Roger Pielke, Jr. Being Investigated by Representative Grijalva for Presenting Inconvenient Data

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Roger Pielke, Jr. is not a skeptic of human-induced global warming, as we all know.  Pielke Jr. is being investigated, however, for the “crime” of presenting data that disagree with alarmists who make bogus claims about weather and weather-related losses.

See Roger’s post I am under “Investigation”, in which he discusses the investigation by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.  Pielke, Jr.’s “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.”

Roger notes in his post:

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.

Remarkably, Pielke, Jr.’s 2013 Senate testimony (here) is basically a data presentation which shows:

  1. Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).
  2. Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
  3. Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.
  4. There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or in the overall number of tropical cyclones.
  5. Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
  6. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
  7. Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
  8. Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”

Again, Roger presented graphs of data that support his statements.

Yet, somehow, presenting data that contradict alarmist hype is worthy of an investigation by an elected US representative—an investigation that has so far been a waste of Roger’s time, the time of the President of the University of Colorado Boulder, and, of course, the time of US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ).

Roger notes how this has also impacted his research and may impact others:

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. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

As Andrew Montford notes in his post Why you can’t trust climatology at BishopHill:

Roger has always struck me as one of the most robust participants in the climate debate. When someone as thick-skinned as he is is forced out then it really does tell you something about the trustworthiness of what climatologists and the IPCC tell us.

The word is “nugatory”, I think.

Advertisements

242 thoughts on “Roger Pielke, Jr. Being Investigated by Representative Grijalva for Presenting Inconvenient Data

  1. With the Republicans in the majority in the House of Representatives, I am surprised to read that a Democrat remains the Head of any committee in the House.
    I wonder why Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) hasn’t been replaced and this investigation dropped?

      • Yr: “it’s coming”
        A prescient comment. Concise. KISS (KeepItSimpleStupid). Corroboration? Rabett Run blog-post “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics–Hijinks 4”, February 23, 2015 blog-post comment by a certain Everette F. Sargent, in relation to Prof. “Willie” Soon:
        “His wife [Prof Soon’s] (who looks like the Willard Anthony Watts sans the Village People ‘stache)? His his offspring who looks like the Village People with ‘stache?”
        So what sort of “ideology” would compel someone like Everette F. Sargent to make fun of the personal appearance of another man’s wife and son? Let me add that in another comment, the Sargent, snout-piece hive-orifice advises that he’s “retired” so he hardly has the excuse that he’s some sort of “dumb kid” being stupid. Rather, Sargent’s remarks, we can well imagine, are the product of a well-considered, life-long immersion in the hive’s group-think, and all that implies.
        And what to think of Eli Rabbet who would permit such a comment on his blog? While previously I had estimated Eli to be a crusty, ol’ fart lefty of the old-school–tough, bare-knuckles, stand-up,–but infused with a sense of bourgeois-nostalgic decency, I now see otherwise. My clarified perception is that he’s a contemptible, low-life piece of bunny, loose-stool, whatever-it-takes lefty-scat.
        Professor Soon’s family has never been promoted as public persons, Eli and Sargent, you slime-ball pieces of shit! So where do you you two lefty-puke assholes get off on going after a man’s wife and children?
        C’mon over to this blog (I’m sure Watts will permit the same) and let’s have it out, scum-bags! Double dare you!, Fuck You!!, and “YO MOMMA!!!”

    • He’s not the chairman, but the ranking Dem member. Still has power.
      Rob Bishop of UT is the chairman.

      • No “investigation” occurs without consent of the relevant committee chairman. Subpoenas cannot be issued without his consent either. No cooperation with Grijalva is necessary business of this committee.

      • The only thing that Grijalva can do with out the approval of the committee is issue press releases. His ridiculous letters have as much official force as those fund raising solicitations with all kinds of stamps and seals on them. If you trash canned one of Grijalva’s letters no harm would come to you. Same thing if you wrote “Sod Off, Swampy” in large green marker letters and sent it back to him.

    • The “ranking member” of a committee is not the head of the committee but rather the most senior member of the minority party.

      • Raul is a pretty pathetic partisan. In comparison to the other Libs in Congress, he makes E Warren look downright reasonable. But he has very limited ability to do anything of substance on the committee, as a minority member. His only ability is too be a mouthpiece for Holdren on the committee.
        This is merely part of a coordinated effort to suppress the CAGW skepticism from scientists who may be considering speaking up. They’ll just have to look at Soon and Pielke Jr. harrassment. The dirty tricks coming at skeptic academics will get worse as Congress begins to investigate the temperature record adjustments by NASA and NOAA.

      • Admad February 25, 2015 at 8:02 am
        “He ranks among the highest in Rome” [Life Of Brian]
        Sorry Adman, with the speech impediment the quote is,
        ‘He wanks amongst the highest in Wome.’
        Just a little bit different.

      • old44 – I was just trying to spare the blushes of any sensitive souls who may be passing! Love the film though, in my humble opinion the funniest ever made.

      • Totally offtopic, but use of British slang took me back ten years to Kandahar. At twilight, as chow hounds of all nations trudged to the DFAC (mess hall), Oregon & Nevada National Guard Chinook air crew & a reporter hid in concrete blast shelters while jerking a wooden snake across the dark rocks with which the base was covered. One startled British troopie exclaimed, “Bloody Yank wankers!”

    • Pielke and Soon are aimed to make us forget about Pachauri, the alleged SEXUAL predator of a young Indian woman. He’ll be back.

      • I think you give them too much credit, they never saw this coming, and now that the ship has been holed below the water line, it’s gonna be every man for himself.
        Just give it a minute or two.

    • He’s the “ranking member.” All that means is that he’s the minority member whose snout has been in the trough longer than any other Democrat on the committee. The chairman of the committee is Rob Bishop R – UT.

    • Grijalva is correctly identified as “ranking” committee member, which means head of the Dem minority. As such, he has some (limited) discretion and funds to pursue his witch hunts.

    • Actually, he’s a “ranking member”. The Chair is John Kline (R-MN). Grijalva is merely an “ex-officio” on the sub-committees. There are no Democrats running any House Committee of Sub-Committee. Given the GOP’s caving on issues like the current DHS funding theater, a casual observer could think otherwise.
      Obtw, if you’ve failed to notice, the Democrats and the greens have kicked off their run up to the 2016 campaign beginning with the hit piece by the NYT regarding Dr. Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. They’re (elected Democrat politicians) demainding universities provide emails of any heretic along with MSM hit pieces on same.
      How the heretics are responding is what’s the issue. Pielke caved. Most will follow. The theme, familar to most by now, is if you disagree with them then you must have been bribed due to funding and here’s something that looks like proof of your corruption. They follow a modification of the old legal mime of “if the facts support you, argue the facts. If the facts don’s support you, smear the witness.”
      After all, it’s is merely political campaigning. For those that cave in, you’ve lost the campaign. Maybe forever.

