Climate scientist being investigated by Congress for not believing in global warming enough
By Rick Moran
Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and six others are under investigation by Congress regarding testimony they've given on the subject of climate change.
Pielke, a believer in man-caused global warming, can't quite figure out why he's the object of a witch hunt.
Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.
What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:
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 impacts. His 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.”
The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.
Pielke is no stranger to controversy. Last year, Nate Silver hired him to write for his blog Five Thirty Eight, and his very first post caused climate hysterics' heads to explode:
Pielke’s time at FiveThirtyEight got off to a stormy start shortly after the site went live in March. In his first piece for the site, Pielke wrote that the increased cost of natural disasters is not the result of climate change — a premise that was heavily criticized. Pielke wrote a follow-up to that article two days later, and Silver commissioned a rebuttal the following week. But Pielke only wrote three more piecesfor the site after that, all of which focused on sports and not climate.
Silver acted in a cowardly fashion after the climate hysteric's posse ganged up on him. Professor Pielke's conclusions appeared in peer-reviewed journals and are in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published.
Pielke's real sin is that he thinks it will be decades before the "solutions" being offered by climate hysterics will begin to work so we should be working on ways to adapt to the changing climate instead. This sort of thing just isn't spoken allowed among the
By Rick Moran
Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and six others are under investigation by Congress regarding testimony they've given on the subject of climate change.
Pielke, a believer in man-caused global warming, can't quite figure out why he's the object of a witch hunt.
Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.
What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:
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 impacts. His 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.”
The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.
Pielke is no stranger to controversy. Last year, Nate Silver hired him to write for his blog Five Thirty Eight, and his very first post caused climate hysterics' heads to explode:
Pielke’s time at FiveThirtyEight got off to a stormy start shortly after the site went live in March. In his first piece for the site, Pielke wrote that the increased cost of natural disasters is not the result of climate change — a premise that was heavily criticized. Pielke wrote a follow-up to that article two days later, and Silver commissioned a rebuttal the following week. But Pielke only wrote three more piecesfor the site after that, all of which focused on sports and not climate.
Silver acted in a cowardly fashion after the climate hysteric's posse ganged up on him. Professor Pielke's conclusions appeared in peer-reviewed journals and are in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published.
Pielke's real sin is that he thinks it will be decades before the "solutions" being offered by climate hysterics will begin to work so we should be working on ways to adapt to the changing climate instead. This sort of thing just isn't spoken allowed among the
climate change conformists:
“Disinformer!” the Daily Kos screamed. “One of the country’s leading tricksters on climate change,” charged the
Huffington Post. “Inaccurate and misleading,” was ThinkProgress’s measured verdict. Even that doyen of
professionalism and sworn enemy of hyperbole, Michael Mann, weighed in, knocking his foe for his “pattern of
sloppiness.” The pile-on was as predictable as it was unjust. At root, Pielke’s biggest crimes are to have walked at
slightly different pace than his peers and to have refused to bow to the president. Pielke accepts the IPCC’s view of
the climate-change question but suggests in parallel that man’s response is unlikely to have a “perceptible impact
on the climate for many decades” and that civilization should thus adapt to, rather than attempt to prevent, change.
Elsewhere, Pielke has corrected Barack Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, who has recently taken to claiming
that everything under the sun is the product of global warming — droughts, hurricanes, wildfires — and who never
misses a chance, in Pielke’s words, to “[exaggerate] the state of scientific understanding.” For this unconscionable
resistance to fashion, Silver and his hire were marked for destruction.
Pielke's transgression is that he isn't hysterical enough about climate change. Unless you subscribe to the belief that runaway global warming is going to destroy us all - tomorrow - your views are suspect and you can safely be called a "denier." Pielke has dropped all research into climate change - a victory for the anti-science forces on the left. That's one less honest scientist to rebut the constant drumbeat of false information coming from climate change advocates.
Pielke's transgression is that he isn't hysterical enough about climate change. Unless you subscribe to the belief that runaway global warming is going to destroy us all - tomorrow - your views are suspect and you can safely be called a "denier." Pielke has dropped all research into climate change - a victory for the anti-science forces on the left. That's one less honest scientist to rebut the constant drumbeat of false information coming from climate change advocates.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment