Anatomy of a climate witch-hunt letter from U.S. Representative Raúl M. Grijalva

Gijalva

Raul M. Grijalva

The letter below from Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona speaks to the worst sort of witch hunt tactics that we’ve seen yet. I suspect that pulling on these threads will backfire on Grijalva, as this will motivate a lot of people to join the fight against this sort of “climate McCarthyism” The letter is reproduced in full below, with the original PDF also available. It’s like he’s got Mann’s #kochmachine delusions ideas.


 

Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear President Reif:

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 Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)

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 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.

My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.

2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:

a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;

b. communications regarding testimony preparation.

3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:

a. The source of funding;

b. The amount of funding;

c. The reason for receiving the funding;

d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;

e. Communications regarding the funding.

4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.

5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.

Very respectfully,

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources


 

1 — https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/profess-richard-lindzens-congressional-testimony/

2 — http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/31/1k1.01.htm1

3 — http://heart1and.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.htm1

4 —http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/

The original pdf is here: Grijalva-Richard Lindzen MIT_0

209 thoughts on “Anatomy of a climate witch-hunt letter from U.S. Representative Raúl M. Grijalva

      • Indeed. There is “BigOil” money funding a lot of different types of research, mostly in the pockets of mainstream climate science. This is well known and easy to verify by anyone.

        The bottom-line issue is the definition of “conflict of interest”. You see, since “BigOil” has been deemed to be evil by default, you can take its money as long as your research says “BigOil is evil”. For those with this world view, there is only a conflict of interest when your research does not say “BigOil is evil” because, in this case, it can only mean that it was bought to say that.

        But none of this will matter to Grijalva. His is the behavior of an unprincipled person. His aim is to harass and intimidate not to elicit any useful information. And, most likely, it is also part of the strategy to divert attention from the Pachauri scandal.

      • Jimmy Haigh.
        February 26, 2015 at 7:41 pm

        They get a lot of money from oil companies.

        Oil companies cave on political issues long before the likes of Rep. Grijalva can trot them out for committee hearings.

      • Why in the world should we regard “funded by the taxpaying public” as somehow pristine? Fear-mongering works just dandy to produce public money grants. Political correctness is rampant in the allocation of that money.

        In the 1960s many of our generals warned of a “missile gap” with the Soviet Union. Many of these government experts, “funded by the taxpaying public”, insisted that they needed much, much bigger budgets and a lot more power, to meet the terrible threat.

        Do you suppose the liberals of that day acceded to the generals wishes, since the generals “were funded by the taxpaying public” and therefore beyond all possible reproach, or do you think those liberals spotted a conflict of interest in all of the doom-mongering?

      • “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.
        H. L. Mencken

        There is your taxpayer funding.

      • Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona will get answers and insights that will embarrass him. He is new to the game.

        Fossil fuel funded climate change and green bodies (Koch and Exxon included).

        REVELATION!

        Guardian – 16 February 2012
        Suzanne Goldenberg
        Heartland Institute ‘fights back’ over publication of confidential documents
        Thinktank behind efforts to discredit climate change launches fundraising drive on back of row over documents posted online
        …..There is hardly any sign of support from big oil companies – which stand to lose heavily through action on climate change……

        ExxonMobil, which donated $675,000 to Heartland up to 2006 according to Greenpeace, cut its ties to the thinktank after pressure from environmental organisations.

        Even the Koch family, the oil billionaires who have bankrolled the Tea Party backlash against Barack Obama, have been lukewarm on Heartland….

        Entities connected to the Koch family have donated only $25,000 to Heartland since the mid-1990s.

        Washington Post – 15 August, 2007
        Robert J. Samuelson – Newsweek Editor – 2007
        Global Warming Simplicities
        …Against these real-world pressures, Newsweek’s “denial machine” is a peripheral and highly contrived story. Newsweek implied, for example, that Exxon Mobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was discredited long ago, and Newsweek shouldn’t have lent it respectability. (Exxon Mobil says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

        The alleged cabal’s influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they’ve treated global warming ominously. The first Newsweek cover story in 1988 warned: “The Greenhouse Effect. Danger: More Hot Summers Ahead.”…

      • There are also honoraria (speaking fees) and cash awards (e.g., the annual $100,000 award from the Heinz foundation, which Hansen has won) from green groups, plus possible payments for serving as advisors to them, or as board members, or from having their articles reprinted in green newsletters. Their side gets more of this sort of thing than our side does. So I agree with the comment that both sides should be asked to disclose.

      • Brute describes projection from the Warmists, they get funding from BigOil™, so they assume everyone else is.

      • And data from things largely funded by the taxpaying public should be available to the public, at least through a FOIA request. While data funded by industry belongs to the industry (and/or the researcher depending on the funding agreement) and neither the public or the government has any right to request it.

    • Here are 3 graphs. After BILLIONS of US Dollars in funding you get the last graph. Raúl M. Grijalva should launch another crusade against the waste of public funds on garbage ‘science’.



    • I’m all for having total financial transparency,…lets start with ‘ranking member’ (always thought that was a hobby ), Raúl Grijalva, shake him down & see what issues.

      I have better than 95% confidence that 97% of politicians have had murky dealings in the past, so throw out every one who’s done a dodgy deal in the last 25yrs, that’ll clear the chamber.

      • He receives a lot of funding from outside of his district and from outside the state:
        http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/268-ral-m-grijalva

        From here: http://keywiki.org/Ra%C3%BAl_Grijalva

        “Raul M.Grijalva is a Communist Party USA affiliated Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the 3rd district of Arizona.

        He is a co-chair on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

        http://keywiki.org/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

        “Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders-the openly socialist then Congressman from Vermont, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical Washington DC based “think tank” Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

        Many members were and continue to be linked to DSA and/or the Communist Party USA, IPS or other radical organizations.

        From small beginnings the CPC has grown to embrace more than 80 members of Congress and three in the Senate – Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders and Tom Udall”, (in 2010, 65 Congress plus Bernie Sanders currently)

    • So Just what means “Ranking member.” ?

      Does this mean he’s the best the Democrats could come up with ?

      I think I would ask for a complete disclosure of all donors and all funding for his most recent election campaign ; in fact for all of his election campaigns so we can all see just who all bought and paid for his influence.

      I notice he doesn’t even have the guts to disclose exactly which political party he represents.

      And for the record; I care not a jot which political party he represents. That’s fine with me. But I do think we have a right to know.

      It is almost universally true that Republican Senators and Representatives, are always called out by political party affiliation, by the so called news media, but Democrats never are. So it’s on that basis that I deduce that he is a Democrat. And I have no problem with the people of Arizona, and least in some district there selecting him as their champion. That is the American way.

      But we do have a right to know. and also to inquire as to his scientific credentials to be pre-supposing that Soon’s and Lindzen’s testimonies to any congressional committees for any reason, are not scientifically accurate.

      Frankly, I think Rank Member Grijalva, has helped the US Congress do a very piss poor job of stewardship of the Nation’s Natural resources. Excuse me, I see a slip; that is Ranking Member Grijalva; sorry about that.

      Now come to think of it.

      Why on earth would a Congressional Committee on United States Natural Resources, have any interest whatsoever in fossil deposits that apparently he and his like, regard as planetary poisons.

      Well at least the People of Arizona can now see who is looking out for their interests.

      This is a mudslingers mudslinger.

      G

      The above is simply a personal opinion of this author and was not funded in any way by any other person place or thing.

      But specifically this author has never to his knowledge received any sort of funding or granting or any other kind of remuneration, real or imaginary, from ANY Natural Resource related enterprise or exploiting operation. Nor has any person related to this author ever received any such remuneration from such sources.

      I just have a natural aversion to power mad bullies.

      And just who the hell is Vic Edgerton, and precisely which Region of US citizenry elected him to what Public Office, and for what reason would anybody communicate anything to him, or was he in fact elected by anybody to any public office of the US Government ??

      • So Just what means “Ranking member.” ?

        It means he is the minority party member who has served on the committee for the longest amount of time.

      • Just FYI – Grijalva’s funding comes from drug cartels, pedophile sex slave smugglers, and the Reconquista Movements.

        Which is why you hear NOTHING from him about the severe environmental damage done by the smuggling operations, the criminal gangs, or the horrible environmental record of Mexico.

      • Reality Observer – can you evidence that? I’d never heard of this unpleasant-sounding individual until this diversionary tactic blew up.

      • Judith Curry wrote “I think Grijalva has made a really big mistake in doing this. I am wondering on what authority Grijalva is demanding this information? He is ranking minority member of a committee before which I have never testified.”

      • From – https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00025284&cycle=Career

        CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)
        Raul M. Grijalva

        Top 5 Contributors, 2001 – 2014
        Contributor Total Indivs PACs
        National Education Assn $70,000 $0 $70,000
        Communications Workers of America $66,000 $1,000 $65,000
        United Food & Commercial Workers Union $64,050 $550 $63,500
        Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $63,000 $0 $63,000
        American Assn for Justice $59,000 $0 $59,000
        …view more data

        Top 5 Industries, 2001 – 2014
        Industry Total Indivs PACs
        Public Sector Unions $329,745 $1,745 $328,000
        Industrial Unions $275,000 $1,000 $274,000
        Lawyers/Law Firms $257,557 $186,308 $71,249
        Transportation Unions $253,950 $750 $253,200
        Casinos/Gambling $238,335 $230,330 $8,005

        So mostly a paid up union thug.
        Reality Observer – I thought he was the one in the movie with the line “Bajges? We dont nead no stinkn bajges!”

