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.
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:
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.
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/
To February 25, 2015 at 10:36 am
You saw the cojones they had today. Just pillars of strength for putting a stop to Presidential overreach. Do I need /sarc tags?
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’?
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!).
…. and Al Gore, testifying to Congress and the Senate. How did that “scientific data” turn out ?
Reblogged this on The Global 'Climate'.
Roger Pielke investigated.
It’s obvious. It’s Hategate.
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.
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
Green MacCarthyism… And these guys are lecturing about freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe…
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).
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.
RogerKnights,
Saw an interesting video w/r/t how medically oriented (pharma) studies have a history of being published only when they support the use of new drugs: ” http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe#t-787899”
This, when thinking about climate, makes me wonder what we’re not being told. Thought you might find of interest.
He’s semi warmist. Quasi warmist. The diet Coke of warmist. 1 cal. Not quite warmist enough!
I’d tell him to go pound sand.
There is no way I can verify the infromation in this .pdf file, but if true, Grijalva has a lot to answer.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/grijalva-buy.pdf
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.
Barry Woods has noticed that Grijalva’s letter cites Peter Gleick’s apparently forged Heartland document.
https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods/status/570910927496876032
https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods/status/570910927496876032
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.
cross posted at Judy’s place:
The issue has some media traction:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/opinion-rich-lowry-climate-change-115518.html#.VO8jeWNTeM0
Not everybody in the mainstream likes this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grijalva’s next step will likely be to demand that the US pay reparations to Mexico for having caused Global Warming.
JI
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.