    • Holdren. Yes, but who is actively and with confidential purpose providing the counseling to Holdren?
      In answer to my own question, it seems that all this smacks of the disturbing meme advocated in the book ‘Merchants of Doubt’.
      John

    • This Holdren? Great. 🙁
      “Holdren has previously stated that the United States and the rest of the world have too many people, a population bomb that technology can’t defuse.
      “Dr. Holdren has a record only surpassed by his longtime collaborator Paul Ehrlich for spreading misinformation and making failed predictions,” Myron Ebell, director of international energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
      “In addition, Dr. Holdren has advocated a wide array of despicable policies, such as mandatory population control, and was a willing stooge of the Soviet Union as a member for several decades of the Pugwash Conference (and of which he was chairman when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995),” Ebell added. “John Holdren is therefore the perfect “science diplomat” for an administration that peddles junk science and supports policies that will make poor people, and especially poor people in poor countries, poorer. As President Obama’s science diplomat, he can now advocate for global impoverishment on a global stage.”
      http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/04/obama-science-diplomat-advocated-for-population-control/

  2. Well Dr. Pieike -You are now among the likes of Galileo . What next? the good representative will say that the Earth is Orbited by the sun?

  3. This is just a Democratic response to the congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data that will be held later.

    • Ds getting their pre-taliation in good & early, in other words; trying to blow up a cloud of (Bull)dust, to obscure their own (side’s) exaggeration, suppression of truth, suggestion of misinformation, and – conceivably – downright lies.
      Watermelon politics as usual, I gather.
      Auto

  4. McCarthyism is alive and well.
    If those in climate “science” have to resort to such scummy behaviour, then how can anyone ever trust these people again!

    • Confused,
      Good analogy–except you’re wrong in using “McCarthyism” as an epithet.
      McCarthy’s accusations were, essentially, correct.
      The State Department, DOD, and other agencies of the executive branch were full of communists.
      McCarthy’s error was in under-estimating the extent of the communist and Willing Accomplice presence in the government.
      His other error was in ignoring the infiltration of Willing Accomplices, who are, by definition, dedicated to the destruction of Normal-America, into the three domains of American cultural transmission: the media, education/academia, and Hollywood.
      So, if you’re accusing the House Democrats of “McCarthyism,” you’ve got your weapon pointed the wrong way.
      The Democrats, heirs to the whole “McCarthyism” smear campaign that impugned Sen McCarthy’s reputation for all time, are the masters of the denigration/smear/intimidation tactics based on lies and half-truths.
      For more details, see Stan Evan’s masterful exploration of McCarthy and his attackers, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”:
      http://humanevents.com/2007/11/13/stan-evans-has-produced-masterpiece-of-truth-about-joe-mccarthy/

      • +1
        And the interesting thing about McCarthy is that he didn’t even want them fired. He only wanted and eye kept on them and moved to jobs that had no influence and no possible access to sensitive material. Kind of like Obama’s job now where his only access to “intelligence” seems to be reading about stuff that happens in the world in the morning paper or seeing it on MSNBC.

      • Nice historical summary re McCarthy and the communists= radical leftists= progressives who smeared him.

    • Except that history and FOIA now confirm that MaCarthy was right. And the people he was “outing” were the likes of the U.N., socialist agenda, CFR, and what has now emerged as the force behind the entire global warming scam….errrr…..crisis of opportunity. See AGENDA 21 for the culmination of what McCarthy was trying to prevent. See ICLEI for the bottom up approach and the CFR for the top down. ConfusedPhoton, no disrespect intended but you are confused; as you are defending a smear against a legitimate scientist by defending alarmists…because you are incorrectly falling for the smear against McCarthy, the last official to try to stand up against the United Nations NWO and what has become the Global Warming/Climate Change orthodoxy.

      • No, history tells us a large number of people were falsely accused and others were forced to make false accusations with threats of being blacked. There is no smear against mcCarthy as it was a very dark period in US history!

      • McCarthy was right, ConfusedPhoton. We know this now because of intelligence docs released by the Soviets. There really were Commie spies infiltrating government and public institutions and McCarthy has been falsely smeared by the same stripe of Lib/Totalitarians as are hounding Pielke Jr. But go ahead, drink the Koolaid and slip back into the Matrix Coma you seem to enjoy. The truth isn’t always pretty, but it is the truth.

      • Photon that’s so Confused.
        Alive and well, but real confused about history.
        1) See if you can spot the error. Senator McCarthy / House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). House members (who serve on House Committees) are titled Representative.
        2) But Rankin, a committee member and a devout segregationist and anti-communist, outmaneuvered House leaders and introduced a resolution to confer HUAC full, standing status at the opening of the 79th Congress (1945–1947). Make-up of the 79th Congress
        244 Democrats
        189 Republicans
        1 American-Labor
        1 Progressive
        Dems in control
        3) The film industry investigations reached their peak with the events surrounding the Hollywood Ten, a group of writers and directors who were called to testify in October 1947. – Repb in control , playing by Dems rules.

      • Confused…you really are confused. You are conflating the issues of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee with the activities of SENATOR Joe McCarthy. I am always amazed at the legs this lie has had. A SENATOR has nothing to do with the activities of a committee of the House of Representatives. The folks in the HOR really went overboard in some of their questioning techniques and rhetoric. All those newsreel scenes of actors and others were at the HOUSE committee. The senator made a number of fiery speeches but didn’t “Blacklist” anyone. The US Government actually never “BLACKLISTED” any member of the public, that was done by individual industries (such as film production studios), though admittedly with the tacit approval of the HUAC.