      • Thanks for saving me the time to make these points. The Representative is funded by Leftist groups, many of whom claim “not for profit” status and use untaxed money to fund lobbying and campaign contributions.

  1. 26 Feb: UPI: Brooks Hays: Democrats instigate climate funding probe, get pushback
    Several members of Congress have begun sending letters to universities, energy companies and trade associations, seeking information about funding to scientists who have been critical of climate change.
    Critics have been quick to label the effort a “witch hunt,” but those responsible say the outreach is a logical response to revelations that one of the country’s leading climate skeptics had been receiving funding from major players in the energy industry…
    Letters were sent to 100 companies and organizations signed by Sens. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., while additional letters were mailed to universities signed by Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz…
    http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/02/26/Democrats-instigate-climate-funding-probe-get-pushback/6901424960569/

    • Well we might have guessed that Check Bouncing Senator Mrs. Boxer would be in on this conspiracy.

      So when will she disclose her funding from fossil deposit exploiting enterprises ??

      • george e. smith

        Well we might have guessed that Check Bouncing Senator Mrs. Boxer would be in on this conspiracy.

        So when will she disclose her funding from fossil deposit exploiting enterprises ??

        Senator Boxer (democrat, CA – naturally) has a husband.
        Senator Boxer’s husband is the primary winner of the Big Government’s 1.5+ billion dollar high-speed train contract inside California (from nowhere to nowhere else), a high-speed train advertised solely on the need to reduce CO2 emissions (by private airplane passengers flying commercial airlines) by forcing them from private transportation into federal passengers on federal/state high speed trains.

        The primary losers of that contract to Senator Boxer’s husband are the national and state taxpayers.

      • High speed train is great (when it works correctly, and is properly maintained and cleaned-up, which it doesn’t always in France), but it isn’t really a fossil carbon saver: yes, the train runs on electricity, and yes you can produce electricity with trivial carbon content. But the railway is a very expensive, and building it requires lots of fossil carbon.

        OTOH airplanes don’t need huge infrastructure, and they get more and more efficient with technological progress. Fast railways building doesn’t get more energy efficient with technological progress; a fast railway will always cost much more than a normal one due to tiny tolerances.

        Also rail maintenance is very costly. This became more obvious when the train operator and the rail operator were separated, the train operator had to pay the rail operator for every train, and the rail operator was losing money for every train as even the maintenance cost wasn’t paid for (not accounting for the huge investment debt).

        The conclusion in France is that fast railways often cost way too much. This is not a left/right, pro-business/anti-business, progressives/conservative issue, it’s a simple “we realise now we spent too much” issue, it’s shared by pretty much everybody. (Of course consensus doesn’t imply correct.)

        Only the most used lines can pay for itself and make a benefit. We are talking very heavy traffic here.

        Or maybe the French rail operators are just hugely inefficients. (But then, public infrastructure building in the US is known to be very inefficient even by French public administration standards.)

      • simple-touriste

        Thanks. Yes.
        [In a word]
        In the UK, the heaviest used lines are commuter lines into London. (Surprise!)
        My line has passengers standing on the 0703. Yet this line has quite light usage 1030-1530.
        The commuters subsidise the day-time running.
        And fair enough one of them – me – says.
        Ah – but trains do need a lot of line and signalling maintenance – usually overnight [so ‘overtime rates’].
        And separating the train operating companies – here the ‘railcos’ – from the organisation that ‘does’ the track – here Notwork Rail – or Network Fail – I get confused – hasn’t been a smashing success.
        Privatisation has led to much needed investment, although I think the so-called HS2 will be a white elephant of astonishing proportions, when small(-ish) tweaks will deliver a third of the time savings at about a twentieth of the cost.
        Now privatisation on seven year contracts [when planning permission for a junction box can take a third of that, before a single spade is wielded in anger] may not be ideal. I think.

        Auto

    • Hear, hear – this either as it appears on the surface, a useless scare -rmongering witch hunt OR a clever ploy to flush out just who pays the rogues and vandals salaries to keep the nonsense of CAGW active. also don’t overlook anyone who is on a taxpayers funded junket…

      • The whole funding of Soon is OLD. It is re-hashed time and time again when gullible fools like the Dem representative get manipulated. Now they attack Lindzen, the atmospheric scientist at MIT who knows nothing about climate, unlike the Dem rep. Raul is making a fool of himself in front of the 18 years of surface temperature standstill.

  2. Imagine what would happen if Republicans went after scientists funded by George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Richard Branson…

    • “Imagine what would happen if Republicans went after scientists funded by George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Richard Branson…”

      Yes, it’s not good. This political bullying should be rejected.

      Here is the letter that Chairman Joe Barton wrote to each of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Asking for details of funding, and a good deal more. He of course was writing from the majority, and could follow up with subpoenas.

      • There is a difference between looking for questionable scientific work, as shown in the chairman letter for Mann el al, where scientists have become advocates (such as Mann), who receive government funding and are subject to oversight for work products produced versus choosing to suggest that such work and opinions are a result of outside funding based merely on a comment before Congress, which is the catalyst for Rep Grijalva.

        Government has the authority to audit itself and it should. Any scientist that does work for the Government whose research is used for policy decisions should be subjected to review, including the conclusions of their work, if there is evidence of impropriety.

        What Grijalva is doing is suggesting that testimony before Congress from scientists who make statements that disagree with the policy narrative are being influenced from corporate interests. Steyer, Soros, Gates, Branson and other liberal individuals are funding research through their various non-profits that support their view. Interestingly, Penn State (for which Mann is a professor) ALSO receives funding from corporate interests, including, oil companies. How much of that goes to Climate Science, I have no idea, but oil companies have been funding climate science, and there are proponents on both sides.

        While I agree that scientists should not be subject of witch hunts, there is a difference between what happened with Mann than what is happening now.

      • Nick! You’ve finally come awake, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

        The Confirmation Bias is strong with this one.

      • From Chairman Barton’s letter to Mann: “For example, according to the January 2005 Energy & Environment, such information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.”
        It seems it’s not a conflict of interest, but the integrity of the research process.

      • Like everyone else is going to mention…Mann, Bradley and Hughes were paid with taxpayer dollars. Why is this fact always overlooked by some people?

      • “but the integrity of the research process”

        I’m sure Grijalva would say that undisclosed funding from commercial interests reflects on the integrity of the research process.

        “Any scientist that does work for the Government whose research is used for policy decisions should be subjected to review”
        Likewise, G would say that these are scientists working for the Government (as much as MBH were) whose research was the basis of testimony to Congress

        “Nick! You’ve finally come awake, now that the shoe is on the other foot.”
        I can assure you that I opposed the actions of Chairman Barton, wielding full majority powers including subpoena, as I do this exercise.

      • I’m sure Grijalva would say that undisclosed funding from commercial interests reflects on the integrity of the research process.

        How? If the conclusions can’t be challenged, where research dollars come from automatically make that research null? Be careful how you answer.

      • MJ,
        “If the conclusions can’t be challenged, where research dollars come from automatically make that research null?”
        You are making very fine distinctions. Perhaps you’d like to set out your rules for when Congress should interrogate scientists directly and when not. For my part, I don’t think they should at all. Congress can’t and shouldn’t try to police either data exchange between scientists nor CoI disclosure.

        The MBH conclusions certainly were challenged.

      • Nick Stokes
        February 26, 2015 at 9:31 pm
        Perhaps you’d like to set out your rules for when Congress should interrogate scientists directly and when not. For my part, I don’t think they should at all. Congress can’t and shouldn’t try to police either data exchange between scientists nor CoI disclosure.

        Nick, if the researchers are using public funds then Congress has every right to ‘interrogate’ them, that is one of the strings attached to taking public funding, another string is that you do not own any of the research, the research the notes the data gathered even the pen you used and the desk you sit at if bought with government money are owned by the government.
        This is totally different to asking questions that imply impropriety of someone whose research was not funded by the government. Especially, when not only the results of the research but the raw data are available – even if the Ranking Member could not understand it.

      • “This is totally different to asking questions that imply impropriety of someone whose research was not funded by the government.”
        In what way was Lindzen (or Curry, Pielke etc) less funded by the government than Mann?

      • The first four questions in the Barton letter concern sources of funding, which ordinarily I would consider unreasonable and irrelevant, all other things equal. But all other things were not equal at the time. Given the jaw-dropping non-disclosure and evasion tactics exhibited by the Team it is quite understandable that Barton would want to nail down under the threat of subpoena exactly what was federally funded and what was not. It was the only way to get a straight answer.

        The next three questions could not possibly be more fair and relevant: show us the data and the calculation methodologies. Not only are these question entirely legitimate, they are required to be answered for the normal scientific processes of verification and replication.

        The final question, again, perfectly fair under the circumstances, was attempting to shed some light on the humongous conflict of interest held by Mann and others in passing judgement on their own papers vis-a-vis others for IPCC reports.

        Try another angle. Or better still, show us how the confidence intervals in MBH98/99 were calculated.

      • Nick Stokes,

        You argue incessantly.

        Are you fixated on your Belief in MMGW?

        Or are you compensated in any way to comment?

        Because you’re not convincing anyone who was not already a fellow True Believer. So what do you get out of your non-stop commentary?

      • I knew I shouldn’t have got involved in this.

        Let’s try again. What problem do you have with this question being asked of M, B, and H?

        “According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release the exact computer code you used to generate your results. (a) Is this correct? (b) What policy on sharing research and methods do you follow? (c) What is the source of that policy? (d) Provide this exact computer code used to generate your results.”

