Posted on 03/07/2015 6:56:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), other senators and Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) recently sent letters to institutions that employ or support climate change researchers whose work questions claims that Earth and humanity face unprecedented manmade climate change catastrophes.
The letters allege that the targeted researchers may have “conflicts of interest” or may not have fully disclosed corporate funding sources. They say such researchers may have testified before congressional committees, written articles or spoken at conferences, emphasizing the role of natural forces in climate change, or questioning evidence and computer models that emphasize predominantly human causes.
Mr. Grijalva asserts that disclosure of certain information will “establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations” published in the institutions’ names and help Congress make better laws. “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 need to be made clear, because members of Congress cannot perform their duties if research or testimony is “influenced by undisclosed financial relationships,” it says.
The targeted institutions are asked to reveal their policies on financial disclosure; drafts of testimony before Congress or agencies; communications regarding testimony preparation; and sources of “external funding,” including consulting and speaking fees, research grants, honoraria, travel expenses and other monies – for any work that questions the manmade climate cataclysm catechism.
Conflicts of interest can indeed pose problems. However, it is clearly not only fossil fuel companies that have major financial or other interests in climate and air quality standards – nor only manmade climate change skeptics who can have conflicts and personal, financial or institutional interests in these issues.
Renewable energy companies want to perpetuate the mandates, subsidies and climate disruption claims that keep them solvent. Insurance companies want to justify higher rates, to cover costs from allegedly rising seas and more frequent or intense storms. Government agencies seek bigger budgets, more personnel, more power and control, more money for grants to researchers and activist groups that promote their agendas and regulations, and limited oversight, transparency and accountability for their actions. Researchers and organizations funded by these entities naturally want the financing to continue.
You would therefore expect that these members of Congress would send similar letters to researchers and institutions on the other side of this contentious climate controversy. But they did not, even though climate alarmism is embroiled in serious financial, scientific, ethical and conflict of interest disputes.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT atmospheric sciences professor emeritus and one of Grijalva’s targets, has pointed out: “Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm, and trillions of dollars have been involved in overthrowing the energy economy” – and replacing it with expensive, inefficient, insufficient, job-killing, environmentally harmful wind, solar and biofuel sources.
Their 1090 forms reveal that, during the 2010-2012 period, six environmentalist groups received a whopping $332 million from six federal agencies! That is 270 times what Dr. Willie Soon and Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics received from fossil fuel companies in a decade – the funding that supposedly triggered the lawmakers’ letters, mere days after Greenpeace launched its attack on Dr. Soon.
The EPA, Fish & Wildlife Service, NOAA, USAID, Army and State Department transferred this taxpayer money to Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resource Defense Council, National Wildlife Fund and Clean Air Council, for research, reports, press releases and other activities that support and promote federal programs and agendas on air quality, climate change, climate impacts on wildlife, and many similar topics related to the Obama war on fossil fuels. The activists also testified before Congress and lobbied intensively behind the scenes on these issues.
Between 2000 and 2013, EPA also paid the American Lung Association well over $20 million, and lavished over $180 million on its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members, to support agency positions. Chesapeake energy gave the Sierra Club $26 million to advance its Beyond Coal campaign. Russia gave generously to anti-fracking, climate change and related “green” efforts.
Government agencies and laboratories, universities and other organizations have received billions of taxpayer dollars, to develop computer models, data and reports confirming alarmist claims. Abundant corporate money has also flowed to researchers who promote climate alarms and keep any doubts to themselves. Hundreds of billions went to renewable energy companies, many of which went bankrupt. Wind and solar companies have been exempted from endangered species laws, to protect them against legal actions for destroying wildlife habitats, birds and bats. Full disclosure? Rarely, if ever.
In gratitude and to keep the money train on track, many of these recipients contribute hefty sums to congressional candidates. During his recent primary and general campaign, for example, Senator Markey received $3.8 million from Harvard and MIT professors, government unions, Tom Steyer and a dozen environmentalist groups (including recipients of some of that $332 million in taxpayer funds), in direct support and via advertisements opposing candidates running against the champion of disclosure.
As to the ethics of climate disaster researchers, and the credibility of their models, data and reports, ClimateGate emails reveal that researchers used various “tricks” to mix datasets and “hide the decline” in average global temperatures since 1998; colluded to keep skeptical scientific papers out of peer-reviewed journals; deleted potentially damaging or incriminating emails; and engaged in other practices designed to advance manmade climate change alarms. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based many of its most notorious disappearing ice cap, glacier and rainforest claims on student papers, magazine articles, emails and other materials that received no peer review. The IPCC routinely tells its scientists to revise their original studies to reflect Summaries for Policymakers written by politicians and bureaucrats.
Yet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy relies almost entirely on this junk science to justify her agency’s policies – and repeats EPA models and hype on extreme weather, refusing to acknowledge that not one Category 3-5 hurricane has made U.S. landfall for a record 9.3 years. Her former EPA air quality and climate czar John Beale is in prison for fraud, and the agency has conducted numerous illegal air pollution experiments on adults and even children – and then ignored their results in promulgating regulations.
