Energy Collective
March 5, 2015

by Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus

On April 23, 2010, the Attorney General of the state of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, initiated an investigation into the research of climate scientist Michael Mann. Mann is the creator of the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which used tree-ring measurements and other proxies to show that average global temperatures have spiked dramatically since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Mann’s research was cited by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but was controversial among climate skeptics.

Scholars rightly viewed Cuccinelli’s investigation as ideologically motivated. The Faculty Senate at the University of Virginia issued a statement saying the Attorney General’s actions sent “a chilling message to scientists engaged in basic research involving Earth’s climate.” Professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, issued a statement saying the Attorney General’s actions “echo some of the worst offenses of the McCarthy era.”

Happily, Cuccinelli’s investigation never got off the ground. In March 2012, Virginia’s Supreme Court dismissed the investigation, ruling that the Attorney General did not have the legal authority to demand any records from the university.

At the time, Democratic politicians including, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, denounced Cuccinelli’s investigation as “intimidation tactics” and “a threat to academic freedom and open scientific inquiry.” But this week they started using the very same tactics against climate scientists with whom they disagree.

On Tuesday, Representative Raul Grijalva, a Democratic Congressman from Arizona, sent letters to seven university presidents, asking them to release information on funding sources for university professors. And Sen. Markey, who held a House hearing on Cuccinelli’s investigation of Mann, announced he had begun a related investigation.

One of the professors under investigation is Roger Pielke, Jr., who has been an unpaid Senior Fellow at Breakthrough Institute since 2007. Pielke is a tenured environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a leading researcher on climate change and weather extremes.

Grijalva’s beef with Pielke is plainly ideological. Pielke is not a climate skeptic. He has long affirmed the view that human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and his work on weather extremes has been widely cited by the IPCC. Moreover, he has endorsed a carbon tax and President Obama’s carbon pollution regulations.

But because his research finds that there has been no identifiable increase in the cost and human impacts of natural disasters due to human-caused global warming — a finding that the IPCC has endorsed — he has become a target of environmental activists and now, the ranking Democratic member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

In advance of multiple testimonies before Congressional committees, Pielke has affirmed that he has no financial conflicts of interest. Grijalva has offered no evidence to the contrary. Rather, Grijalva’s investigation is part fishing expedition, part innuendo campaign. It won’t find nefarious funding of Pielke’s research. But it will drag his good name and reputation through the mud — especially in an era where long debunked accusations take on a life of their own in the blogosphere. Long after Pielke’s name is cleared, accusations that his research is funded by the fossil fuels industry, and old links to the news stories that ran when Grijalva publicized the letters, will live on in cyberspace. Read more …

Roger Pielke, Jr. interviewed in Science Magazine:

By Eli Kintisch

Science Magazine
March 4, 2015

Conflicts of interest and disclosure of funding sources have been topics du jour lately in science policy circles. Last month activists opposed to genetically modified food rattled academic scientists working in that field by submitting requests for their correspondence under state open records laws. Then the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report warning that such requests can become vehicles for harassing academic researchers. In Wisconsin, an ongoing effort by the state’s largest public university to shield some research efforts from freedom of information requests has caused controversy.

Then, in the highest profile development, news outlets released information gathered by environmental groups about the funding sources of Willie Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The groups alleged that Soon, a prominent critic of mainstream climate science and opponent of government action on climate change, had not disclosed funding from corporate sponsors to journals that published his work, potentially violating journal policies. The Smithsonian has launched an investigation.

The Soon revelations inspired Senator Edward Markey (D–MA) to send letters to numerous energy industry groups, asking them to disclose the names of scientists they had funded. They also prompted Representative Raul Grijalva (D–AZ), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, to launch an investigation last week into the funding sources of seven academics who have studied climate change or testified before Congress on the matter, often to criticize research findings or policy proposals. Grijalva asked universities to provide the salaries of the seven, official disclosure policies and statements, details on any external funding sources of the academics, and copies of any “communications” related to testimony they provided to government bodies.

Grijalva’s wide-ranging request caused an uproar, including claims that it represented a “witch hunt,” as well as letters expressing concern about the balance between transparency and academic freedom from the American Geophysical Union and the American Metrological Society. This week, Grijalva backed off a bit, saying the request for correspondence was an “overreach,” but defending the push for disclosure.

One of the scientists targeted by Grijalva is Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy expert at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Pielke has been something of a lightning rod in climate debates, sometimes drawing attacks from all sides as a result of his views on research and policy. He’s also written extensively on conflict of interest, and has been actively tweeting and blogging in recent days in defense of himself.

