just hope it gives him a healthy suspicion that continues into the future and causes him to ONLY give trust to those who have truly earned it in the first place.

    • I am. Deeply ashamed. And I won’t forget it when it comes to campaign contributions and possible even at the ballot box.

  12. Some years ago I wrote an open letter to Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli regarding his investigation of Michael Mann. I told him it was a witch hunt and that absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing he had no business going after Mann, who is someone I have criticized for getting on for a decade.

    Regardless of Cuccinelli’s motives, the issue was one of access to emails under an FOI request. If a civil servant uses an official email system, they are functioning on behalf of the people, therefore the people have a right to the work product (the email). If Mann was working as an individual, he should have used a personal account. It was a miscarriage of justice to deny access to Mann’s emails.

    As a civil servant, my colleagues and myself always had to remain aware of this. It just goes with the job.

    • Yeah, Tom helped a publicly funded scientist avoid reasonable scrutiny and compliance with lawful FOIA requests. If Mann had been a skeptic the files would have been released immediately. Tom and the others who condemned the Virginia move were being played.. He was wrong then and is naively still thinking that this is a reasonable situation where rules should apply equally.

  13. The biggest question here is who is paying Grijalva to pursue this witch hunt. Geology and Paleantology show us that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around, so there is nothing that man can do to alter the climate. The “consensus” of scientists supporting “climate change” is anti scientific, it is strictly political. Science is about repeatable experiments and defying the accepted norm. Every REAL scientist questions everything until it has been proven by repeated experiments, regardless of who is paying for his time. Everyone gets paid by somebody. It is interesting to speculate how much and who, aside from the US taxpayer, is paying Grijalva to support a fraud that makes Bernie Madoff look honest. When the US spends $22 billion per year to fight non existent “climate change” that is a very large fraud, just in the US alone. After all Al Gore has made over $100 million off the scam, who knows how many others have made just as much, or more and don’t want their gravy train to come off the tracks.

  14. Pingback: Will Political Hardball Settle the Climate Debate or Kill It? | The Lukewarmer's Way

  15. Pingback: Climate Hyperbole Is Dead | The Lukewarmer's Way

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s