Long-time IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has resigned in disgrace, after saying manmade climate change is “my religion, my dharma” (principle of the cosmic order), rather than a matter for honest, quality science and open, robust debate. The scandals go on and on: see here, here, here and here.
It’s no wonder support for job and economy-killing carbon taxes and regulations is at rock bottom. And not one bit surprising that alarmists refuse to debate realist scientists: the “skeptics” would eviscerate their computer models, ridiculous climate disaster claims, and “adjusted” or fabricated evidence.
Instead, alarmists defame scientists who question their mantra of “dangerous manmade climate change.” The Markey and Grijalva letters “convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease, lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense – and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress,” Professor Lindzen writes. They are “a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming,” says Dr. Soon. Be silent, or perish.
Now the White House is going after Members of Congress! Its new Climate-Change-Deniers website wants citizens to contact and harass senators and congressmen who dare to question its climate diktats.
Somehow, though, Markey, Grijalva, et al. have not evinced any interest in investigating any of this. The tactics are as despicable and destructive as the junk science and anti-energy policies of climate alarmism. It is time to reform the IPCC and EPA, and curtail this climate crisis insanity.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
I’m sorry. Someone remind me who the hell is running Congress these days?
Yes, yes, the government says skeptics may have corporate backing, right? We’re not supposed to notice that the government is simply paving the way for taxes on anything involving carbon, which means more taxes on everything. Taking people’s money by force is a noble cause.
Gruber warming, climate grubering, extreme gruber.
Repeat these phrases after me.
Settled Scientologists
Waiting for Sen Markey to introduce legislation demanding the building of nuclear power plants in Massachusetts.
When you can’t get your agenda through, criminalize and destroy the opposition.
The left is chock full of tyrants and wannabe dictators.
“Its for the little guy”
Christianity is evil. It promotes love and helping and caring for one another. You can become a Christian by choice.
Islam is good. If you are not one of its followers you are a second class citizen and you must pay them. If you do not follow the law you are stoned, have a body part cut off, or killed.
Global Climate Change is the left’s new religion; it doesn’t matter if there’s evidence to support it or not you will become subjugated to it in one way or another. The bottom line is you will pay additional fees and taxes and be forced to pay taxes for green projects the government invests in (it doesn’t matter if the companies are owned by fellow cronies who didnt want to have to earn a real living so they just approached one of their pals on the hill, created some cockamemy scheme to get free money and applied for government grants). If you do not believe, you will be ridiculed, ined, and regulated out of business if you do not comply.
So Christians evil. Government good. Got that?
Christianity is evil. It promotes love and helping and caring for one another. You can become a Christian by choice.
Islam is good. If you are not one of its followers you are a second class citizen and you must pay them. If you do not follow the law you are stoned, have a body part cut off, or killed.
Global Climate Change is the left’s new religion; it doesn’t matter if there’s evidence to support it or not you will become subjugated to it in one way or another. The bottom line is you will pay additional fees and taxes and be forced to pay taxes for green projects the government invests in (it doesn’t matter if the companies are owned by fellow cronies who didnt want to have to earn a real living so they just approached one of their pals on the hill, created some cockamemy scheme to get free money and applied for government grants). If you do not believe, you will be ridiculed, fined, and regulated out of business if you do not comply.
So Christians evil. Government good. Got that?
He’s just using government money to gin up talking points.
Higher taxes.
We have jumped the shark. When you see the wind famrs in the plains you’ll know that America is done. Only a people who’ve abandoned all reason would waste money on crap like that. We’ve sacrificed our future.
I heartily agree. Disclosure is good -- if, and only if, the disclosures go both ways. All members of the AGW conspiracy should also divulge their sponsors, who would dwarf in number and dollar amounts the funding sources of the skeptics. In virtually every case, the skeptics arrived at their conclusions based on logic and reason prior to receiving the first nickel from outside sources. On the other hand, the Warmers reached their conclusions in conjunction with funding before the fact.
I’m counting on my Republican representative and the GOP majority in Congress to put an end to taxpayer funding of environmental causes, community activism, foreign aid, advocacy groups, junk university research. After all I was told if I voted for a Republican Senate the House would finally be able to use the power of the purse to eliminate wasteful spending and reign in the executive branch.
I’m waiting, waiting, waiting, . . . . . .
Uber wealthy socialist elitists ?
You're analogy is still "one of the best" in terms of putting things into an understandable perspective.
Keep it goin' my friend.
Glad I’m not the only one, TE. The GOPe whined when they controlled the House, but not the Senate how they were “just one half of one third.” Now with fully one third they still can’t get anything done. Meanwhile, here’s Markey and company sending letters and making threats like they own the place. Boggles the mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.