    • To be fair .. released intercepts showed McCarthy was correct.
      Turns out the US Government was infested with communist spies
      Read up on the Venona Intercepts
      Not sure what this current nut has to say.. everything he said is fact

      • All true about VENONA, and most people didn’t need those transcripts to know that Hiss and The Rosenbergs were guilty as sin. It must also be admitted that Joe McCarthy was something of a punk and an incompetent. It is a crying shame that the job of ferreting out the Pinko fifth column in the US was left to him. But the true tragedy of that does have some purchase with the issue of Warmageddon. The true tragedy of the McCarthy era was that the Anti-Anti-Communists, those who, though they did oppose communism, could not bear to see their peers – who went to the same elite Eastern schools as they did, brought down by the likes of McCarthy and Nixon, men with the stink of the common on them. One need look no further to understand this aspect of the tale than the condescending aside of Hiss to Nixon: “My college was Harvard, I understand yours was Whittier.”
        As Whittaker Chambers put it in his magnificent autobiography “Witness”:
        No feature of the Hiss Case is more obvious, or more troubling as history, than the jagged fissure, which it did not so much open as reveal, between plain men and women of the nation, and those who affected to act, think and speak for them. It was, not invariably, but in general, the “best people” who were for Alger Hiss and who were prepared to go to almost any length to protect and defend him. It was the enlightened and the powerful, the clamorous proponents of the open mind and the common man, who snapped their minds shut in a pro-Hiss psychosis, of a kind which, in an individual patient, means the simple failure of the ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, and, in a nation, is a warning of the end.
        Some similarities to current events can be readily deduced

    • @confusedphoton, read a book by a communist from Czechoslovakia from the early fifties called : “Not a shot fired” Jan Kozak the author was a high level bureaucrat that designed the infiltration of the West by using “refugees” etc . Find an excerpt on Google under his name a chilling bit of work of which we see the results today. It has been planned for over 70 years.

    • Well, there does seem to be more than the usual flailing about, melodrama, accusations and spittle flying.

    • You may be right. Pachauri hasn’t exactly helped the Klimat Bewegung, lately. The question is how long the MSM can hold out–how long before some well-known reporter sees an opportunity to deliver a Woodward & Bernstein revelation of the naked emperors behind “climate science.” All it would take is the release of ONE memo from within a critical group. The Congressional investigation of the temperature record (and “my-dog-ate-the-archives” Phil Jones, who was, iirc, partly funded from US budgets) should get some welcome attention from all but the most Leftist press. Not a sure thing, yet, but there are a few more cracks in the hoax every week.

    • Jimmy: I figure it’s the French Defence (there is one) – which will probably be called the Paris defence now. I quote: “The French Defence is one of the best known, and effective openings at black’s disposal.” It goes on to say: [It] made a case that the best ploy by white was to […] go for a space advantage and an attack on the king.”

  5. Hey, I just noticed that the first post in this thread was not by some Alarmist lunatic wacko!
    Well, still a lunatic wacko, but it is a refreshing change.
    /grin

  6. The insidious matsis of climate fanaticism is destroying our ability to think critically about any issue.
    That Pielke has run away from this issue says a lot.
    The climate cult mob is going to be as destructive as the eugenics cult mob before this is over.

    • Legates, Christy, Lindzen, Curry, Balling, Hayward & Pielke. Here the Link to the letters send their respective Universities. It’s really weird stuff and a waste of time, more than anything else.
      Letter to Georgia Tech:
      As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty
      to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers
      are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Times
      report and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to
      disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change
      and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.
      As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr.
      Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the
      basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the
      Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not
      disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science
      Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s
      work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate
      studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.
      If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Judith Curry at the School of Earth and
      Atmospheric Sciences has testified multiple times before the U.S. Congress on climate change.’
      Last year, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, she
      informed the panel that “The sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and
      intense is symptomatic of pre-1970 ‘weather amnesia.”‘
      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. Companies with a direct financial interest in
      climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and
      federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be
      clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.
      Read more

    • My perivous comment vanished.
      The names are; Legates, Christy, Curry, Lindzen, Ballinger, Hayward & Pielke.
      Here the link to the letters send to their respective Universities. (also posted downthread by another commenter)

  7. Sorry Bob, but I can’t agree with the statement:
    wasting… the time of US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ).
    If he was not involved in this witch-hunt, he might instead be passing laws, making speeches or not answering media questions.
    Although this is clearly wasting Roger’s time, almost anything else Raúl Grijalva might be doing would be at last as damaging, if not more so.

    • As a minority member of the House of Reps, flapping his gums in front of reporters and giving interviews is all Raul has. Passing legislation, or more importantly, being involved in writing the legislation that will pass, just isn’t available to a minority House member.

  8. Confused,
    Good analogy–except you’re wrong in using “McCarthyism” as an epithet.
    McCarthy’s accusations were, essentially, correct.
    The State Department, DOD, and other agencies of the executive branch were full of communists.
    McCarthy’s error was in under-estimating the extent of the communist and Willing Accomplice presence in the government.
    His other error was in ignoring the infiltration of Willing Accomplices, who are, by definition, dedicated to the destruction of Normal-America, into the three domains of American cultural transmission: the media, education/academia, and Hollywood.
    So, if you’re accusing the House Democrats of “McCarthyism,” you’ve got your weapon pointed the wrong way.
    The Democrats, heirs to the whole “McCarthyism” smear campaign that impugned Sen McCarthy’s reputation for all time, are the masters of the denigration/smear/intimidation tactics based on lies and half-truths.
    For more details, see Stan Evan’s masterful exploration of McCarthy and his attackers, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”:
    http://humanevents.com/2007/11/13/stan-evans-has-produced-masterpiece-of-truth-about-joe-mccarthy/

  9. Roger Pielke did nothing more or less than present data consistent with the findings of the IPCC (AR5. WG1, chapter 2). The best science we have, I’m told.
    Well Representative Grijalva,

    Maybe you’re right to dislike Roger Pielke. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity (of scientists) responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system (the IPCC)? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general (the UN)? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society (our best science?) Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America (or the best science the world has to offer). Gentlemen!

    (Animal House 1978, minor revisions)
    (note, I in no way believe Roger to be sick or twisted, just part of the quoted skit)

  10. Grijalva is blowing smoke. The Committee will NEVER vote to issue a subpoena (which would be a fishing expedition, anyway) as long as the Republicans are in control. Honestly, he has absolutely nothing to gain, and he has handed us a soapbox. He’s getting very bad internet on this and he’s powerless. It is noteworthy that he isn’t considered the sharpest thing in the House.
    Further, if any university would volunteer the emails of anyone on this list, Chris Horner would be in court in five seconds forcing UVa to hand over Mike Mann’s.
    I don’t think Raul really thought this one through.

    • I fully agree with Pat Michaels. In fact, this issue will get such a big play on the Blogs that I predict that the powers that be in the Democrat party will reign in Grijalva, especially with a significant election coming up next year. Personally, I hope these crack pot (aka Progressive) Dems keep coming with the Climate extremism so as to expose their agenda for the whole world to see.