      • ” What problem do you have with this question being asked of M, B, and H?”
        So which academics get hauled before Congress with a demand to produce their computer code from a paper seven years earlier? In fact, despite local tub-thumping, producing scientific code is very rarely demanded, and for good reason. A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.

      • Nick Stokes

        You write

        In fact, despite local tub-thumping, producing scientific code is very rarely demanded, and for good reason. A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.

        Say what!?
        You assert that failure to retain a copy of unaltered code used to provide published work is a “practical” reason for not providing the code!!!
        NO! NO! NO!
        It is incompetence to fail to retain the unaltered code or – at very least – to record detailed and dated information on all subsequent alterations to the code.

        Clearly, excluding Anglo Saxon expletives, there are no words capable of describing what passes for being “science” when it is conducted by climatologists.

        Richard

      • Nick Stokes wrote: ” A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.”

        Very, very, weak Nick, any professional uses a source code control system with full history. The fact the climate science apparently does not is a huge red flag, the US Government is spending $21-$22 Billion dollars a year based upon this unprofessional science.

        Shouldn’t the standards be higher?

      • Nick there is a difference between Barton and Rep. Raul M. Grijalva. Barton was dealing with the issues arising out of the MBH papers which had been challenged by McIntyre and McKitrick and whose authors had, in defiance of all scientific principles, refused to co-operate with their critics. The Hockey Stick graph had, and still does, influenced policy decisions taken by the US government, it was therefore pertinent for the government try to clarify this issue.

        Rep. Raul M. Grijalva is fishing and has no specific reason for doing so, other than he doesn’t agree with what the scientists said in evidence to congress – not even his committee in some cases.

      • “It is incompetence to fail to retain the unaltered code…” etc
        Well, in fact he did produce code. But principles are lightly held here. When Grijalva sends demanding letters to Lindzen et al it’s a witch hunt, McCarthyism etc. And I agree that it is a very bad principle, though here backed with very little power.

        But then we come to Mann/Barton. On no, then McCarthyism is OK, because MM dragged his feet in supplying code to McIntyre. Or didn’t use a proper source control. Or used inferior PCA. Or just because he’s Mann.

        It’s not OK.

      • Nick Stokes,

        It appears that you have not even read the comments above your last post. Either that, or they whizzed right over your head.

        There is a major distinction between Mann’s shenanigans, and the attacks on Dr. Soon. Sorry you can’t understand the difference. Everyone else can.

      • “There is a major distinction between Mann’s shenanigans, and the attacks on Dr. Soon. Sorry you can’t understand the difference. “
        I think you are not reading. This discussion is not about the attacks on Dr Soon. It is about congressional letters of demand (“Mccarthyism”) – now to Lindzen et al, and earlier to MBH.

      • “A practical one here is that he has very likely modified his code in the intervening years.”

        You’re suggesting they don’t use source control? That alone is bad enough practice to make me question their code…

    • Nick,

      Curry & Lindzen have been attacked for funding from fossil fuel interests. I don’t know if they have gotten more or less from such sources than Mann, but all are indeed primarily taxpayer-funded.

    • I think full financial disclosure would be good. Our side would be less guilty on balance, even though there would be some ‘splaining to do. Our side should use judo–use the opponent’s impetus against him. I.e., go along with these requests, then demand that the other side do likewise.

      I think these politicians have bought into the simplistic “shills for evil polluters” meme the greenies have been pushing. They haven’t really got below the superficial, sloganeering level of the debate.

    • Not to mention investigating the CIA operatives fronting as ‘research scientists’ who miraculously get promoted very very rapidly to very very senior positions.

      Amazing how plagiarism by an undergraduate gets them thrown out of college, but sophisticated industrial-scale electronic hacking gets you promoted to the most senior research positions in the land………

  3. From the letter:
    “Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.”

    This man has no desire to understand climate, climate change or anything else that may cast doubt on the party line.

  4. It’s not “McCarthyism”. McCarthy was right about far Left infiltrators into American government and society. The Anthropogenic Global Warming enterprise is merely a revenue generation/redistribution scheme masquerading as an energy reform policy.

      • Hear hear!

        Have a look at the EU websites giving details of the money shelled out to fund “civil society” in Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of Euros. The US through the CIA has paid billions of dollars.

        Cameron has spoken of an EU that stretches “from the Atlantic to the Urals.”

        MH17? Anyone heard the recordings of conversations between the flight and ATC? Anyone found evidence of BUK debris with the aircraft debris? Anyone able to explain why both sides of the aircraft were hit? The recorders with flight and voice details were apparently recovered intact, and sent to Farnborough. Much on TV news on the contents of same?

        This is not a f****** joke. My children attend the same school as did two of the victims.

        So as a response to Curious George, “Foxtrot Oscar.”

    • McCarthy may have been right about “far Left infiltrators” having established themselves in American government and society but the point is he began seeing a Commie under every bed and making most of his accusations against honest Americans. He began using his accusations as a political weapon with the sole goal of advancing his own career. Truth became irrelevant to him and publicity became “everything”. He thought destroying the lives of innocent individuals was a good way to win the presidency. McCarthy was 5% right and 95% wrong. He became a real danger to democracy. He used the power of government in witch hunts whose sole purpose was personal advancement. And “Tailgunner” Joe turned out to be both a liar and a drunk.

      Rep. Raul M. Grijalva most definitely is interested in using the power of government to silence dissent. His letter is reminiscent of the letters that McCarthy sent out. (One hopes the university tells him to get a subpoena because without it they need not reply — and Grijalva has no chance of getting one.)

      Grijalva will never rise any higher in government than he is now but instead wishes to expand the powers of government — thereby making himself more powerful.

      Limited government has only so much “power” to share around. A big government has much more power and thus makes the individuals in it more powerful. By expanding government you can make yourself more powerful. Socialist (and Communist) politicians are the worst kind of people — people interested in gaining more and more power — for themselves (personal wealth is a sideline) — and they do this by expanding government. (Have you ever heard a socialist of a communist declare that the government needs less power? That would diminish their own power.)

      Power hungry — that is what defines both McCarthy and Grijalva.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Eugene, +1. I’m rather disturbed by the very many posts that have appeared here in the past week suggesting McCarthy was “right”. I say again, he most definitely was not. He was extremely dangerous to democracy. Here in England, we’re often reminded that the US is a strong believer in democracy. If that is so, then you best consign McCarthy to the same department where you would locate various despots. McCarthy made accusations without foundation and, in that sense, was most surely dangerous to society. He believed the American government offices were soaked with communists. This simply was NOT so. There were some, that is all, some. And let’s not forget his anti-homosexuality either. He was a terrible US citizen, and not worthy of supportive comments on here by a few people. To those people here, please go and read up on him. It’s almost (but not) ironic that people on here berate those making accusations against Soon and Lindzen, but fail to see it IS McCarthyism! That word should be speaking volumes to them. I come here to be among like-minded (on climate issues), and would have to re-evaluate that if I believed that there are many on here who have fascists leanings. [I’m to the Right myself, in British politics, but strongly believe in democracy. I abhor fascism, and communism is just an unworkable idea.]

      • Ghost,

        I agree with much of your comment. But I think you overstepped when you wrote:

        McCarthy made accusations without foundation…

        When the Berlin Wall came down a lot of old Soviet intellignce was disseminated, such as the Venona files. It showed conclusively that the Soviets had deliberately infiltrated the U.S. State Department and other government departments with Soviet spies and ‘fellow travelers’.

        The worrisome thing is that they are doing much more now, and with our feckless President, no one is stopping them. And don’t get me started on the Chinese…

      • Making accusations without proper evidence is exactly what McCarthy did. He assumed. He was wrong. Of course there were in-roads made by the Soviets into American government. But they made them everywhere – Britain being no exception. They sowed discord within the UK’s union movement, and (ironically) brought about Margaret Thatcher’s election. They infiltrated governments all over the world, as the CIA have done. The point is, it wasn’t as bad as he tried to make the American public believe. That is the crucial part. The US was infected no worse than any other.

        Chinese? Two years ago I refused to buy a Lenovo laptop because a friend of mine suggested that there was a rumour circulating among British Intelligence that they were all infected with a piece of software that could relay everything back to China. Paranoid? Maybe, but it seems my friend was close to the truth, it turns out. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150219/10124430071/big-lenono-lenovo-massively-compromises-customers-security-brushes-it-off-as-no-biggie.shtml

      • McCarthy may have been right about “far Left infiltrators” having established themselves in American government and society but the point is he began seeing a Commie under every bed and making most of his accusations against honest Americans. He began using his accusations as a political weapon with the sole goal of advancing his own career. Truth became irrelevant to him and publicity became “everything”. He thought destroying the lives of innocent individuals was a good way to win the presidency. McCarthy was 5% right and 95% wrong. He became a real danger to democracy. He used the power of government in witch hunts whose sole purpose was personal advancement.

        Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).

      • Dear Eugene,

        What is your source for your accusations against Sen. McCarthy?

        What did McCarthy “lie” about?

        The highly effective smear tactics used against Sen McCarthy, by the Willing Accomplices in the destruction of America’s culture, are the exact techniques now used against realists in the AGW debate.

        A great man, Stan Evans, wrote the definitive account of the attacks on McCarthy’s character. Evans exposed the actual truth, and the vile character assassination of the Democrats against him.

        “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”
        http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068

        McCarthy’s most egregious error was his under-estimation of the number of communists and Willing Accomplices who infested the federal government.

