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 — http://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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shame on you!
The good people of Arizona should take note.
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
A truly righteous reply from a constituent here.
Sad. Very sad.
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.
A different hunt
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/02/round-figures.html
and links
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.
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.
Gotta love it….the government that can’t build a functional web site in control of the entire internet….only in the USSA..
Just Steve
haha — the perfect comment.
Eugene WR Gallun
[lets not go there -mod]
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.
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.
It appears that Representative Grijalva himself should do a little public disclosure himself, such as his investments in Shell Oil as well as the pipeline firm Embridge Energy Partners.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/grijalva-buy.pdf
You are actually quoting from his public disclosure document.
“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.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
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?
Nick,
I guess you missed the lengthy discussion on Koch brothers’ & Big Oil’s funding of Mann’s institutions, including this by Jimbo:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/15/oh-the-pain-kochmachine-is-in-many-american-universities-including-penn-state/#comment-1450025
“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 @ur momisugly 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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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”).
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.
Lovely piece of propaganda, that is: it discourages folk from digging deeper.
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.
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.
I just read this guys profile on wiki. He is definitely one for Douglas Adams’ Ark ‘B’.
What an Ar$ehole
Don’t worry we’ve beaten fascism in all its previous forms, this loon should be a pushover!
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)