    • Well thanks to following these posts I now know that Grijalva is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is heavily influenced (translates into receiving their their marching orders from?) by the radical Washington D.C. “think tank,” the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
      There is no doubt where IPS stand on Climate issues: “That means we face a lost decade since the last attempt to broker an international climate treaty failed in 2009. At the same time, the climate science remains crystal clear about the need for urgent action.”
      http://keywiki.org/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
      http://www.ips-dc.org/new-measures-avert-climate-disaster/

      • He’s a mega-prog; member of La Raza, MECha and the Raza Unida Party {making him a racist who desires an overthrow of the US government in the Southern border states}.

  11. There is no surprise here. Raul Grijalva is and has been affiliated with the Communist Party, USA, for many years. Last year, I believe, a video journalist caught him coming out of a meeting in New York where he received an award for some good work for communism. He began his political career as a community organizer and race monger. If you are interested in proof of this simply google “Grijalva communist party.”
    Despite his best efforts he has not been able to gain national attention even though he keeps being elected out of my congressional district. He probably sees an opportunity to gain some attention to himself by supporting the Warministas. He is a despicable piece of trash. He is also one of three congressionsal communist party affiliates from the state of Arizona. Shocked?

    • If you are interested in proof of this simply google search for “Grijalva communist party.”
      —————-
      No reason to lend support to the CAGW camp.

      • Well, since most of the CAGW camp are also firmly in the Lefty, Nanny-State, Control-freak camp, Grijalva’s stance makes sense.

    • Hmmmm…. Who else do we know that’s a “community organizer”? And that same individual was once a leading member of the New Party.

      • All one has to do is study Chicago politics to understand what is going on. Al Capone set the system up in the 30’s. The US almost had it with JFK but he would not play ball once elected.

      • I am in Grijalva’s district. There is a Republican woman, Gabby Saucedo Mercer, who ran against him this last term and made a close race out of it, but not close enough. If the Republican Party were smart, they would giver her heavy funding for campaigning next election. She might be able to unseat him with enough exposure.

    • Who are the other 2? Earnest, I notice that we both give our real and complete names if that influences your decision to respond.

      • Besides Grijalva, there is Kyrsten Sinema, and Ed Pastor. It may be hard to believe, but there is a strong local Communist Party in Arizona. The roots go back to a Lorenzo Torrez, who organized a labor union for the miners in Arizona. Most members are the Hispanic left.

  12. The big chill continues, …I write a column for a small local newspaper and the editor is terrified of running anything questioning the alarmist view as he will be figuratively beaten about the head and shoulders for days.

  13. Good way to keep the inconvenient truth quiet. How many other scientists, university boards etc etc will this keep quiet? Denier, racist etc etc keeps a lot of people quiet…
    What a difference 6 years has made…

  14. I didn’t hear that Pielke was being charged with a crime, so let the senator do all the investigating he wishes. However, let us all make certain that the results of the senator’s investigation are presented for all to see. Facts, after all, are facts, and these sorts of “investigations” will help to dispel the rampant alarmism that is being spread about these days.

  15. I beg to differ with your characterization of this being a waste of Grijalva’s time. Grijalva and his staff are being payed VERY well for all of their activities in this area.
    Tom Steyer takes very good care of his friends. Especially those who are so willing to cravenly carry his water.

  16. This is what happens when science becomes politicized, and no longer strives to search for truth, but rather becomes an institution to achieve a political agenda.
    Empirical evidence presented by true scientists that Is at odds with the political agenda is ridiculed, not because it is wrong, but rather because it is an inconvenient truth…

  17. Maybe he should embrace the investigation as an opportunity to pull more blocks out of their Jinga tower.

  18. I am incredibly saddened to see the blatant return of McCarthyism. Please don’t walk away Dr Pielke – the world needs your good counsel!

    • They should investigate people like Holdren that adhere to a false climate meme that has significant economic impact on the US, have him appear before Congress, and hold him in contempt of Congress.
      Since Dr. Piltke has backed away from his work on the climate, the collusion of Dr. Holdren and this bozo Grijalva has had the intended consequences. Congress needs to censor Rep. Grijalva for his witch hunt.

  19. Just a reminder that Congress also investigates oil company execs for actually making money and keeping the lights on, pharma execs, bankers, wall street, etc. They seem to get a kick out of bullying. Shows they are taking care of business by hitting the unpopular.

  20. How many more of these trumped-up diversions can we expect before the je ne sais quoi event? Seems to be getting a mite clumsy if not desperate. Something sticky in the outer game plan maybe, has Holdren really been urinating in the boiled sweets tin again? The red ones always deliquesce first all by themselves. So what’s the angle Tim?

  21. McCartyism was mild compared to this horrific witch hunt.
    Are you, or have you every said anything that undermines the CAWG meme?
    No funding for you!
    It’s a direct violation of First Amendment rights for the government to punish those who’s views do not agree with the party in power.

  22. People ought to understand the history of Lysenkoism in order to understand the potential long-term implications of such a political witch-hunt for the future development of U.S. science and society. This is after all a resurrection of Lysenkoism with a MacCartyan twist.

  23. Unfortunately Roger Pielke, Jr. is not the first….any one keeping a list of those that are victims of the “Science is Settled” mentality?
    “Dr. Caleb Rossiter was “terminated” via email as an “Associate Fellow” from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), following his May 4th, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called man-made global warming an “unproved science.” Rossiter also championed the expansion of carbon based energy in Africa.”
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288

  24. At the same time, if the investigation can be focused on the truth/falsity of specific statements, and the statements are true, then Holdren’s claims are false.
    Should Holdren not be worried about getting what he asked for, more than Pielke worried about backing up what he said?
    It is an interesting situation when the truth-teller is felt to be at risk of losing to have his truths verified.

  25. This isn’t worthy of his time. An “investigation” by one congresswoman really isn’t worth considering. As a member of the minority she has no subpoena power and no real other power. I hope he goes back to his regular activities.

    • You don’t get it, do you?
      It is not what happens that counts, it is the threat of something happening that is important. We have had this time and time again in the UK, over immigration and religious issues etc:. The standard drill is:
      Religious person makes comment about gay people (anti gay marriage, or whatever). Police break his door down at 6am and he is arrested. The case is not pursued further.
      A nationalist says there are too many immigrants. Police break his door down at 6am and he is arrested. The case is not pursued further.
      Gaining a conviction is not the point of the police raid. The object of the excercise it to make a million other people keep their heads down, so they don’t get their door broken in at 6am. Same with this excercise. It may not worry Roger Pielke, but it will stop 50,000 other scientists from raising their head above the parapet.
      Ralph

      • I think I get how things work here in US fairly well. There are still people in the US who believe in the Constitution. He can’t be sued or brought up on charges because of what he says, because there is a first amendment. If on the other he lies under oath he can be, but that won’t happen because the Republicans are in charge.
        I get very well that the threat of things happening can stop people from doing or saying things. In the US that happens a lot because of lawsuits. We see that in the stupid lawsuit against Mark Steyn by Michael Mann.
        But this is not that type of case. This Congresswoman has no power at all to do anything.