        Did McCarthy drink? Sure. So what? His alcohol intake does not effect the truth.

        For a detailed anatomy of the smears perpetrated by the alarmist-climate-crowd’s ideological ancestors, see this article:

        http://humanevents.com/2007/11/13/stan-evans-has-produced-masterpiece-of-truth-about-joe-mccarthy/

        Kent

      • Ghost,

        “Making accusations without proper evidence is exactly what McCarthy did. He assumed. He was wrong.”

        Really?

        What is your evidence that McCarthy’s observations were wrong?

        You then contradict yourself by asserting that since the Soviets made in-roads into other governments (including the British government), that the subversives that McCarthy revealed “wasn’t so bad!”

        Which is it? Was there no subversive infiltration? Or was there, but because every place else was also infiltrated, it “wasn’t that bad?!”

        You also urge others to “read up” on McCarthy. That’s a great idea. But you clearly have a rotten bibliography to guide you in your selection of reading material.

        The gold standard of McCarthy research is Stan Evans’ “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies.”

        Until you read that, you have no ground on which to stand in your full-throated smears against that stalwart defender of America.

      • Dear Eugene,

        What is your source for your accusations against Sen. McCarthy?

        What did McCarthy “lie” about?

        The highly effective smear tactics used against Sen McCarthy, by the Willing Accomplices in the destruction of America’s culture, are the exact techniques now used against realists in the AGW debate.

        A great man, Stan Evans, wrote the definitive account of the attacks on McCarthy’s character. Evans exposed the actual truth, and the vile character assassination of the Democrats against him.

        “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies”
        http://tinyurl.com/bag8f3k

        McCarthy’s most egregious error was his under-estimation of the number of communists and Willing Accomplices who infested the federal government.

        Did McCarthy drink? Sure. So what? His alcohol intake does not effect the truth.

        For a detailed anatomy of the smears perpetrated by the alarmist-climate-crowd’s ideological ancestors, see this article:

        http://tinyurl.com/m3ck4st

        Kent

      • Phil,

        “Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).”

        Are you privy to some revelations about Lattimore?

        Lattimore is a nearly perfect example of McCarthy’s being more right than he even knew.

        Lattimore was the shining example of the success of the KGB’s covert influence operations designed to guide American foreign policy. In Lattimore’s case, his job was to ensure that China’s nationalists were denigrated, demeaned, smeared, and defeated in the back-rooms of the US State Dept. The goal of this smear campaign was to ensure that the Chinese communists, and the Comintern, would seize power in China.

        Lattimore and his Comintern colleagues, Currie, Agnes Smedley, Sorge, and many others were victorious in this struggle.

        Luckily for us, McCarthy was able to bring to light Lattimore’s subversion, and nip his activities in the bud.

        Other socialists and communists commented on Lattimore and his anti-American subversive activities:

        “Sol Levitas, editor of the socialist magazine The New Leader, wrote that Lattimore was worse than a spy—he was a “LitAg” (literary agitator) of the Kremlin who sought to harm American foreign policy by molding public opinion to favor a pro-Soviet course—and was therefore more valuable to Stalin than a thousand Communist Party members. Far from being simply “a well-meaning liberal martyrized by McCarthy for telling unpalatable truths about Asia,” wrote the socialist Sidney Hook, Lattimore, “at the very least, was a devious and skillful follower of the Communist Party line on Asian affairs” who had more influence on American foreign policy in Asia than “all anti-Communists combined.” As the American Committee for Cultural Freedom concluded in an article in The New Republic, “Lattimore was indeed a willing instrument of the Soviet conspiracy against the free world.”

    • kentclizbe February 27, 2015 at 7:04 am
      Phil,

      “Absolutely, his attack on Owen Lattimore was particularly egregious, he accused him of being the ‘top Soviet agent’ in the US without any evidence and initiated a 5 year campaign against him. Ulimately this campaign was a failure (except costing Owen a lot of money to defend himself and ultimately driving him out of the country).”

      Are you privy to some revelations about Lattimore?

      No, although I did know him.

      Lattimore is a nearly perfect example of McCarthy’s being more right than he even knew.

      Lattimore was the shining example of the success of the KGB’s covert influence operations designed to guide American foreign policy. In Lattimore’s case, his job was to ensure that China’s nationalists were denigrated, demeaned, smeared, and defeated in the back-rooms of the US State Dept.

      All this is unsupported nonsense without any evidence to support it, particularly the suggestion that he was doing this in the back-rooms of the State department, as his wife Eleanor said at the time “my husband has never been a State Department consultant or official of any kind”.

      The goal of this smear campaign was to ensure that the Chinese communists, and the Comintern, would seize power in China.

      Was this while he was working as a political advisor to Chiang Kai-shek? That must have made him very popular with his boss!

      Luckily for us, McCarthy was able to bring to light Lattimore’s subversion, and nip his activities in the bud.

      McCarthy failed to bring any such activities to light.
      As the congressional hearing concluded: “We find no evidence to support the charge that Owen Lattimore is the ‘top Russian spy’ or, for that matter, any other sort of spy” and described McCarthy’s case as “a fraud and a hoax”.

      The China Lobby didn’t like Owen’s assessment on the situation in China although subsequent events proved him right (including his aRussian spy’ or, for that matter, any other sort of spy” and described McCarthy’s case as “a fraud and a hoax”.

      • Phil,

        You really ought to reconsider the people you hang out with, if you were close to, and believed Lattimore’s deceptive denials of involvement in Soviet/Comintern influence operations. Lattimore’s denials are of a piece with the mendacious blathering from Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Agnes Smedley, the “Hollywood Ten,” and myriad other Soviet Willing Accomplices involved in subverting American culture and government for their Kremlin masters.

        Let’s put Lattimore’s period into context: The Comintern, under Lenin, and then Stalin, vigorously operated around the world, mostly covertly, attempting to impose global communist rule.

        The tried and true covert method of the Comintern for gaining control, in a democracy, was to infiltrate the parties, and bit by bit take over the decision-making process. This operational method was made much more effective when agents of influence were inserted into key advisory roles in the target organizations. This is classic KGB tradecraft–in fact, it is how the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia–they simply cloned the approach in all other countries they targeted.

        The KGB was massively successful in infiltrating covert influence agents into the FDR government. From the President’s office, to the OSS/CIA, through the State Dept, Treasury, and virtually every other important policy-making body in the US government, as well as “think tanks” and advisory bodies.

        Lattimore was recommended for the job as an advisor to Chiang Kai-Shek by–wait for it–Soviet agent Lachlan Currie. Lattimore was also strongly endorsed by–wait, it can’t be!–Soviet agent Harry Dexter White. Both White and Currie were high level officials in FDR’s government, and actively worked influence operations for the benefit of the global communist efforts.

        Was Lattimore’s association with, and insertion by, Soviet espionage agents accidental? Au contraire! This is a model of how the KGB ran its influence operations–they swarmed their target with as many influence agents as possible, and the influence agents formed interlocking rings of self-reinforcing advisors, all making the same suggestions, and all denigrating any nay-sayers.

        More than one KGB defector named Lattimore as a KGB/GRU resource of high importance, and “one of our men.” [Alexander Barmine]

        Lattimore’s most successful operation, for the Comintern, was his role in turning USG policy against supporting the Nationalist Chinese, and towards the communist Chinese. This operation included a swarm of Comintern influence agents, Agnes Smedley and Richard Sorge among them, denigrating the non-communist American ally. The proof of this Lattimore operation, besides his cheek-by-jowl cooperation with known Comintern agents, inside and outside the USG, is the result. Thanks to Lattimore’s vigorous denigration of Chiang, and lies about the communists, American policy was shifted to support the communists. The result was millions of dead Chinese, and the last 60 years of communist hell for the country.

        There is much, much more on your buddy’s activities in support of communist causes. You may want to shift your allegiances to Agnes Smedley–maybe you can call Smedley’s prosecutors names, as you have McCarthy. Might make you feel better–but it doesn’t change history!

        “n 1952, after 17 months of study and hearing, involving 66 witnesses and thousands of documents, the McCarran Committee issued its 226-page, unanimous final report. This report stated that ‘Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy’, and that on ‘at least five separate matters’, Lattimore had not told the whole truth. One example: ‘The evidence… shows conclusively that Lattimore knew Frederick V. Field to be a Communist; that he collaborated with Field after he possessed this knowledge; and that he did not tell the truth before the subcommittee about this association with Field..”

  5. Grijalva has no authority. Zilch. The republicans control the committee, subcommittees, subpoena power, witness summons, etc., etc. His letters can be ignored with impunity. But this targeting of individuals is going to backfire. The warmers are vulnerable and they will be called to account.

  6. Out of curiosity I checked Grijalva’s district location. Not surprisingly it appears to encompass the University of Arizona Tucson campus and the student housing neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. I also doubt if Raul wrote the letter himself, it’s way too polished for such an obvious grifter.

    • Ed: You beat me to it! I agree with you that Grijalva did not write this letter: he would have got an intern (supplied by Greenpiss?) to do it for him. My reply to him would be ‘Koff! (I have Anglo-Saxon roots)

      • Probably someone from Center for American Progress. Carol Browner is back there, Podesta has gone back to the Clintons to try and keep continuity at the next election.

