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:
- 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.”
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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?
We skeptics are only infidels. Pielke is a heretic and, to the Faithful, a heretic is always worse.
+1
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.
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.
Here’s a good introduction to Lysenkoism and its role in Soviet politics:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00bw51j
Anti-McCarthyism, you mean? He was correct, proven when the Soviet files were opened. Lysenko was wrong — mostly (look up DNA methylation).
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
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.
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
And if Roger walks away, QED.
@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
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.
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.
McCarthyism re-invented.
If you can’t fault the message, attack the messenger — a new way of science.
Not unprecedented. Besides Lysenko there was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
Marie Stopes sued Halliday Sutherland for libel, showing Mikey Mann the way forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics
Try to find the original article for a link instead of using wikipedia.
The Wikipedia entries include the relevant sources.
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.
There you go, global warming in 1930. It’s worse than we thought.
Also ren, check out that tornado in 1925 that went from Missouri to Indiana. It killed about 695 people at a time when that area was not very populated. Talk about climate disruption. http://www.ustornadoes.com/2014/03/18/the-tri-state-tornado-of-1925/
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I agree with that. There should be no place for this sort of bullying.
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?
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.
Holdren reminds me of a certain Kentucky Colonel, except he’s not selling fried chicken.
http://i57.tinypic.com/2e4afix.png
How do you want that climate change? Extreme or extra-crispy?
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.
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.
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
..of Guam
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.
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?
‘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 .