On his blog this morning, Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, a respected climate scientist, reveals that he was one of seven academics being being investigated by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources. Grijalva wants to know all university financial disclosure policies that are applicable to Pielke, detailed information about any sources of external funding and grants he may have received, as well as any communications related to external funding. He also wants copies of any speeches and testimony before lawmakers Pielke has delivered, as well as salary and travel expense information.
You can read Grijalva’s full letter to CU here, but per the letter, here is Pielke’s supposed crime:
According to Pielke, this is nothing but a witch hunt:
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 to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research. …
Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC.
Now recall a few years ago when Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli investigated climate scientist Michael E. Mann. Of course, there was a major difference between Cuccinelli’s and Grijalva’s investigation. There was a great deal of evidence suggesting that Mann may have falsified data. Nonetheless, Cuccinelli was pilloried by the press and Mann has more or less escaped condemnation for his suspect behavior, which includes filing laughable libel suits against those who dare to criticize him.
Grijalva’s behavior here is appalling for anyone who believes in open and honest scientific debate. Pielke notes that the Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic spokesman has said that the seven scientists they are investigating were specifically chosen because they seem “to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community.”
And yet, so far the liberal media seems far more concerned about enforcing the comparatively trivial doctrinaire liberal line on climate change policy than the more important issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech. “So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore,” says Pielke.
Congressional Democrats are openly trying to shut down debate on climate science, and our watchdog media couldn’t care less about this gross abuse of power.