      • Hasn’t Roger Pielke already stated that he’s walking away from climate science research? If so, their objective has worked.

      • Tom
        But this is not that type of case.
        This Congresswoman has no power at all to do anything.
        _________________________
        She has to the power to scare the pants off every new post-grad, so that they will not go down the Climate Realist road. And that is the intention of this ‘pre-dawn raid’.
        Ralph

  26. @Jimmy Haigh.
    In chess parlance, I think we have begun the endgame.

    “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
    Winston Churchill

  27. We should also communicate directly to the scientist to encourage them to continue to create papers containing the truth and to post and speak the truth.

  28. I predict we will see more and more of this endgame strategy. Instead of honorably surrendering on the battlefield to overwhelming evidence, they will portray themselves as in a fighting retreat, reluctantly yielding the field to the unprincipled savages. Meanwhile they take refuge in some other line of research. That strategy may work for the first few climate researchers, but the pool of unallocated non-climate grant money is limited. The stampede will begin when they realize that the last one out will find no such refuge.

  29. This Day In Weather History
    East (1930)
    Spring arrives early in 1930: Philadelphia, PA – 79 degrees Reading, PA – 77 degrees Allentown, PA – 74 degrees Baltimore City, MD – 83 degrees Washington, D.C. – 84 degrees Richmond, VA – 83 degrees Greensboro, NC – 81 degrees Charlotte, NC – 81.6 degrees Pleasantville, NJ – 80 degrees
    South (1934)
    Tornado outbreak in Alabama and Georgia: six dead.

  30. Dr. Pielke as I see it you are being honored for doing excellent work. If your testimony had not been powerful and of great harm to “the cause” it and you would have been ignored and dismissed. But, alas, you made direct hits on the alarmists. Hooray. Hang tough.

  31. What is the logic of the good Congressman from Arizona? That we can assume (and we all know the definition of “assume”) that when government anti-Global Warming programs are instituted, the cost of disasters will decrease? I can’t stop laughing. Oh, I guess it’s not so funny because it’s what they must believe.

  32. I disagree with the stance of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. on CO2 being the cause of the global warming that elevated the Earth’s global temperature some 0.5°C from 1975 to 1998.
    But I disagree even more with the stance of Representative Raúl Grijalva investigating Dr. Roger Pielke. His inquisitorial attitude will hamper climate research and US science in general.

  33. All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing
    Please Dr Pielke, I feel like you’re a good man who is choosing, by retreating to other areas of science, choosing to do nothing. As you pointed out, you have tenure. If you’ll not stand up to the malicious intent of these twisted up doers of evil wrapped in shiny cloaks of faux morality, who will?

  34. Tim Ball February 25, 2015 at 7:08 am
    Holdren

    Indeed! I have very little information on Mr. Holdren other than reading a book and a few papers; but what I do know is not very attractive. He is arrogant, prickly, and viciously partisan–the predictions he made in his Sierra Club Battle Book were more wrong after 30 years than Ehrlich’s predictions–oh, maybe they are neck and neck.

  35. The witch hunt is working. This poor man, Pielke, has wept before the Red Guard and swore he will never, ever talk about the climate again or post anything online.
    THIS IS DISGUSTING. He lost the fight. He is now crawling under a rock. He put on the dunce cap handed to him by the Red Guard and ‘confessed his sins’.
    This is how they enforce the 97% agree about global warming stuff. By ruthlessly terrorizing anyone who disagrees.

  36. Perhaps this is just one battle of a larger grudge match between Soros, and his ilk herd, and the Kochs. http://americanbridgepac.org/tag/koch-brothers/ and http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/american-bridge-21st-century-2/ The 7 request letters make it clear about the Kochs. The Dems are doubling down on demonizing the Kochs going into 2016 and looking to smear and silence all dissenting voices to the party messages. Dr. Pielke is just one such voice.

  37. I would rate this as the equivalent of Hank Johnson investigating the stability a Guam….
    Pielke has all his dots and crosses checked……….and this will just put light on it all

  38. I hear the New York Times is working on a story based on “information obtained from Greenpeace” showing a picture of him filling his tank at an Exxon station.

  39. Rep Grivalja should present his CV to substantiate his ability to even understand the arguments. Appears he studied sociology in college and is active in MECHA and communism. What is his credibility?

  40. ‘Roger Pielke, Jr. is not a skeptic of human-induced global warming, as we all know. ‘
    Yes but his ‘crime remains ‘ for it is not enough to believe you must believe in the right way and be unquestioning in your belief , remember this unchallengeable ‘settled science ‘
    Its an oddity of all religions that they treat heretics worse than those that don’t believe at all .

  41. It doesn’t matter who or what Grivalja is. The fact remains that he and his ilk have succeeded in driving a scientist from the debate. What a sad state the US is in when the government can suppress dissent in such a manner.

  42. The much bigger question will be “how will the universities respond?. This is not a subpoena, and the enquiries went to the universities, not the researchers…

  43. Turning now to the science:
    Remarkably, Pielke, Jr.’s 2013 Senate testimony (here) is basically a data presentation which shows:

    1.Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).
    2.Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
    6.Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
    /////////////////////////////////////
    These facts (assuming that they are correct) are more remarkable given the contraction in GDP growth since the 2008 crash

    • Yes, Pielke’s papers, among others, take the C out of CAGW. They already lost the W and the G, but the C is their bread and butter.

  44. Since the letter of complaint provides contact details for any question (vedgerton@mail.house.gov) and a phone number (202 225-6065) perhaps a few 100,000 questions directed their way might make them realise that this move may not be the most popular one they could have come up with.

  45. Another thought … immigration issue here. How many future H-1B immigrants won’t buck the system, ‘the science is settled’, upon risk of being deported ? No use parents of having your kids take STEM courses, they might learn science is about skeptisim .

    • You are barking up the wrong tree: as an entity that is willing to travel, they are probably the ones to say GFY.

  46. I have just put 2 and 2 together. An aha moment, if you will. As you may know the APS has put together a committee to re-evaluate their Statement on Climate 2007. They have enlisted 6 expert climate scientists to aid in the evaluation. Essentially 3 modelers plus Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy, and Dr. Lindzen. All three of the anti-alarm climate experts are included in the “list of seven” that are being investigated by Rep. Grijalva. It is well and truly a witch hunt with the unexpressed purpose of discrediting these scientists!

