Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.

University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.”

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Pielke wrote on his blog.

Pielke is one of seven academics under Grijalva’s investigation for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research. Pielke says he’s never been funded by fossil fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much when he testified before Congress.

Grijalva’s investigation into climate scientists who scrutinize conclusions about man-made global warming comes after the New York Times published a piece critical of Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Wei-hock Soon for not disclosing his funding from energy companies in his research.

“Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air-quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulation and shapes public understanding of climate scientists,” Grijalva wrote to the presidents of seven universities housing supposedly skeptical scientists.

So what’s Pielke’s connection to all of this? Grijalva’s staff wrote that Pielke “has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts.” One “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.’”

Why is Pielke a target? Because White House science czar John Holdren has “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke,” according to Grijalva’s letter to the University of Colorado.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Holdren said Pielke’s views were “outside the mainstream.” Pielke presented evidence to the Senate that global warming is not causing weather, like hurricanes and floods, to become more frequent or extreme. Holdren, disagreed, and singled out Pielke in a six page statement saying that global warming was making the weather worse.

The main problem with Holdren’s argument is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which Holdren himself often defers to — has said the evidence favors Pielke’s argument that weather has not gotten more extreme.

The IPCC says that “[l]ong-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (10)

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    There is a religious cult that uses this practice. They call it “disfellowship”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jake

    |

    What are they so afraid of? The truth? I read the Congressman’s letter and it is full of innuendo, lies, and veiled threats at people’s livelihoods. Shameful. The people whose state he represents should send him a respectful letter telling him how shameful that letter was. Relying on the press for your facts? And he’s in Congress.

    And where is Inhofe while all this is going on? Or Beohner? C’mon guys, we could use a little help here.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      What about Snopes, Politifact, or FactCheck.org?

      Crickets.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    They’re in a corner and the only way out is to attack.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      Right you are. And, they are rats in the corner. When one has a rat in the corner they have no way out.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    They are in a corner of their own making. We have given them every opportunity to leave their precious corner peaceably but they refuse, and then become belligerent. These are the actions of mad dogs.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    What is needed now is for MORE researchers to “go over the top” and take the barrage of spitballs from Gore’s pawns. A simple statement like “Carbon Dioxide’s impact on climate change has yet to be determined” should suffice.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    They are desperate and acting like the Nazi’s did .Intimidate and relocate your enemies .

    Holdren’s days of top bureaucrat are numbered and he knows it.
    Dr.Pielke has already done enough research to know the truth .Other than the
    bullying tactics in the final months of a pathetic administration Dr.Pielke will no doubt be called upon to in short order to provide
    his input .

    Good job Dr.Pielke we know you aren’t going away .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    Why is it OK for Mrs. Clinton to accept money from Big Oil? Oh, it’s for her charity. Is she about to turn on the climate movement in return for large Arab cash donations? Considering the polls, carbon taxes look like a political liability.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    A forcing adds energy to earth analogous to speed adding distance on a trip. Both need to operate for a duration to accumulate any energy change to the planet or distance on the trip. If the forcing is constant, the energy change is simply the forcing times the duration. If the forcing varies (or not), the energy change is the time-integral of the forcing. On the planet, the energy added divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) gives the average global temperature (AGT) change. Therefore the AGT change is equal to an appropriate scale factor times the time-integral of the forcing.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), has been considered to be a forcing. If so, the AGT change attributable to CO2 change must equal an appropriate scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level. As such (unless overwhelmed by an as-yet-undiscovered forcing which magically disappeared as soon as credible average global temperature measurements became available) the temperature could only increase. Observation that the AGT trend ever sustainably decreases is evidence that the scale factor is zero, CO2 is not a forcing, and something else is causing the temperature change.

    According to widely available data from Vostok, Antarctica ice cores, during previous glaciations and interglacials, CO2 and AGT went up and down approximately in lock-step (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth). This demonstrates that, at least up to about 300 ppmv, CO2 has no significant effect on AGT.

    Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on AGT.

    Some might assert that there must be a ‘break even’ CO2 level. Above this level CO2 is a positive forcing and below the break-even level the AGT trajectory would indicate it was a negative forcing.

    Pick any two end temperatures. A ‘break-even’ CO2 level and offset can be determined such that the calculation will produce the two end temperatures. However, pick two different end temperatures and a different ‘break-even’ CO2 level would be calculated. Since the possibility of many different ‘break-even levels is ludicrous, the conclusion that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT prevails and something else is causing the temperature change.

    Because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, if CO2 change does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change. THUS THE CO2 CHANGE FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CLIMATE and climate sensitivity (the effect on AGT of doubling CO2 is not significantly different from zero.

    See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 or search “agwunveiled”.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.