  7. “I suspect that pulling on these threads will backfire on Grijalva, as this will motivate a lot of people to join the fight against this sort of “climate McCarthyism”. You’re right, Anthony, particularly since the IPCC receives funding from BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Sultan of Oman. And then there’s Bill McKibben, a salaried member of the Rockefeller Fund Board of Directors, a non-profit created by oil dollars.
    What a sick little person.

  8. Willie Soon has been thoroughly discredited. I wonder who’s going to be next as the house of cards comes crashing down.

    • Charlie,

      Teaching a troll the difference between right and wrong is like teaching a ‘dog’ trigonometry.

      Can’t be done, so please troll elsewhere.

    • How can attacking the scientist affect the science?

      If Bozo the Clown tells you grass is the colour green would it become red?

      The fact that this Ringmaster is attacking the man is proof that he can’t find fault with the science.

    • Charlie The Wonder Dog on February 26, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      Charlie The Wonder Dog,

      Soon discredited? What happened to Soon isn’t discrediting. You want to observe discrediting? Mann, because of his inept papers in 1998 (Nature) and 1999 (GRL), was professionally discredited.

      House of cards? Why are the ‘settled science’ scientists attacking the skeptics if the ‘settled science’ is overwhelmingly and truly verified by reality? Well, it seems the ‘settled science’ scientists have encouraged the Democrats to go after skeptics because the ‘settled science’ scientists’ failed the science debate with skeptics in the science arena, so metaphorically speaking the ‘settled science’ scientists’ house of cards is falling down.

      John

    • Hopefully, when you get home, your mother will come running out from under the front verandah, and bite you on the leg !

  9. OMG…..OMG I am SOOOO sorry for ALLL Americans who have to put up with so abjectly STUPID politicians. This man is an embarrassment to the US educational system. AND a letter to the President of MIT yet. I’m sure he just had a real edumication! He is an avowed IDIOT!
    Sorry for the shouting, I’ve just seen too much stupid today.
    Mod. snip me if you must it will be sufficient that at least one other person has seen my opinion.
    Cheers!
    Roger

  10. The problem with true believers like Grijalva is they think there really is an oil money conspiracy to stop climate activists from saving the world. Since they think the fate of humanity hangs in the balance, their determination to stop at nothing, no matter how despicable, to destroy their opponents is a measure of the strength of their belief.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    • Eric, I do not believe this at all. The intention is to grow big government and bring Democrats to permanent one party rule. With unknown 10s of millions of illegal aliens in the US and Obama giving them a $35K tax refund (even if they paid no tax at all) they will block vote for the Democrats.
      Global warming is a tool to obtain the objective of radical leftist/socialist/communist/ democrat party rule, and one party rule. Please look into it a little deeper and see there are no good intentions here.

  11. Is this panic setting in?
    If these things were important to this congress critter, why has it waited til now to act?
    I think the coming majority committee look at the fluid records with that amazing “necessary” adjustment, the failure of Rio and the cold,cold facts of winter, may have the power-hungry getting nervous.
    The public mood is souring, the handouts are slowing and the party is winding down.
    And now these 3rd rate minions are being rushed to the propaganda front, save the Cult of Calamitous Climate, by destroying the honest and slandering all who doubt.
    It is a cult in collapse.
    It is going to get messy, they are hysterical…always have been.

  12. The hypocrisy with respect to impartiality takes ones breath away. Are the bureaucrats really this clueless? Does this guy think hyperbolic alarmists are neutral or impartial or are just following the evidence wherever it may lead?
    That anyone receiving funds other than gravy train government funds are somehow tainted?
    Seriously? You know it is both scary and fascinating to watch the crumbling of a culture. Unreal!.

  13. If MIT cooperates any differently than did the University of Virginia regarding certain inquiries about Dr. Mann, then we will know that academia is completely and totally corrupt.

  14. Back to the Middle Ages we go. Burn climate skeptic witches!! Burn!!

    And I was foolish enough to believe that the mindset and thinking of people here in the U.S. had evolved significantly since that certain event in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 and 1693.

    Apparently not enough.

  15. Well Raul, I’d like to draw your attention to the recent paper by the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), which showed that over a 10 year period, an increase of CO2 levels by over 5% resulted in a change to energy flux at the surface of just 0.2 w/m2.

    No Raul, I know you probably don’t know what an energy flux is, or how much difference 0.2 w/m2 makes. So, I will try and explain. According to two well known physicists named Stefan and Boltzmann, the average energy flux at the earth surface is about 390.08 w/m2, and an extra 0.2 w/m2 would raise that to 390.28 w/m2.

    Now I know (your president is fond of those words, is he not?) that you probably don’t know what that means in terms of temperature. So I will refer you back to Stefan and Boltzmann who calculate that this would mean an increase in earth’s temperature of 0.037 degrees C. Now I know (hey, I like playing the condescending snob!) that you probably don’t know what a degree C is, so I will convert it for you. That’s just 0.0666 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Now I know (Gosh this is fun!) that you’re probably rather confused right now. One part of you is probably going “oh my god, the sign of the devil!” but I assure you that this is just a coincidence. The other part of you is thinking wow, only 0.0666 degrees F over ten years for a 5% increase in CO2? This must be some seriously bad science and I had better investigate it”

    I would urge you to do so Raul. You had best dig into just who funded this US Department of Energy study. But more importantly, you had better investigate these physicists. I have it on good authority Raul, that Stefan and Boltzmann’s work has been cited by a considerable number of American institutions. You should demand that all universities, technical schools and engineering schools disclose immediately their affiliation with Stefan and Botlzmann. I have it on good authority that many of them have even taught their work as if it were fact. There’s a lot of these institutions Raul, and you need to look into them.

    • David,
      That’s not the way to calculate surface temperature change (dT) in response to change in forcing (dF). The correct way is given in the 1st IPCC report (Cess et al, 1989).

      Climate Sensitivity parameter = 1/(dF/dT –dS/dT)

      …which, in the no feedback case, simplifies to dT= dF/3.3

      If you want to approximate using Stephan-Boltzmann, you should use 240 W/sq.m instead of 390 W/sq.m because, from the IPCC calculation,
      “The climate system absorbs 240 W/sq.m of solar radiation so that under equilibrium conditions it must emit 240 W/sq.m of infrared radiation. The CO2 radiative forcing constitutes areduction in the emitted infrared radiation, since this 4 W/sq.m forcing represents a heating of the climate system. Thus the CO2 doubling results in the climate system absorbing 4W/sq.m more energy than it emits and global warming then occurs… ”

      Using 240 instead of 390 gives a reasonable approximation to Cess et al. , from my calculation.

      • You are confusing Radiative Forcing which is calculated at the Effective Black Body Temperature of Earth and Surface Forcing. The Effective Black Body Temperature of Earth is 255K which is about 240 w/m2, but this temperature occurs at the MRL which is high above the surface. To calculated temperature change at surface, you have to substitute average temperature at surface which is 288K and 390 w/m2. Since the experiment I refer to above is a direct measurement of surface forcing, and not derived from theory or modeling, it can be directly calculated as I have done. The difference between RF and SF is explained in IPCC AR4. Going from memory I think it is WG1 Ch2.

      • Thus the CO2 doubling results in the climate system absorbing 4W/sq.m more energy than it emits and global warming then occurs… ”

        And this is actually wrong, or at best a poor explanation. At equilibrium, the climate system absorbs and emits the exact same amount, 240 w/m2. What changes is where it is emitted from on average. Everything above the MRL gets cooler and everything below gets warmer, but if you took the average temperature of the atmospheric air column from surface to TOA, it would not change.

    • I loved the “Now I know” part it just makes me wonder when he started “knowing” all of this. BTW I hate seeing WUWT being turned into a political back and forth. Now I know that it is necessary at times but this subject is better ignored. Now I know that won’t happen so now I know I just had to put in my 2 cents worth. ( just as our dear leader does).

    • Does it make any difference that the Koch brothers provide funding for NOVA and other PBS ‘science’ programs?

      • Net Neutrality was not “passed” it was “imposed” by an FCC vote of 3 to 2 , yesterday and done so without yet even revealing to the public what the rules are that they voted on. Another authoritarian move by the US Government.

  16. … I have a constitutional duty to …

    Yeah right. This guy has never even read the Constitution.

    His motto ought to be: to create a “living Constitution, you have to kill it.”

    “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; … ”

    Does he support revitalizing a metallic monetary standard?

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Does he support gun rights?

    Of course not.

    He’s clearly got bigger issues on his little mind.

    • Max Photon

      Maybe this motto — First we have to kill the Constitution to find out what was in it.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  17. McCarthyism – gotta love that phrase.

    Thing is, after the Cold War it has been shown that what McCarthy was after really did exist. Yes, the Soviet Union had plants and sympathizers in the US, in the entertainment industry, in the unions, in the government. But the 3-ring circus that McCarthy presided over was NEVER going to tease any of these agents out.

    What I’m seeing here is the exact kind of thing that turns people against a political party. Grijalva will, in fact, expose the involvement of the oil industry. Yes, they have been financing scientists, paying for conclusions, and are profiting HUGELY as a result of their “investment”. The only problem is, it’s not the “skeptics” or d-word people that are getting this backing. It’s the mainstream ALARMISTS!

    If any tiny dribbles of funding went to the reality side, that’s a complete side effect of no importance. This particular McCarthyist witch hunt has the potential to backfire HUGELY, and I am doing what I can to make sure that happens.

    • McCarthy is not a suitable metaphor for this episode, Lysenkoism is a far better comparison, although this time there is a McCarthyan twist to it due to this persecution being driven by politicians (there a parallel attack going on against 100 companies by other Democratic politician) rather than a modern day Trofim Lysenko.

