Here’s one from yesterday that I wasn’t able to get around to
Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research
An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist to call it quits.
University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.
This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.â€
“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,†Pielke wrote on his blog.
Pielke is one of seven academics under Grijalva’s investigation for allegedly taking money from the fossil fuels industry in exchange for research. Pielke says he’s never been funded by fossil fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much when he testified before Congress.
Pielke is most definitely a believer in man-induced global warming, however, he’s not one of the nutty Warmists. Pielke writes
For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic†opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect todisasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.
No matter your beliefs in anthropogenic global warming, “climate change”, climate disruption, etc, whether you are a big believer who says it is mostly/solely Mankind’s fault, or a 50%, or a “yes, Man does have a small effect, or a “nope, no effect”, you should be seriously concerned about government of any level, and especially an elected official, using their domineering position to come after private citizens in this manner. This is Big Brother territory. Warmists may be thinking “yeah, get that Skeptic! Mess him up! Get them all!”, but, remember, not stopping this kind of power abuse that you favor leaves you open if government comes after you.
Lysenkoism, pure and simple.
Stalin would be proud.
Dr. Pielke Jr, can’t stand the heat. The Congressman referred to Pielke as a “climate skeptic”! The horror!
In 2005 Joe Barton (R-TX) subpoenaed all of Professor Michael Mann’s emails to other climate scientists.
In addition, Barton demanded large volumes of original, raw data of Mann, Raymond Bradley, the director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts; and Malcolm Hughes, the former director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona.
Mr Barton then asked for everything the scientists had ever published and all baseline data… and his committee needed to check its validity.
There followed a demand for details of everything they had done since their careers began, funding received and procedures for data disclosure.
A letter demanding information on the three and their work has also gone to Arden Bement, the director of the US National Science Foundation.
Mann was subsequently harassed by Ken Cuccinelli (R-Redneckistan), AG of Virginia.
A Civil Investigative Demand from the “Cooch” referred to an investigation by the Attorney General into “possible violations” by Mann of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (FATA). Information required related to Mann having sought grants funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and any data or communications Mann had made in connection with five named grants for scientific research. The university was instructed to produce documents dating from January 1999 to the present, including all emailed or written correspondence from, to or relating to Mann and 39 named climate scientists as well as research assistants, secretaries and administrative staff, anything connected with applications for the grants or payment of the grants, and all “documents, drafts, things or data” generated in carrying out the grant assisted research. They also required all “computer algorithms, programs, source code or the like” created or edited by Mann and stored by the university. Where documents were no longer held by the university, the CID required details of who had destroyed or removed them, and their authority for doing so.
Needless to say Professor Mann and UVA beat the stuffings out of Cooch.
Do you think Republicans Joe Barton and Cuccinelli launched witch hunts against Professor Michael Mann (who has not quit and has been called far worse names by politicians than has Pielke Jr.).
How about Senator Inhofe?
“Dr. Pielke can’t stand the heat.” Really? Well how about whiner Michael Mann? Interesting that when talking about Mann, you conveniently leave out that he attempts to sue people that publically question his research. And add the fact that irrespective of the climate issues, he’s a fraud, as he proclaimed himself to be a Nobel Prize winner when he is not. This is what folks who have the science on their side often do.
So you defend the witch hunt against Professor Mann but not against Dr. Pielke Jr.? I think the Congressmen are wrong in both cases.
Do you really think it was OK for Barton and Cuccinelli to use the powers of the US gov’t and the state of Virginia to attack Professor Mann?
Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for defamation. Superior Court Judge Weisberg said this:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.
If Mr. Steyn and his magazine can prove that Professor Mann conducted fraudulent research or manipulated data they win! Several investigations have exonerated Mann. Now the courts can decide if Stain defamed the scientist.
Mann’s conclusions have been confirmed many times by other scientists (PAGES2K, Marcotte et al).
The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other “scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports”, with a personalized certificate “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC,” celebrating the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore.
In 2012, the IPCC sent out a letter to clarify. This is much ado about nothing, as usual.
the traitors in government try to shut down the truth … the only money i care about is taxpayer funds used to defraud the People and illegal payoffs to politicians regardless of party .. the nazi george soros is more evil than any oil company …. and both will make money either way
“Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for defamation.”
And Steyn is countersuing for $10 million as is Canadian climatologist Tim Ball.
Per Steyn’s counterclaim…“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field.”
Now why wouldn’t Mann release his data, even in support of his lawsuit against Tim Ball?
Perhaps an article in the MIT Tech Review has the answer. The article it titled:
“A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”
I don’t know the details of either case. I am not going to blindly believe what partisans on either side say about their opponents. But can we not agree that, IF it is true that a scientist was hounded out of the field because his conclusions disagreed with those of someone in power, that that is not only a terrible thing for that scientist as a human being, but also is very bad for our society, as it means that politics is driving our scientific conclusions rather than the other way around?
And that said, does anyone seriously deny that when it comes to global warming, there have been numerous very public calls that anyone who questions AGW should lose his job and be driven out of the scientific community? You may find a few isolated incidents like that from the AGW doubters, but it’s pretty much the standard day-to-day position of the AGW believers.
And by the way, just as I do not blindly believe what partisans tell me about the politics of AGW, I also do not blindly believe what partisans tell me about the science of AGW. I do not accept a scientific theory as proven because a poll found that such-and-such percentage of scientists say it’s true. Especially when, as we have seen, any scientist who publicly questions AGW is in danger of losing his job. I’ll believe when you show me the evidence, not because someone who plays a scientist on TV says so.