  47. Americans are a rare people, in that we will only tolerate so much. Yes, it often feels like the great patriots are all dead, or fast asleep, but they are not. it has always has been in the past, and I believe there will be in the near future, a moment when the line in the sand gets crossed and that powerful fighting spirit returns.
    Political correctness pacifies us a while longer…the threat of being labeled a racist, a denier, a lunatic is so great an affront to our reputations that we avoid anything truly confrontational and back away rather than have such things said about us.
    But every day more and more people realize that they are going to say those things no matter what, even when it’s obvious that it is untrue, and eventually the majority will hit that *@mned if you do, *@mned if you don’t wall and retaliate because there’s nothing left to lose.
    When they keep changing the definitions of things, applying terms where they aren’t relevant or true, words become more and more ineffective, meaningless. And when words are the only weapon they have, they are undermining their own ability to defend themselves.
    Let them talk. Bully. Nudge. The boiling point is coming, and they will not win with name calling and finger pointing.

  48. Roger Pielke, Jr. is being investigated for giving testimony that Holdren and Grijalva disagree with but that is in line with what the IPCC has published. Don’t they believe that the IPCC represents the consensus of climate scientists around the world? So who are the ones denying consensus science here?

  49. A bit like the which hunt on Mann, only milder:
    The scope of this request is to reach any and all data, documents and things in your possession, including those stored or residing on any of the specified or referenced (see FN 1, supra) computers, hard drives, desktops, laptops, file servers, database servers, email servers or other systems where data was transmitted or stored on purpose or as a result of transient use of a system or application in the course of day to day research or product processing work that is owned or contracted for by you or any of your officers, managers, employees, agents, board members, academic departments, divisions, programs, IT department, contractors and other representatives.
    2. As used herein, the words “record”, “records”, “document” or “documents” mean the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic, or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, any book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newspaper, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter now in your possession, custody or control.

    • The difference is that Mann is not being interrogated by congress. Pielke is being interrogated strictly for political purposes. It’s obvious that democrats in Washington are seeking to destroy the messenger, as they don’t have the proof to convince those who question the CAGW cause. I’m an Arizona independent and this inquisition is starting to boil my blood. And no I don’t reside in Grijalva’s district, but will certainly support his opponent.

  50. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) represents the U of A People’s Republic of Tucson Arizona so you know his motivation.

  51. It is a bit alarming that he think he should not be investigated because of his opiniens otherwise:
    “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.”
    This explanation could lieve the impression that if he was not supporting IPCC and EPAs carbon tax it would be OK to investigate him.
    I am confused.

  52. This is an excellent opportunity for our American colleagues to write to their congressman / woman and point out the absurd situation being fomented by the present administration and Democrats. Maybe some Republicans will have enough cojones to stand up and state how ridiculous this is, and how this hurts science and academia. Basically, it is Gulag-style repression in the USA. Stalin would be proud.

  53. This is probably an attempt to discredit and frighten the scientists that are likely to be called on by republicans when they start looking into the EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. Even the true believers know it will be a huge blow to their position if those organizations are found to be cooking the books.

  54. I am starting to concentrate on looking for patterns to explain why the focus on the 7 professors selected by Grijalva plus why the NYT focus on Dr. Soon.
    First step is a list of the 7 university faculty members selected by Grijalva.
    According to the Democrats’ Natural Resources website**, which is affiliated with the committee’s Minority Leader (who is US Representative Raúl Grijalva {D-AZ}), here are the Universities he sent letters to and the names of faculty at those universities he is focusing on:
    – University of Delaware concerning David Legates
    – University of Alabama concerning John Christy
    – Georgia Tech concerning Judith Curry
    – MIT concerning Richard Lindzen
    – Arizona State University concerning Robert Balling
    – University of Colorado concerning Roger Pielke Jr
    – Pepperdine University concerning Steven Hayward
    ** http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate-change-research
    John

  55. I can’t fully articulate what scum these people represent – it’s like every form of fascist, totalitarianism, bigoted, ideology rolled into one. Every day I think I can’t possibly think any less of them, and they never fail to dig the hole a little deeper.
    Be afraid people. This is only getting started.

  56. When citizens are singled out in this way by their own political leaders, it’s time to seek for asylum in country where freedom of opinion prevails.

  57. This move by Grijalva may be a feint. It may be intended to draw contrarians and others into objecting to requests for scientists’ correspondence.
    Then, when data-fiddling climatologists are embarrassed when they testify, and co-ordinated skulduggery is suspected, our side won’t be in a position to call for their correspondence.
    Thoughts?

    • Rogerknights,
      Doesn’t look like a feint: “http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-boxer-whitehouse-query-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-denial-organizations-on-science-funding”

      • That’s a different matter. It’s not asking academics to turn over their correspondence, but corporations to turn over their funding. I agree it’s not a feint–but I have no reason to change my opinion that Grijalva’s letters are a feint, designed to fake our side out.

  58. There are hundreds of congress critters. Any one of them can make such a request. This is why climate alarmists/anyone should object to this: anyone could be subject to this type of political intimidation.
    There is an implication that any receipt of fossil fuel money is a conflict of interest. wow. It is also the case that a scientist can work on some projects on his own time, as I know Willie does, but the claim again is that if one received any fossil fuel money this is not considered valid.

    • Yes, Craig, but the dingbats are accusing real scientists(sceptics) of being paid by the fossil fuel industry when they are not.

  59. If there’s any justice in this world, the whole endeavor will result in a political black eye for Raúl Grijalva and he’ll lose his seat in 2016. I second the suggestion to write your local congressperson and let them know how absurd this whole thing is.

    • Sorry sinewave but his district has been gerrymandered so much there is not a chance he would be hurt by anything he does. He is just a pawn of the far left and in Tucson that is golden.

      • He got only 50% in 2010, so his district was made more Democratic. It includes west Tucson, Yuma, Nogales & a bit of the Phoenix metro area. It’s a third world country on the US-Mexican border. Spanish is the main language.