  18. Grijalva is about as liberal as they come and looks to be solidly entrenched in his district in Arizona. Unfortunately he can probably withstand any backlash from this effort and similar ones like it. In that respect, he’s a pretty scary guy.

  19. Besides this congressional witch hunt, in a matter of days, this administration has announced it’s foot in the door (Hillary Clinton’s phrase) of internet regulation, threatened border guards if they continue enforcement efforts against illegal border crossings and has announced a planned halt to sales of surplus military ammunition to civilians. Something tells me these people are just getting wound up.

  20. Nothing “them” will not help.
    The sun will show fraudsters to their place.
    Very strong lock (ozone) polar vortex over eastern Siberia and Hudson Bay.

    Let us see forecast temperature on 6 March in the northern hemisphere.

  21. How about integrity?

    If the source of funding automaticly makes scentists dishonest and biased, then Mr idiot has a lot a job in front of him checking the enviromental movements trillon dollar funding of climate propaganda.. The cimate inqusitionists are scaringly blunt and obvious in their stalinistic witchunt on oppositions weiws to the politbyrau of climate dictatorship. Mr idiot is attacking the person instead of the arguments. Thats how the opoinon police act.! This guy is extremely dangerous and the people within the party who let him loose is just as dangerous. Stalinists has infiltrated the Democrats. Sorry but obvious its true ! This is how the enemies if democracy and freedom look like.

      • “You are actually quoting from his public disclosure document”.
        Reply
        Which therefore makes his attitude all the more puzzling , because he clearly believes that involvement in “Big Oil” does not reflect badly on his credibility as a legislator .
        Why then should not the same discretion be allowed to scientists ?
        In the short term politicians have more power and influence than scientists , although the effects of the work of the latter may be more permanent, and therefore the commercial interest of politicians are more politically significant than the funding sources of scientific institutions .
        Perhaps Nick you could explain to we simple folk how oil funding for the likes of Mann et al differ logically or morally from funding from the same sources for people such as Lindzen or Soon.
        I simply do not comprehend the distinction, I think that all and any funding should be used to explore all aspects of climate change and the complex physics and chemistry of the atmosphere , and let the best science emerge eventually as it has done since the scientific revolutions of the 17th Cent.

      • mikewaite,
        “Perhaps Nick you could explain to we simple folk how oil funding for the likes of Mann et al…”
        I’m not aware of any particular such funding for Mann. But I think recently the issue has been disclosure. I think research funding without strings that is disclosed and transparent is fine. Secrecy is troubling.

      • Nick ,
        further to your prompt reply:
        “I think research funding without strings that is disclosed and transparent is fine. Secrecy is troubling.”

        I appreciate the point but I am not sure how relevant it is to the debate , which is about the attack on funding for sceptically inclined scientists and the total absence of questioning of pro-AGW researchers.

        “Funding without string” – is there such a thing. I cannot speak for the US , but I was involved in working with , and looking for , funding in UK universities, and in my field of materials science , all funding had strings in the expectation of eventual commercial exploitation. Indeed there is a category of Govt sponsorship for PhD applicants , the CASE studentships , which demand a commercial partner. In latter years , as funding generally was cut , the Dept of Education and Science was more likely to give grants for work which could lead to exploitation by UK firms in 2, 3 or 5 years than to purely academic work. (I appreciate of course that US and its taxpayers are vastly richer than the UK and its people so maybe the commercial aspects of funding have far less urgency )

        Arising from another post and in another context I looked at a paper by Cowtan and Way in which Cowtan claimed that the work was done “in his own time” and that has never been questioned , but I assume that he continued to be paid by his university during this time , or did he take unpaid leave to write the paper?
        If not then he benefited indirectly by the overall funding that his university receives . Should that be acknowledged . No that would be ridiculous and we would have papers that consisted of more acknowledgements than actual science . So why can we not allow Soon and Lindzen the same discretion as given to Cowtan? Why , if of 100 scientists , 97 believe in AGW and 3 are more sceptical , we question the motives of the 3 and not the 97?

      • “So why can we not allow Soon and Lindzen the same discretion as given to Cowtan?”
        I actually believe that Cowtan did work in his own time. He is a lecturer in chemistry, and I expect that consumes his day time. Climate is his hobby. In the case of Soon, he actually billed sponsors for his hours, and scored his papers as deliverables, so that is clear cut.

        In the case of Lindzen etc, I have said that I think the interrogation is wrong and shouldn’t be happening. I simply point out that it is very similar (but less forceful) to the interrogation of Mann by Barton’s committee.

      • milodonharlani
        “I guess you missed the lengthy discussion on Koch brothers’ & Big Oil’s funding of Mann’s institutions”

        Private support of universities goes back at least to Lucas’ endowment of Isaac Newton’s chair. The issue in relation to scientific research is the funding of specific projects; not wrong in itself, but needs transparency.

      • Arising from another post and in another context I looked at a paper by Cowtan and Way in which Cowtan claimed that the work was done “in his own time” and that has never been questioned , but I assume that he continued to be paid by his university during this time , or did he take unpaid leave to write the paper?
        If not then he benefited indirectly by the overall funding that his university receives . Should that be acknowledged .

        This is the acknowledgement from the Cowtan & Way paper where their use of university facilities is acknowledged. Perhaps if Soon could have done something similar where relevant?

        Acknowledgements
        This work was produced without funding in the authors’ own time; however, KC is grateful to the University of York for providing computing facilities and to the organizers of the 2013 EarthTemp network meeting (NERC Grant NE/I030127/1) for enabling him to benefit from the expertise of the other attendees. The authors also acknowledge the reviewers for their invaluable comments, the online community of professional and amateur climate scientists who have provided advice over the 18 months of the work and also John Kennedy at the Hadley Centre, who provided useful feedback on some very rudimentary initial results.

      • Nick stokes @ 4.34 am “Private support of universities goes back at least to Lucas’ endowment of Isaac Newton’s chair. The issue in relation to scientific research is the funding of specific projects; not wrong in itself, but needs transparency.”
        Deflect much? or as Sharpton would say “must”

    • Grijalva himself should do a little public disclosure himself, such as his investments in Shell Oil
      __________________________

      And those Caterpillar earthmovers sure don’t run on wind power….!
      Anyone else believe that all his investments are less than $15,000?

      Hypocrite with a capital ‘H’.

      R

  22. People are allowed to be stupid. That’s ok. But why on Earth being proud of showing off as less knowing than a strawman? It’s stupid by the warmists to show themself being stupid. Isn’t it?

  23. Note that Grijalva’s reference 4 links to the documents that Peter Gleick fraudulently obtained from Heartland, including the forged document that Gleick may or may not have had anything to do with.

  24. I think someone should slap a FOI request on him to find out who is driving his desire to discover climate research funding. Could he be a shill for the green activists? If so, would this lead to his dismissal?

  25. As mentioned by Karl, above, Raul owns Enbridge Energy Partners. Did anybody think to ask if Raul Grijalva’s voting record against the Keystone Pipeline might help enrich himself through Enbridge?
    I did and here’s what I found:
    http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/enbridge-energy-partners-may-gain-from-keystones-pain-eep-enb-trp-unp0330.aspx

    What he is doing is certainly unethical. Is this truly how U.S. Congress representatives are supposed to behave?

    In addition to Shell Oil stock, Raul also owns Royal Dutch Shell stock, according to page 2 of
    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/grijalva-buy.pdf

    He certainly has no qualms about enriching himself with oil money, which is what he accuses others of doing.

    I also researched and discovered that Raul voted against HR 4012, which is called “Secret Science Reform Act of 2014”. The act is intended to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.

    Obviously, by voting against HR 4012, Raul is in favor of allowing the EPA to continue “proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible”. No thanks to Raul, the bill passed the House and is awaiting review in a Senate committee (referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works).

    When I read Raul Grijalva’s letter and saw him say to the President of MIT “My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships”, I thought to myself that this man is a true hypocrite in every manner of the word.

  26. Reading ‘Raul M. Grijalva’s’ so called letter to our various scientists appears official, is written on official stationary; but in reality is just a personal opinion letter masquerading as government business.

    ‘Raul M. Grijalva’s’ letter is not part of an official investigation where the committee’s seal and signatures would give it direction and authorized authority.

    A) As a democratic Congressman from Arizona, ‘Raul M. Grijalva’ has no direct authority over citizens located elsewhere.
    B) As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources Raul has no authority independent of the committee.
    C) As a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Raul is Ex Officio and lacks authority to act independently.

    Raul is apparently trying to directly frighten, demean, burden honest scientists who should be given time to prepare their presentations. Raul’s amateur brute force attempts to directly oppress these scientists is an embarrassment to the United States of America.

    Offhand, I’d recommend that all of the scientists so targeted check with their legal department. If this letter had landed on a desk where I had worked, We’d respond that responding to many individual requests was an unnecessary burden and that we’d prefer to allow the full committee to determine any additional information needed

    Thank you and Good Day Raul, whoever you think you are… (Ok, this sentence is sarcasm) But a pleasant nondescript closure should be utilized.

  27. This is what C.S. Lewis called Bulverism: instead of proving an argument wrong, simply assume it and then provide the ground why the other person held their allegedly mistaken belief.
    So, no need to deal with the arguments of sceptics, just assume they are wrong and then claim that they held their beliefs because of their funding (i.e. “big oil”).