Yesterday, ScienceInsider spoke to Pielke by phone. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Q: When the Soon stories came out last week, you said he should have mentioned his conflict of interest, but otherwise the issue was blown out of proportion. Yet the Smithsonian, which jointly runs his institution, is carefully investigating it.

A: I’ve written on conflict of interest for a long time, and I’ve participated in efforts to tighten up conflict of interest policies in the scientific community; I’m currently on a National Research Council committee that’s doing just that. It’s a really important issue. Five years ago I was one of the strongest critics of the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] for not having any conflict of interest policies.

By all means, Willie Soon, whom I don’t know and I don’t know anything about his research, should follow the guidelines of his institution, and the journals in which he publishes, and Congress when he testifies. If he’s violated those requirements he’s done something that’s pretty serious … But if you look at our community, the failure to disclose conflicts of interest is fairly endemic. Economics has dealt with this; the medical sciences have dealt with this; the geosciences really haven’t.

Q: Senator Markey says that companies in the fossil fuel industry should disclose the outside scientists they fund. Do you agree?

A: The best way for that disclosure to occur is in the reporting process, by individuals who are funded, in their disclosures to journals, their institutions, or Congress when you testify. Getting companies to release information on who they fund and what they fund is probably a difficult fight.

Q: Do you think we have sufficient standards for disclosure for scientists?

A: I was part of a 2009 report by the Bipartisan Policy Center [a Washington, D.C. think tank] on conflict of interest policies. What we sought to do was to tell the government to harmonize policies on this across the federal agencies, to provide advice to the incoming Obama administration to restore integrity to science. And we said journals should have clear policies on disclosure.

But one thing to keep in mind is that you can’t judge research by who funds it. Once disclosure is done the research should be judged on its merits.

Q: Have you ever turned down funding because you were concerned about how it would look to disclose it?

A: Never. Unfortunately that’s not a problem I’ve had, nobody’s knocking on my door offering me money.

Q: Have you received any funding that you haven’t disclosed?

A: No.

Q: Five years ago you told us you wanted to stop publishing on climate policy. Why?

A: Yes, [that decision has] been a few years in the making. You know, I wrote my dissertation on science in the climate debate. I’ve written on mitigation, adaptation, geoengineering, impacts of climate change. So, intellectually, the benefits of continuing to do work in this area aren’t that high. On the other end of the conversation, the cost of participating in the issue continue to go up. Between being run out of [the popular statistics blog FiveThirtyEight.com] for writing on my research last year and what’s happening this week [in] Congress, a lot of folks want to make the issues surrounding climate about me, instead of the issues. That makes it fairly untenable to participate.

March 4, 2015
Denver’s KHOW Radio with Mandy Connell
Listen to the program (starting at 72:40)

March 3, 2015
KNST Tuscon

Garret Lewis at KNST in Tuscon (in Rep. Grijalva’s district) interviewed Roger Pielke, Jr. to discuss academic freedom, Al Gore, carbon tax, and other things. Listen to the program.

Democratic rep still seeks funding sources, but not correspondence
By Mitchell Byars

Daily Camera
March 3, 2015

The Arizona Congressman who last week asked the University of Colorado to disclose the sources of funding for professor Roger Pielke Jr. now admits an additional request for communications regarding such funding was an “overreach” — but defended the search as an effort to seek important disclosures for figures in the climate change debate.

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva last week sent letters to seven different universities — including CU — that employed researchers who have been skeptical or controversial in their positions on climate change in an effort to determine whether any had received research funding from fossil fuel companies.

In the letters, Grijalva asked the universities to disclose all sources and amounts of external funding for those professors, as well as any communications regarding the funding or testimony by the professors to Congress or other bodies.

But on Monday, Grijalva told the National Journal that his request for the communications went too far.

“The communications back-and-forth is honestly secondary, and I would even on my own say that that was an overreach in that letter,” Grijalva told the publication. “I want the disclosure (of funding sources). Then people can draw their own conclusions.”

Grijalva said he would be willing to back off the communications request if it prevented him from obtaining the other disclosures he was seeking.

“As long as we get a response as to the funding sources, I think everything else is secondary and not necessary,” Grijalva said.

Pielke said that Grijalva’s letter was “absolutely” a witch hunt, and that his statements Monday further show that the letters were just a smear attempt.