  60. Thank you for bringing this to us Bob. I wrote to all the Institutions. (Letter below) I don’t know if I can make a difference by writing but I know i won’t if I don’t write.
    02/25/15
    RE: the February 24 request for information from Rep. Raul M.Grijalva
    Misguided inquisition on the impartiality of climate research
    Dear Mr. Robert Altenkirch,,
    I am an Arizona resident and was just made aware of Representative Grijalva’s misguided investigation and thinly veiled accusations of bias in the climate research arena.
    He is not only questioning you about Professor Pielke but also
    George P. “Bud” Peterson from Georgia Institute of Technology about Judith Curry
    Andrew Benton from Pepperdine University about Steven Hayward
    L. Rafael Reif from Massachusetts Institute of Technology about Richard Lindzen
    Bruce Benson from the University of Colorado about Professor Roger Pielke
    Patrick Harker from the University of Delaware about Professor David Legates
    As a published researcher–unfinanced by anyone, I do not want to go into the merits of financing research with an agenda because we both know that the majority of climate research funding comes from the government. And we also know that the various government departments want research results to support the meme of catastrophic global warming. That argument is not for this letter of support to your Institution.
    The fact remains that these researchers have reported findings to congress that some people find disturbing because it does not support the current climate meme. Basically Roger Pielke’s presentation to congress covers the science facts that so disturb Representative Grijalva:

    Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).
    Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
    Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.
    There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or in the overall number of tropical cyclones.
    Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
    Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.
    Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
    Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”

    What I find more disturbing is that Representative Grijalva and some members of his committee may succeed in driving well qualified scientists from the climate debate. I cringe at the travesty of a government representative or agency using its power to suppress honest investigation and reporting of facts, WHICH IS THE HALL MARK OF SCIENCE, just because the facts don’t agree with the politically correct narrative.
    I find it strange that Representative Grijalva is attacking the messenger rather then verifying the message. This is how the climate alarmists perpetrate the 97% consensus falsehood about global warming. They terrorize any professional who even questions the meme.
    I plead with you not to succumb to these terrorizing tactics.
    The facts are the important issue here. Observational science is what is important. Integrity in scientific results is at stake. Let your people work unhampered by misguided investigations.
    I do not know why our representative finds the easily verifiable facts so objectionable, nor do I understand his attack on these researchers, but this inquisitorial behavior will hamper climate research and US science in general. Please do not cooperate with this.
    I ask you to defend and uphold the integrity of your institution, of science and scientific inquiry in general. Some of those watching this investigation are saying it is just a Democratic response to the congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data, the hearing to be held later. I pray this is not true because I do not want to be ashamed of my Arizona Representative. I would rather think he is perturbed by the propaganda he has been fed which is contradicted by the facts and creates the cognitive dissidence to which he is responding. You can help with a well crafted response.
    Don’t allow this to discredit your Institution or your well qualified strongly principled professors.
    With Deepest Respect,
    Shelly Marshall
    CC
    Patrick Harker from the University of Delaware
    George P. “Bud” Peterson from Georgia Institute of Technology
    Andrew Benton from Pepperdine University
    L. Rafael Reif from Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Bruce Benson from the University of Colorado
    Enclosed:
    Copy of the letter to which I am Referring

    • Seriously Shelly, you don’t really think Grijalva would understand any of the science?
      He’s a tool of the left without an original thought of his own. I applaud your effort though.

  61. This may yet backfire on Markey-Boxer et al as one can expect updates to this 2009 article to be published (if it hasn’t already) as this BS continues. It is definatly a coordinated attack by the WH / EPA using their minions in Congress to pressure all that do not believe that the “science is settled”.
    Looks like they are rattled and the gloves are coming off. It is about time this debate took front page on MSM. The Global Warming Policy Forum’s press release could not be more timely.
    http://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-calls-on-governments-to-overhaul-missionary-ipcc/
    I for one would love to see these 100 entities get organized along side the scientific community being fired for their position and research, form a joint response team and go head to head with these useless idiots and expose the money they have been pouring down the drain while identifying the damage done to the energy infrastructure and economy in terms of $$’s. And do not forget to add in the $3Billion just pledged to the UNFCCC Green Fund or the $400Million contribution made to the Green Fund in 2014.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

  62. To February 25, 2015 at 10:36 am

    Maybe some Republicans will have enough cojones to stand up and state how ridiculous this is, and how this hurts science and academia. Basically, it is Gulag-style repression in the USA. Stalin would be proud.

    You saw the cojones they had today. Just pillars of strength for putting a stop to Presidential overreach. Do I need /sarc tags?

  63. Another pejorative thought – if Inhofe is leading an investigation into data tampering, would not a list of skeptic scientists ‘under investigation’ be grounds for excluding them from any sort of expert testimony before congress… allowing the administration to provide their own ‘experts’?

  64. And when are they going to investigate the IPCC? I think they are investigating Rajendra Pachauri who had been probably lying since 2002 when he was the initial head of it (2002 to 2015 – Wow!).

  65. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    We are right on track. Lets hope this is a short fight.

  66. Lot’s of interesting possibilities for this action. One of them is actually pretty simple. This Congress critter has been infected by all the propaganda and actually “believes” it is true. He thinks he is going to be a hero in uncovering some kind of big oil conspiracy. In other words, he is completely deluded.

    • The truth, rather, what he “believes” to be the truth, has nothing to do with his motivation. Grijalva may not actually disagree with anything Pielke said or wrote for that matter.
      Mark

  67. I would just give Grijalva the (figurative) finger. He’s just a tool of the AGW “pushers”. (An, I think, good analogy to drug cartels).

  68. Re the Markey/Boxer letters. I believe Heartland’s authentic documents revealed that they are funding the Idso’s for a few hundred thousand per year. But the Idso’s aren’t writing scientific papers, are they–they’re mostly compiling them. Heartland wanted to fund one of the regulars here to write up guidelines for educators about climatology, but again that was a PR effort, not an attempt to affect the content of scientific journals. I think this is where most of the funding has gone. Only the employees of certain think tanks have written scientific papers.

    • Sorry, but there’s nothing here to answer for. He bought some stock and reported it.
      Unless you can point out something I am missing, this document is something he is simply required to file, reporting investment transactions after the fact. He complied.
      This particular filing shows that Raul bought between 12,000 and 180,000 worth of stock and sold between 4,000 and 60,000 worth of other stock, in companies traded on the NYSE, on July 2nd of 2013. The biggest failing I see is that he failed to indicate whether he was buying stocks or bonds (certainly stock) and what class of stock if the particular corporation has such. (for example Wells Fargo Pref. L). Almost certainly he bough the common.
      No smoking gun that I see.

      • Bob Kutz,
        If you’ve not looked yet, suggest you consider the Enbridge buy. Then see what they’ve done with their pipeline. Agree that it’s not a “smoking gun” but peaked my interest.

      • He’s chasing someone who, apparently, was paid by big oil, right? He bought stock in big oil, Shell. I’d call that hypocrisy.