  28. As I had never heard the name of Raúl M. Grijalva before, I looked him up on the internet.

    My first impression is that he represents a dirt poor, highly Hispanic, Arizona district on the Mexican border.

    Up until now, he has shown only lip service to environmental matters, but is sensitive to immigration issues.

    As Obama has apparently overstepped his executive authority in both immigration and EPA regulation matters, I suspect there is a connection. Also, he appears to be about as squeaky clean as a politician can be, which may be why he was chosen to be a high profile, witch hunter.

  29. I stopped by the ‘Committee on Natural Resources’ and filled out a ‘contact the Committee’ message.

    Just leaving a message, politely of course, that you find Raul’s attitude and actions reprehensible is sufficient.

    Those of you from other countries may likely also leave messages, perhaps suggesting that you never thought democracy in America would have such vengeful tyrannical demagogues in it… Just list your state as DC (Washington, DC) and include a note which country you reside in. Nothing like a little international bad taste to really rile representatives; and they’ve had buckets of international bad taste the last few years. :>

    FYI Here is the message I left.

    “Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources; has apparently decided to go full ‘junk yard dog’ attacks on scientists he disagrees with.

    Apparently independent of the Committee on Natural Resources, Raul has issued demand letters to the organizations, universities and schools where these scientists are employed demanding a host of responses. A fair number of the demand for responses are within personal privacy.

    Raul bases his demands and allegations on ‘green organizations’ published gossip and attempts to smear scientists who have published inconvenient research to the theory of Global Warming. Included are scientists who have testified against the concept called Global Warming.

    Where the Global Warming cabal is unable to disprove the science, they attack the scientists. The old ‘shoot the messenger’ ploy of totalitarians and tyrants.

    Surely the Committee on Natural Resources can keep Constitutional order within their own house and end Raul’s attempt to bully scientists into giving the testimony he prefers.”

  30. Perhaps a republican should grab this chance to follow suit, and demand the same information from institutions that have prominent warmist researchers?

    That would be a step towards balance.

  31. icouldnthelpit

    You again demonstrate your ignorance when you write

    These demands for transparency need to be stamped out. The best science is always anonymously funded.

    The best science is not affected by how it was funded and/or by whom. It stands on its own.

    “Demands for transparency” are applied universally. Witch-hunts are not.

    Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        You ask me

        I’d hate to see a repeat of the “tobacco science” of the 50s. Wouldn’t you?

        I do hate the “repeat of the “tobacco science” of the 50s” which is now being conducted by e.g. the IPCC with its funding by governments and the CRU with its funding from ‘Big Oil’.
        I have been opposing it for decades.

        But this thread is not about that.
        This thread is about one of the smears intended to distract attention from the “repeat of the “tobacco science” of the 50s” being conducted by promoters of the AGW-scare.

        Richard

      • icouldnthelpit

        This thread is not a place for you to interrogate me on whatever passes as a thought in your mind.

        You made an assertion about “a repeat of the “tobacco science” of the 50s”. I refuted your assertion.

        Having failed to derail the thread with that assertion, you now ask me

        I’d be interested to know which parts of the letter you disagree with and why.

        I have no desire to address what interests you and I have no intention of derailing the thread with discussion of nit-picking details.

        In common with all rational and decent people, I disagree with the letter because it is a witch hunt.

        And the fact that it is a witch hunt is demonstrated by the complaint of Judith Curry who writes in response to having obtained the letter from Grijalva

        I think Grijalva has made a really big mistake in doing this. I am wondering on what authority Grijalva is demanding this information? He is ranking minority member of a committee before which I have never testified.

        Richard

    • Regards his proposed trip to Holland for the flower show, he would indeed miss the best colours – but not for the reason he suggests in that letter. For the last few years, it has been so cold there have been no tulips whatsoever on the parade (late April), so they have made do with daffodils and hyacinths.

  32. I think our energy here is best spent uncovering specific undisclosed conflicts of interest from the Alarmist side. If there is a hearing, the majority will get to pick most of the witnesses.

  33. None of us would ever think that people and elected representative would stoop low enough to engage in such rank politicking, especially politics of division, but we in Australia have also seen a similar orchestrated campaign to, at every turn, discredit the elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott, with the objective of bringing about his downfall and complete their hope that one Malcolm Turnbull MP who is an avowed supporter of both carbon taxes and promoting the false environmental message that C02 is the greatest threat to Humanity is reinstalled until a Labor left is re-elected and so cripple our economy, move entirely to green power at the cost of every Australian resident, while ramping up coal and mineral exports to the world, just as the Gillard and Rudd Governments and their Green mates intended.

    Nick Stokes of course knows well why the false messages are being spread and why well qualified scientists in Australian are not allowed to debate the Flannery’s and his fellow travellers of the Climate council, which they hope will also be reinstated in its former role under the Rudd and Gillard Governments.

    It really seems that while we have sought to conduct the debate in an orderly and scientific fashion, that those that have promoted AND funded the warmist meme, will now resort to anything even if it is detrimental to the long term peace and stability of elected governments and ruinous to all our economies. Is this their start of the End Game? More than ever their is a need to stay calm unite to defeat, lest the future of the next generation is hobbled as serfs for the elitists who are power hungry with an agenda.

    I have a sad feeling for democracy and rights and those families that believe in truth and justice, and those who value the right to freedom of speech, without being jackbooted by totalitarians. Divide and conquer so you lose rights and don’t realise or awaken to their agenda.

  34. Breaking news – “Einstein took money from Big Oil”.
    A Democrat Congressman is demanding an investigation.”This is very serious and casts doubt on all of Einstein’s research. If the photoelectric effect is not true, then all our solar panels will stop functioning. If E=mc squared is wrong, then all our nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants will stop working. This is a serious threat to national security. If General Relativity is wrong, then all of our GPS systems that rely on a GR correction will start giving out wrong coordinates.”.

    • @ walt d, That seems exactly what is happening with the warmists and the Dem party these days, soon they’ll find out that Einstein was a mere patent researcher in some obscure tiny office and therefore no scientist at all ( and he was Jewish to boot).

  35. Research must be funded or it will not happen. Research is a good thing not a bad thing. Spending money researching important scientific issues should be encouraged not blocked. Discussion of research results concerning important scientific issues and policy issues should be encouraged not blocked.

    Pharmaceutical companies pay for research which ultimately benefits the general public and pharmaceutical companies. Peer reviewed analysis and making the data and the analysis details available so that it can be verified/checked by other interested parties helps to protect against possible biases. Public discussion of the details of research and the logical implications of research is a new thing and will lead to breakthroughs.

    The warmists are resorting to witch hunting as they will lose the policy debate if the debate is base on science.

    The warmists are actively, forcefully, trying to block scientific investigation and discussion of the research results concerning the key questions to determine if there is or is not an extreme AGW problem. This action is inappropriate, is not in the public’s or country’s best interest.

    Trillions of dollars has been spent on green scams. What has changed due to the trillions of dollars spent on green scams? Does spending on green scams significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions? How important is it to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions? There are important policy questions that need to asked and answered concerning the climate war issues.

    1) Multiple peer reviewed analysis results support the assertion that there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. The planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback by an increase or decrease in cloud cover) rather than amplifies forcing changes. Assertion 1 partially explains why there has been no warming for 18 years.

    2) It appears that a significant portion of the warming in the last 50 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Assertion 2 explains why there has suddenly been an increase in sea ice both poles and what causes cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record. Observational proof of assertion 2 would be cooling of the planet.

    3) It appears that a significant portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural causes, not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The NASA first issued CO2 satellite data supports previous peer reviewed data that supports assertion 3.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….

    …The heart of the global warming issue is so-called greenhouse warming. This refers to the fact that the earth balances the heat received from the sun (mostly in the visible spectrum) by radiating in the infrared portion of the spectrum back to space. Gases that are relatively transparent to visible light but strongly absorbent in the infrared (greenhouse gases) interfere with the cooling of the planet, forcing it to become warmer in order to emit sufficient infrared radiation to balance the net incoming sunlight (Lindzen, 1999). By net incoming sunlight, we mean that portion of the sun’s radiation that is not reflected back to space by clouds, aerosols and the earth’s surface. CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. Methodologically, this is unsatisfactory. Ideally, one would seek an observational test of the issue. Here we suggest that it may be possible to test the issue with existing data from satellites.

    • “Research must be funded or it will not happen.”

      Truth continues to be true, whether it is funded or not.

      When a person or people care more for funding than Truth, they are in danger of drifting from reality into illusion. Then, once a person’s life or people’s society is no longer founded on fact, the entire superstructure built above the false foundation starts to teeter and sway, and must eventually crash.

      The smug and corrupt person sitting and ruffling the cash gained through falsehood always seems blissfully unaware he or she is seated on a limb that they and their ilk are sawing off. History shows they never seem to wise up until their glittering Capitals are reduced to smoldering rubble.

      Any practical engineer knows that if your foundation isn’t built upon Truth, all that follows is doomed.

  36. Question: does MIT as employer have the access to, or the right, to disclose an employee’s tax return to a congressperson? Or was this letter written by an aide who didn’t understand legal issues and limits on an employer’s power?

  37. To repeat what I have recently posted on JoNova:
    There is a chilling similarity between Adolf Hitler and Oh Bummer’s modus operandi.

  38. Grijalva is a Commie. The proper response to this Bully is None At All. If however, you, like myself, cannot resist letting this douchbag know how you feel about his feeble and ignorant attempts at minor party intimidation of hard working citizens of the United States of America; do what I did and tweet him to Go Soak Your Head!