“That just goes to show, if all he wants is material that is already out there in the public record, the point of the letter was purely political,” Pielke told the Daily Camera on Tuesday. “If you’re a young academic, you see this kind of retaliation for giving testimony that one party or another doesn’t like, and it provides a pretty strong disincentive.”

Grijalva’s office did not respond to requests for comment. Read more …

Denver Post
March 2, 2015

“We stand behind him.”

It was good to see University of Colorado-Boulder Provost Russell Moore rally decisively on behalf of Professor Roger Pielke Jr. after the ranking Democratic member of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, launched an inquiry into the professor because of his academic views.

Grijalva has written CU (and six other institutions that employ researchers whose views on issues related to climate change he dislikes) demanding a mind-boggling amount of information, including Pielke’s funding sources, communications and “all drafts” of testimony before “any government body.”

Grijalva’s purported purpose is to ferret out “conflicts of interest,” specifically funding by energy companies, but in fact his gambit amounts to a bold, abusive assault on academic freedom.

Moreover, as Pielke noted on his blog, “I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Rep. Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the U.S. Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.”

Pielke, by the way, has never disputed a role of human activity in climate change. He even favors a carbon tax and supports federal regulatory attempts to crack down on carbon emissions.

But his sin, it seems — as Grijalva tells it — is to have told the U.S. Senate that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

In short, he disagrees with the Obama administration and various environmental groups, which repeatedly claim — contrary to what Pielke documents as mainstream scientific thinking — that natural disasters have gotten more frequent, intense and costly as a result of global warming.

Pielke happens to have spent much of his career studying disasters and climate change, and is an international authority on the subject. But his careful opinions have resulted in repeated attacks by those who demand fidelity to the most alarmist view of present-day climate — to the point that he’s apparently had it.

“The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues,” he wrote on his blog.

It’s a sad day when bullies such as Grijalva can push honest brokers such as Pielke into another line of research.

———————-

Other Recent News articles

Climate change question should change from ‘Is it real?’ to ‘How bad is it?’
by Bob Bennett

Deseret News
March 2, 2015

It is clear that Democrats plan to make “climate change” a front-line issue in the 2016 campaign. They tried to do that in 2014 and got nowhere , but President Obama still brings it up at every opportunity. His science czar John Holdren calls it “urgent.”

“Look around you,” the Democrats say. “Droughts in California. Bitter cold in Boston. Tornadoes in strange places. This is the new normal and will only get worse unless drastic steps are taken immediately. Those who deny this put the planet in peril.” By framing the issue in these terms — a bipolar fight between those who accept science and those who don’t — and then wrapping themselves in the scientists’ flag, they hope to gain the moral high ground.

That’s why they are reacting so strongly against scientists who accept the global warming/climate change theory as correct but question the scientific validity of the projections about what it means in real world terms. Such scientific inquiry upsets the neatness of their bipolar construct.

A recent target of their ire is Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder, an expert on extreme weather. He believes that climate is being affected by human emissions. He further believes that the consequences of doing nothing about it could be harmful. He favors a tax on carbon. So far, for Democrats, so good. However, Pielke has also highlighted data that shows that recent extreme weather events do not appear to have been caused by human emissions. That brought the full weight of Jon Holdren down on him.

Holdren should have realized that Pielke’s statement — that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, nor droughts since the mid-20th century— echos the position of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ultimate keeper of the climate change flame: “[T]here is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.” Read more …

———————-

Heat’s on Climate Change Dissidents
by Debra J. Saunders

The American Spectator
March 2, 2015

“I am under ‘investigation,’” professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder posted on his blog Wednesday.

The top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, sent a letter to university President Bruce Benson that asked the school to provide its financial disclosure policies and information on how they apply to Pielke, as well as any drafts and communications involving Pielke’s testimony before Congress between Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

In 2013, Grijalva explained, Pielke told the Senate that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” Grijalva is a fervent believer in climate change. Pielke is a believer, as well. He has defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and supports a carbon tax. But Pielke doesn’t buy all the hype — hence his testimony that challenged the catastrophic-weather argument. For that, Grijalva wants to give Pielke the full treatment — a full financial and documentary probe.

Without the agreement of Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah — who is the committee’s chairman — the ranking Democrat asked for documents from six other academics, including my old pal Steve Hayward at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy, who have challenged global warming orthodoxy. Grijalva is fishing on one side of the pond only.

Climate change true believers always say they want to keep politics out of science, but they cannot help themselves.