  69. The leftists in our government have been on a rampage (on all fronts) since the 2014 elections. They are now openly showing their true colors, all shades of red. What we now need is courage. What Judith has is an abundance of courage. Oh how they will wish that they had limited the ‘Climate Enemies” list to six.

  70. “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 ”

    Can anyone say blacklist or McCarthyism? Even with the protection of tenure, Pielke has been shut-up, imagine those with no protections.
    This is becoming more and more a shameful legacy to both science and politics.

  71. Cripes Roger, man up.
    I realize this looks like harassment, but so did the scopes monkey trial.
    I have not a doubt in my mind that your data will withstand any scrutiny.
    Let the honorable Rep. Grijalva discover this to his satisfaction. A converted, former ‘true believer’ is the best ally climate science ever had. Especially one in the legislature.
    What you have said is true (at least to my understanding of the facts), what ever mistakes might be discovered are certainly of a trifling nature, substantially below the level of misstatement that would be required to take the matter further. Unlike Hansen’s ’88 testimony, which could easily be construed as deliberately misleading and inflammatory.
    A serious inquiry into your testimony is the first sign that someone is taking you seriously. Dropping all scientific inquiry and public rhetoric on the subject is a dubious reaction at best.
    Do you believe what you said or don’t you?
    Anyway, just my $0.02 on a bright and sunny Thursday morning in frigid and snow covered southeast Iowa.

    • Bob, you said “Let the honorable Rep. Grijalva discover this to his satisfaction. A converted, former ‘true believer’ is the best ally climate science ever had. Especially one in the legislature.” You’re either an eternal optimist or completely unaware of Grijalva and his total left politics. A mountain of ice could converge on Tucson and if the money says it’s climate change, he will say climate change.

      • Then make a fool out of him. Demand your day in front of congress and hammer Grijalva with the facts as mercilessly as you can.
        Run and hide is how we got to where we are. Somebody somewhere needs to stand up for real science.
        Grijalva already has a problem; if he’s investigating Pielke thinking he’ll find distorted facts, he’s barking up the wrong tree. He may quietly decide to drop the investigation if Roger stands his ground. He certainly will try, if and when he finds out the facts back up what Roger said. By then, it may be too late to make it end quietly.
        Who knows, Roger may be smarter than all that. He may be backing down in an effort to get Grijalva thinking he’s on to something. Perhaps he’s playing the classic ‘rope a dope’ with the honorable representative.
        Either way, if they want an inquiry, give it to them in spades. Let the facts come out. Anybody who’s paying attention knows why Al Gore, James Hansen and Mike Mann are more or less ducking any public pronouncement or debate. The facts make their alarmism highly dubious right now.
        I do not understand why a man backs down from a fight where his convictions and integrity are being denigrated.

  72. But wait, won’t there be a groundswell of outrage by the CAGW professors that colleagues are being kangaroo courted? They’ll rise up for freedom even though they disagree with these colleagues…. Won’t they? Michael Mann and the University of Virginia surely will at least. I’m gonna hold my breath.
    I’m sorry to hear that Roger is abandoning this work. I’m disappointed. I suppose UC has put in a quiet word. I can understand that being flagellated incessantly by such as the Team and now Congress might be a bit too much to take. I do see it as an opportunity to make a big splash and layout all the facts and evidence and analyses for the world to see. Otherwise, the sheeple will see this as declaring the 5th and that you are probably hoarding barrels of oil in your basement.

  73. Roger Pielke has agreed to an interview on Tucson radio station KNST 790 on Monday March 2nd at 7:05 AM. There are many Internet stations where this can be heard live. 790 is a very conservative station and has lots of fun facts on Grijalva. Hopefully Roger doesn’t get scared off before the interview.

  74. It is interesting that Raúl Grijalva, because of his extreme leftist activities, would very likely have been a subject of interest to Joe McCarthy. What makes it interesting is that Raúl Grijalva has taken up the same tactics McCarthy was accused of using and not to solve a problem, but to bludgeon his subject for having a contrary opinion. If Arizona has a recall process this would be a very good opportunity to exercise it. What Grijalva is doing is reprehensible and in my opinion an example of why the first amendment exists. That amendment was written with the sole purpose of preventing government from doing what Raúl Grijalva is doing.

  75. Raúl Grijalva personifies green slime, but then there are so many …
    I suggest Pielke Jr. should toughen up and not be scared off so easily. He appears to be a decent guy and his rights are being trampled.
    For the record, I do not agree with Pielke’s luke-warmist position, because there is no evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 drives any significant global warming.
    I do agree with Pielke’s position that “wild weather” events have not increased recently. Other credible experts, such as Madhav Khandekar, have made similar statements.
    A few observations:
    1. CO2 is the basis for all carbon-based life on Earth – and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient.
    2. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
    3. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales.
    4. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
    5. Green energy schemes (scams) are responsible for driving up energy costs, and increasing winter mortality rates.

  76. Grijalva’s next step will likely be to demand that the US pay reparations to Mexico for having caused Global Warming.

    • JI

      Grijalva’s next step will likely be to demand that the US pay reparations to Mexico for having caused Global Warming.

      Odd that. The United States is certainly not the only sovereign state to take territory from another nearby nation, nor the only only to attack a nearby state. See Kamikaze, Great Wall of China, Spain, Mongols, Tarters, Huns, Vandals, Franks, Celts, Vikings, Danes, Cossacks, Hungarians, every tribe in Africa, Aztecs, Incas, and the Pueblo dwellers (wonder WHY they built inaccessible houses up in canyon walls only available by foot t traffic and ladders? They were NOT afraid of coyotes!) and all of the Muslim conquests of the world since 650 AD.
      BUT – the United States is one of the few – if not the ONLY – sovereign state to PAY the conquered nation for the privilege of annexing the newly conquered territories. Which were, at the time, not “Mexico’s – as we know it today anyway – at all, but were un-administered, un-civilized, un-settled, un-trafficed, barren wilds whose native population were not supported (nor taxed!) by “Mexico” at all. CA was the exception – but the 1845 war did not “conquer” California but TX.

      • Actually, the U.S. Army took Mexico City and forced an election to unseat Santa Anna so negotiations could be held with a real government. We in essence conquered all of Mexico. The real pity is that we didn’t keep the whole country. What a lot of problems that would have solved in the future.

  77. Think about this for one moment: Roger is an apologist and here we are defending him to the hilt. Roger, and your friends and supporters are? Stiffen up that back bone, stand tall.

  78. Could be a preemptive strike knowing that Republican Congress wishes to investigate climate science.
    There wont be much depth to any investigation if skeptics are too intimidated to testify.

Comments are closed.