  39. Dave,

    What will hurt a politician even more is a well composed letter to his local newspsper, pointing out:

    a) His hit piece, along with

    b) Errors in his allegations, and especially stressing that

    c) Voters should remember his unethical actions at his next election.

    Every politician is always thinking of the next election. Give him something else to think about, instead of attacking an upstanding and ethical man like Willie Soon.

    Make that last comparison between Grijalva and Soon. He won’t like that one bit! Bad publicity is anathema to skunks like Grijalva.

  40. Interesting opening As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources

    I wonder what Chairman Rob Bishop’s take would be in light of his strong statement in response to Obama’s nixing of Keystone XL (my emphasis )

    Bishop on President Obama’s Keystone XL Pipeline Veto 
     
    WASHINGTON, D.C., February 24, 2015 – House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01) issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL legislation today.  The legislation was approved earlier this month with bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate and was sent to the President earlier today. 

    “President Obama has played his final hand on Keystone XL. His veto of Congress’ bipartisan legislation reveals how far he is willing to go to cater to environmental extremists. His veto of Keystone degrades America’s energy leadership on the global stage and insults Canada, one of our greatest allies. 

    “Over a year ago, the State Department concluded the pipeline project ‘is not likely to have a material impact on greenhouse gas emissions.’ Yet bizarrely, the President is placing the fantasies of fringe interest groups and his own misguided political legacy over the needs of the American people.

    http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398054

      • Pethefin – I hadn’t seen it. Thanks for pointing me towards it. Had the same thoughts about Raul’s interests too but was short on time looking into it. Getting anything to stick is another matter mind.

  41. I have a reference to a government meeting that Dr. Lindzen attended, if anyone wants to send a copy to the Witch Finder General:

    ===============================
    “At a meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society, held in London in December 1992, Tom Wigley, one of the climatologists leading research into global warming, said that if the climate responds sluggishly, it could be thirty or forty years before there was clear evidence for of it. ‘I cannot stress the uncertainty enough,’ he said. Sir John Mason, former director of the Meteorological Office, complained that politicians needing to make decisions were asking scientists to studying climate to ‘run before we can walk; to make predictions we may regret.’ The meeting was told by Dick Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute if Technology, that his calculations suggested that the doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by the middle of next century, the assumption on which all calculations are made, would increase average temperatures by 1.5°C at most, compared with the 1.5 to 4.5 degrees more usually predicted.”
    Facing The Future, Michael Allaby, 1995, p.183
    ===============================

    The edition of New Scientist that reported the meeting (December 19, 1992, issue 1852) is notably absent from the archives. It had an article on page 6 by Fred Pearce: American sceptic plays down warming fears. I wanted to read it, but it’s not there:
    http://www.newscientist.com/issue/1852

    (Interestingly, 1992 was the year the Catholic Church finally got around to apologizing for their treatment of the heretic Galileo, whose research was funded by the Medici family)

    Allaby again:
    ========================
    “It is intellectually dishonest to misrepresent the state of scientific knowledge for purposes of political propaganda. Given the poor state of public understanding of scientific concepts, the use of tactics designed to scare people into making radical and costly changes to the way they live is particularly distasteful. Exaggerations of scientific hypotheses, the misunderstanding and selective editing, or deliberate distortion, or findings to support preconceptions amounts to the misuse of information. And, in the end, it will be the scientific enterprise that is most likely to suffer through loss of credibility if it was discovered that the claims were bogus.
    (op.cit. p.p. 187-188)
    ========================

  42. A Tucson radio station 790 KNST is scheduled to interview Roger Pielke live Monday morning at 7:05 AM. Griljava hasn’t had a thought that didn’t promote far leftist ideas. He gets large sums of money from Democrats in elections and with his gerrymandered district is safe to do and say anything the left asks of him. The local talk show will have much to say about this in support of Roger.

  43. Well, the bright side is that perhaps some staff will actually read the testimony of Lindzen. If they want to find something false in it, they will have to dig into the actual science, and they will see how weak the evidence for CAGW is.

  44. See

    https://books.google.com/books?id=OSE9AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=mcgrain+v+daugherty+%281927%29+power+to+compel&source=bl&ots=pY4XnQ2B9g&sig=CCn7biEaccmUCh6sSSa80VpMH9k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PW_uVKPmFJGsyASAmIHgAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=mcgrain%20v%20daugherty%20(1927)%20power%20to%20compel&f=false

    This is political grandstanding by Grijalva. His letters are pure political posturing and have no more legal subpoena authroity than a letter from me. The way to respond to his letters is with public ridicule.

  45. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member
    House Committee on Natural Resources

    I think the Republicans should replace him on this committee.

  46. I just had what I think is a brilliant idea –

    Why don’t we start building pressure behind a law prohibiting any corporation with interests in the petroleum business from contributing money to any person or organization that has anything to say about ‘climate change’? When the loudest outcry against it comes from the people who claim ‘denialist support’ on the part of Big Oil, it should become pretty clear whom Big Oil is actually funding.

  47. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona was born February 19, 1948, over 9 years before the death of Sen. Joseph McCarthy on May 2, 1957. In this respect his life does not support any arguments for Reincarnation.

  48. Hmmm…..Do we know who funded Representative Raúl M. Grijalva’s election?
    In politics the funding says something.
    In actual science? A drug company doesn’t twist the results of research to keep lawyers in business.
    They do it honestly to find something that works so they can sell it to those who need it and not get sued.
    In Climate (Political) Science, what’s being sold and to who’s profit?

    This guy is just trying to discredit by implication anybody who upsetting the Climate (Political) Science applecart.

  49. How do know if that color is really red if I don’t know who paid for the paint job?
    That letter looks like an attempt to get no response so they can say MIT refused to co-operate with their investigation.

  50. Reality is that Congressman Grijalva is looking for an issue to highlight his presence and appear on talk shows and thus expose his limitations, prejudices, and incompetence for openers. In the process, he has placed himself fair and square on the same pedestal as the Catholic Church during the inquisition of Galileo.

    One wonders if in part he is doing this to deflect attention from real issues like border control, national security and economic growth. If not, he has covered himself with indescribable glory.

    • Did you happen to notice how much time the news media spent talking about a dress this week, vs. anything of real substance?

      “Bread and Circuses”

  51. Who is Grivalja?

    Grijalva, when in college was a member of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) which, at that time, was a radical group identified with the separatist “Aztlán ” ideology.

    Grijalva was an Arizona leader of the Raza Unida Party. According to the standard history of the party by Dr. Armando Navarro, “Grijalva was so militant that he alienated some members of Tucson’s Mexican-American community.

    After the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, Grijalva called it a consequence of the violent rhetoric that had been used by Tea Party members. Grijalva singled out Sarah Palin’s rhetoric as “contributing to this toxic climate” and stated that she needs to monitor her words and actions

    Grijalva went to University of Arizona and earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology. At the time, he was inspired into activism by United Farmworkers leader Cesar Chavez – a man trained by the father of “community organizing,” Saul Alinsky. Grijalva himself told the socialist journal, In These Times – “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy, you know, that’s where I learned this stuff… More than three decades later, in one of his first speeches as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Grijalva echoed the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in calling for a national holiday to honor Cesar Chavez.

    Grijalva wrote for the Movimiento newspaper Coraje! (the word means both “courage” and “anger”), whose logo was a clenched-fisted Chicano saying, “My race first” and the motto, “Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”

    Grijalva was nactive in MEChA, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, a pro-Cuban student group that called the Southwest “Aztlan,” the spiritual home of the Chicano people. The acronym, the Spanish word for “fuse,” was evocative of the group’s confrontational, nationalist ideology, which took its sharpest formulation in the group’s motto: “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada” – “For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing.”

    Raul Grijalva has a long history with the Arizona Communist Party USA.

    Add Rep. Raul Grijalva to the growing list of Democratic worries this election season. Party operatives say there’s increasing concern that the Arizona Democrat’s reelection bid could turn into a “sleeper” race for Republicans after Grijalva — responding to enactment of a tough new immigration law — called for an economic boycott of his own state amid a housing crisis and record unemployment. Politico

    In 2006, Esquire magazine wrote that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) represented a “brand of Latino populism [that] will likely become commonplace in decades to come.” The observation was an acknowledgement of the growing demographic and political power of Latinos and a prediction about the politicians it will produce. Grijalva, 61, remains committed to many of the ideals he pursued as a young radical in Tucson, even as he has developed a talent for building coalitions among fellow liberals, often across ethnic lines.

    Grijalva says the United States bears much of the responsibility for the decades of mass Mexican emigration to the United States. Grijalva wants welcoming U.S. policies for Mexican labor. He invokes the bracero days of his father, whose-sepia toned photograph has a place of honor in his congressional office, to urge accommodation of those still fleeing Mexico’s economic misery.

    Grijalva wants a path to citizenship not just for [the current estimated] 12 million illegal immigrants. Like other supporters of “comprehensive” immigration reform, Grijalva wants a path to citizenship not just for those 12 million. He also wants to extend the privilege to hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers who would initially be classified as “temporary.’’

    Compiled from several sources including Politico and http://cis.org/grijalva

  52. is anybody still capable of being shocked by stupid since guam nearly capsized?
    well, it’s worse than you thought:

    he thinks the XL pipeline would be pumping sand.

  53. What on earth was Raul thinking when he issued those letters? Clearly he didn’t wake up one morning and think, hello, I’ll write these letters? So, from whom did he take his orders?

Comments are closed.