Pielke calls it a “politically motivated ‘witch hunt’” designed to intimidate a point of view. What prompted the probe? On Feb. 21, the New York Times reported that Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a global warming skeptic, had received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry but failed to disclose his funding in journals that published his work. So Grijalva apparently decided to interrogate others presumed guilty by association of belief. Read more …

Roger Pielke, Jr. quoted in various media outlets on recent politically driven witch hunt:

9News
March 1, 2015

CU prof targeted for climate change dissent
by Kyle Clark

The University of Colorado is vigorously defending a professor targeted for investigation by a Democratic congressman after challenging an Obama administration belief on climate change.

Roger Pielke, Jr could hardly be described as a climate change denier. Pielke has called for a carbon tax to fund technological innovation and supported increased pollution regulations to push energy producers to develop cleaner fuels.

But Pielke disagrees with the Obama administration’s view that the increasing costs of disasters can be linked to greenhouse gas emissions.

Pielke’s July 2013 testimony to Congress drew the ire of Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Grijalva is demanding that seven universities provide information about researchers’ “potential conflicts of interest” suggesting that they might be funded by oil and gas interests. Read more …

—————————

Beacon Review
March 1, 2015

Roger Pielke Jr. of CU-Boulder targeted over research funding by congressman

A University of Colorado professor who’s been a polarizing figure in the climate modify debate is being investigated by a Democratic congressman from Arizona more than irrespective of whether he’s received study funding from fossil fuel organizations.

Each professor Roger Pielke Jr. who denies claims that he’s a climate change skeptic and the CU administration on Wednesday said that’s completely not the case.

“Professor Pielke is a very regarded faculty member who is clearly operating beneath the principles of academic freedom, which we strongly defend,” CU Provost Russell Moore mentioned. “We stand behind him. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other credible organizations.

“None of his research has been funded by oil companies or fossil fuel interests.” Read more …

—————————

The Weekly Standard
March 1, 2015

The Democratic War on Science

Roger Pielke Jr., a respected climate scientist at the University of Colorado, announced recently on his blog that he is being investigated by congressional Democrats. Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent a letter to the university demanding to see all 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.

Pielke is one of seven climate scientists being targeted by congressional Democrats. Why are these seven scientists being targeted? Well, the common thread is that all of them are skeptical, to one degree or another, of the claims made by global warming alarmists.

In the words of the Democratic spokesman for the natural resources committee, these seven scientists seem “to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community.” It is a witch hunt, pure and simple. Grijalva and his fellow Democrats are abusing their power to try to dig up any information they can use to discredit these scientists and silence debate over the necessity of draconian government action to deal with climate change.

For his part, Pielke is standing firm, and it seems unlikely that the attacks on the tenured professor are going to do any damage. On his blog, Pielke has made it clear just how misguided this assault on him is:

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 [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] 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. Read more …

—————————

AZ Central
March 1, 2015

Green McCarthyism: Grijalva smears scientist

he term “McCarthyism” gets knocked around in a lot of weird ways, most of them only dimly reminiscent of the nasty, reputation-ruining havoc wreaked by Sen. Joe McCarthy during the Commie witch-hunts of the Fifties.

“Tailgunner Joe” ruined lives because he was powerful and used his power cruelly, publicly insinuating, often with no real evidence, that people coming before his committee were suspected Communists. For the innocent, it was a hellish time.

Not everyone gets that. But, you want real McCarthyism? I’ll give you a real McCarthyite: Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva. Now there’s a McCarthyite.

Sirs and Madams, has this guy no shame? Doubt he does.

The ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Grijalva is sending out demand letters seeking information about climate scientists who have testified before his committee.

In at least one of his letters Grijalva cynically ties one mildly skeptical climate scientist to another well-known skeptic of conventional climate wisdom who has gotten himself into some hot water: Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, who appears to have attempted to hide some of the sources of funding for his climate research — which, yes, appears to include energy companies and, double-yes, the Koch brothers (for some balance, see: here).

Grijalva, who never met a copper mine or oil pipeline he wouldn’t oppose, is a greenie. A very green greenie. And greenies are notoriously intolerant these days of climate scientists who don’t religiously toe the green line. Read more …

Roger Pielke, Jr. highlighted in the Financial Post:

I am Under ‘Investigation’
by Roger Pielke

Special to Financial Post
February 26, 2015

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate we will have fully turned science into just another arena for power politics.

Roger Pielke, Jr. quoted in the news on climate scientists being investigated by Congress:

Climate Scientist Being Investigated by Congress For Not Believing in Global Warming Enough
by Rick Moran

American Thinker
February 26, 2015

Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, and six others  are under investigation by Congress regarding testimony they’ve given on the subject of climate change.

Pielke, a believer in man-caused global warming, can’t quite figure out why he’s the object of a witch hunt.

Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.

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. Read more …

—————————

The Last Climate Science Witch Hunt
by Terence Corcoran

Financial Post
February 25, 2015

It must be getting cold in the climate science greenhouse, so cold the denizens have taken to hunting witches and burning them to keep their theories of climate change alive. The science is said to be settled, with 97% of the world’s thousands of scientists allegedly in agreement that the world is on the brink of a man-made global warming catastrophe. But 97% isn’t enough, apparently. Despite their claim to an overpowering position, the climate establishment and activists have been forced to begin a public purge of the half dozen U.S. scientists who hold different views.

In what is clearly a coordinated effort, the hunt for the hides of a few climate skeptics began last weekend when The New York Times climate beat reporter, Justin Gillis, co-wrote an attack on Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, a sceptical scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The Times charged Mr. Soon with having “accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry.”

There was nothing new in the charge. Greenpeace has been leaking the story to various media since at least 2011, when Mr. Soon’s fossil fuel funding surfaced in The Guardian. Mr. Soon has in the past said his funding has not influenced his research. The Times revival of a dead story seemed odd, but within days the larger purpose became clear.

On Tuesday, Raul Grijalva, Democratic Representative from Arizona—and chair of the House committee in environment and natural resources–announced a witch hunt for Mr. Soon and six other U.S. scientists, citing the New York Times article and “documents I have received.” Mr. Grijalva, in separate letters, asked the presidents of seven universities to look into the funding and force disclosure of personal data for each scientist. The scientists are, in addition to Mr. Soon: John Christy of the University of Alabama, Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Richard Lindzen of MIT, David Legates at the University of Delaware, Steven Hayward at Pepperdine, Judith Curry at Georgia Institute of Technology, Robert Balling at Arizona State. Read more …

—————————

CU-Boulder’s Roger Pielke Jr. Says Congressman is Probing His Research Funding
Prof calls probe a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’

Daily Camera
February 25, 2015

A University of Colorado professor and well-known figure in the climate-change debate says he’s being investigated by an Arizona congressman over whether he has received research funding from fossil fuel companies.

Professor Roger Pielke Jr., who directs CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, wrote in a blog post published this morning that he’s being investigated by U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat.

He flatly denies the allegations, saying they’re part of a “witch hunt.”

Pielke said Grijalva, the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent a letter to CU President Bruce Benson asking for information about Pielke’s external funding sources.

“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,” Grijalva wrote, according to a letter posted on Pielke’s blog. “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.” Read more …

—————————

Lawmakers Seek Information on Funding for Climate Change Critics
by John Schwartz

New York Times
February 25, 2015

Democratic lawmakers in Washington are demanding information about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change.

Prominent members of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate have sent letters to universities, companies and trade groups asking for information about funding to the scientists.

The letters came after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as “deliverables.”

In letters sent to seven universities on Tuesday, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.

The requests focused on funding sources for the scientists, including David Legates of the University of Delaware and Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

In the letters, Representative Grijalva wrote, “My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.” He asked for each university’s policies on financial disclosure and the amount and sources of outside funding for each scholar, “communications regarding the funding” and “all drafts” of testimony. Read more …

Ben Hale quoted in the news on geoengineering:

A Plan to Save the Earth That Might Kill Us All
by Shelby Kinney-Lang

Good Magazine
February 24, 2015

Two weeks ago, the US National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a two-volume tome on geoengineering, a set of high-tech ideas that aim to alter the climate and thereby soften the brunt of climate change’s blow. In the report, the 16 scientists who authored the project (which was partially financially backed by the CIA) conspicuously rebranded these controversial geoengineering activities as “climate intervention.” The name change to “intervention” from “engineering” connotes that the technique employs all the unpredictability of jumping between two inebriated yahoos duking it out in a fistfight and none of an engineer’s precise know-how. Though the report argues for more research on certain geoengineering practices, critics warn of unintended consequences, pointing to the unexplored moral, ethical, and philosophical quandaries such globe-altering technologies might produce.

At the outset, the committee repeated that the best way to take on climate change was the standard, unsexy fare we’re accustomed to hearing. “It is the Committee’s assessment that there is no substitute for dramatic reductions in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change,” wrote the prestigious group.

Still, the report advised continued research into what National Geographic called the “bad way” to geoengineer. Known as albedo modification, or solar radiation management, the idea is that if we increase the amount of sunlight the Earth reflects away from itself, we can keep the planet cooler. In some of these scenarios, we splash the stratosphere with sulfate particles or other chemicals, which become reflective aerosols, or tiny floating solar mirrors. Like a volcanic eruption sputtering into the atmosphere, albedo modification would, in fact, drop global temperatures but would not take into account other dynamic operations grouped in the Earth’s systems (like ocean acidification from CO2). And each albedo intervention would only work in the short term. Unlike greenhouse gases, these chemicals naturally work out of the earth’s system pretty quickly.

But most importantly, critics point out (and the report admits) that beginning a reflecting process would mean sticking to it on a time scale measured in centuries. If we want to keep the Earth’s surface cool for a long time, we pretty much have to keep aerosols swirling in the atmosphere forever. Without supplementing these technologies with carbon dioxide reduction or removal, CO2 would continue to build up in the atmosphere, a time bomb that could have devastating consequences if albedo modification abruptly stopped for any reason. Imagine a war or some political and economic tangles forced us to quit artificially reflecting sunlight. Centuries of amassed CO2 warming would be released, sweeping across the globe in the course of a couple years and completely transforming the world as we know it. Albedo modification locks us into what could be called the Pringles effect: once we pop, we can’t stop. In Slate, one of the paper’s authors, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, said the idea of fixing climate change “by hacking the Earth’s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, howlingly barking mad.”

So why would we ever put a plan like this into action? Even if most people might agree that it is “barking mad” and might have “terrifying consequences,” in the case of certain dire environmental outcomes, even geoengineering’s harshest critics may be hard-pressed to defend their opposition to this kind of environmental Hail Mary. Suppose the year is 2050 and the worst predicted climate scenario has occurred. We haven’t cut back on CO2 levels. Global temperatures have risen by 2.6 degrees Celsius. The ocean level is swelling. So, should we hack Earth’s reflective capabilities? It’s a question that many people involved in the geoengineering debate, more concerned with scientific feasibility than issues of ethics, don’t seem to be able to answer.

“The ‘should we’ question is often framed within the science question, not the other way around,” said Ben Hale, associate professor in the philosophy and environmental studies programs at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “I think a lot of people in the geoengineering community think that if we can demonstrate the technical feasibility of it, then that answers the ‘should’ question. Technical feasibility is, in a certain respect, just an empirical matter. ‘Can we do it?’ doesn’t get at the ‘Should we do it?’ question.”

The right questions, according to Hale, deal more explicitly with ethical concerns. “What kinds of principles will we be violating, what kinds of rights might we be overriding, what sorts of people need to be considered—those kinds of questions I think are much more important to raising and answering the [“should”] question than questions about technical feasibility.”

The NAS report does have an “Ethical and Sociopolitical Issues” section. It’s a little over a page long. Hale wrote one of the papers they cite, a 2012 chapter about “moral hazard” and solar radiation management. The risk of moral hazard may be a big reason why certain climate hacking proposals, despite generating interest and controversy, still haven’t received much clout or funding. As the authors of the paper understand it, albedo modification research “could distract from efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.” The thinking goes that if geoengineering is an option, certain actors will continue to consume carbon without compunction, relying on a theoretical scientific out if things get too bad. Knowing we have a Plan B up our sleeves, the logic goes, will discourage us from frantically getting after a more ideal Plan A.

“A classic case of moral hazard is we build a dam, and people move into the flood plain,” Hale explained. We know that when introducing some type of insurance scheme or policy intervention, it will change people’s behavior. But, according to Hale, that’s usually the point, that’s why we do those things. “If we decide to geoengineer, the reason we’re doing it is so that we can continue polluting, basically.”

Getting to the point where we begin to ask the right questions also means getting beyond the seemingly out-of-reach, fantastic-sounding aspects of these large-scale science projects. Geoengineering proposals sound like something out of science fiction, or that Simpsons episode when Mr. Burns uses a shield to block out the sun. “Part of the problem is that this seems like such a farfetched technology, such a farfetched proposal, that it’s kind of like talking about Battlestar Galactica-style interventions,” Hale said. “But it’s not that…it’s a real proposal, and people are really spending millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, to do research and studies, and it should be taken seriously by the general population.” Read more …