Congressman Infuriates Republicans by Asking Who’s Funding Climate Skeptic Scientists

[babylonsister]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/02/democrats_seek_funding_info_on_scientists_who_deny_human_impact_on_climate.html?wpisrc=obnetwork


The Slatest
Your News Companion
March 2 2015 6:31 PM
Congressman Infuriates Republicans by Asking Who’s Funding Climate Skeptic Scientists
By Beth Ethier


Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, wants to know whether money from the energy sector might be influencing scientists who come before Congress to deny climate change. Since asking that question, Grijalva has been accused by fellow lawmakers, and some scientists, of perpetrating a "witch hunt" that could have a "chilling effect" on scientific exploration.

Rep. Grijalva's questioning comes after a lengthy article in the New York Times last month detailed the source of research funds used by Wei-Hock Soon, an aerospace engineer who has testified in several congressional hearings to express doubt that climate change can be attributed to human activity. Soon, who is affiliated with a joint venture of Harvard and the Smithsonian, is responsible for bringing in research dollars to pay his salary and fund his projects. The Times revealed he has received more than $1.2 million from the fossil-fuel industry over the past decade, including at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (As the Times notes, part of Koch’s fortune comes from oil refining.)

Grijalva sent letters last week to universities that employ some of the scientists who remain skeptical about the causes of climate change, asking about the sources of their research funds. This sparked accusations of intimidation from the other side of the aisle. Eleven Republican senators, led by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, sent a letter of their own to academic institutions, expressing concern that Grijalva was out to “silence legitimate academic and scientific inquiry.”

The controversy recalls another political dustup over climate change research, when Virginia's then–attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, demanded in 2010 that the University of Virginia turn over emails and other documents related to researcher Michael Mann, in an effort to show that Mann had fabricated evidence that human activity had contributed to climate change. A court later ruled that Cuccinelli lacked the authority to compel the university to turn over Mann’s papers.

Politico notes that several conservative commentators now criticizing Grijalva trumpeted Cuccinelli's probe into Mann’s academic work as a “thorough investigation by someone not in cahoots with the climate mob.”

[Renew Deal]

1. He hit a sore spot

And he should keep picking that scab

[Fred Sanders]

6. The whole Republican Party is a body full of scabs that need picking. Climate change is at the top.

[2naSalit]

9. Well stated, sir. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

12. For Pete's sake, how can Snowflake Inhofe be taken seriously? He should be in a nursing home?!

No offence to folks in nursing homes.

[2naSalit]

14. Indeed.

Him and several others who come to mind without effort. What gets me is that they are proud of their ignorance by choice like it is a badge of honor that is put to use as a sign of superiority.

[rurallib]

41. that is an analogy that needs spreading!

[think]

2. way to do it /nt

[raging moderate]

3. Thank you, Rep. Grijalva, for all that you do!

Thank you, Raul Grijalva, for all that you do! Every time I turn around, I hear of some other effective action or insightful statement from this man.

[babylonsister]

4. Yes, he's a peach-love him! nt

[Fred Sanders]

5. When AREN't the fascists infuriated.....Go get them, sir. If Senator Snowball Inhofe is involved....

[Vattel]

7. that is an attack on academic freedom. grijalva should know better

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. I wonder how many "scientists" got their bonifides from U of OIL.

[erronis]

34. Or the many "universities" of xian theologies

Of course, we know that most of Ashcroft's DOJ was staffed by Liberty-U or Oral Hatch U. Sorry - I can't keep track of these make-believe "schools" that give paper a bad name.

[groundloop]

16. You have a point, however.....

I'm frustrated as hell by some of these so called 'experts' acting as mouthpieces for the Kochs and big oil. An aerospace engineer is no more qualified to talk about climate science than to perform brain surgery (my son is an aerospace engineer - I have a pretty good idea of what they do and don't study).

It's an accepted fact among climate scientists that humans are causing climate change, and when self-promoting 'experts' claim otherwise one has to wonder what their motivations are. I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of these 'experts' have a financial reason to deny climate change. IMO it's not too much to ask scientists to divulge if they have a financial interest when they publish a paper - in fact many major scientific journals require such disclosures.

[Dustlawyer]

29. No different than BP funding a lot of money to Universities to study the Gulf after the spill.

They pay for the report they want. The scientific community likes money too! People don't understand just how much money they have to throw around and what that does to people.

[Bibliovore]

19. The irony of anyone calling this "a 'witch hunt' that...

... could have a 'chilling effect' on scientific exploration" is that it's pretty standard scientific procedure to state your funding sources in any publication of your research findings. That way, if someone does a study whose findings say that eating an avocado a day reduces HDL cholesterol, and you see that the funding for the study is partly from the Hass Avocado Board (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/01/07/375653050/take-a-swipe-at-bad-cholesterol-eat-an-avocado-a-day), peers and outsiders can take that into consideration, and can look more closely at the study design and results before considering it an unbiased study whose results should be taken at their declared face value.

[Lionel Mandrake]

22. It's standard procedure to state your funding sources in any publication,

because legitimate funding sources want to be recognized in this fashion. When the sources are not divulged, you can bet there's something wrong with the arrangement.

[hootinholler]

40. Baloney

Naming who funds your research has nothing to do with restricting your research.

[quaker bill]

44. secret money

is not academic freedom. Academic freedom is not getting fired for speaking against the consensus. People do not take grants at colleges without the knowledge of the administration. I can't imagine anyone would get fired because they accepted grant funds.

There is no impact on academic freedom.

[onecaliberal]

8. Ruh roh, the fossil fuel industry is going to fight like hell.

They don't like the truth. It might interfere with their $. Not even the planet matters to these fuckers.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Academic freedom, but there is consensus on the issue.

Like physicists agree on Newton's Laws of Motion, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Those are not just theories, they are proven facts.

Biologists agree that Darwinian evolution and natural selection is a fact of life. I have a B.A. in biology and had to learn about evolution extensively, as one of my fields of expertise.

There is consensus on climate change by just about all scientists, and the Republicans think all scientists who say climate change is real are being paid off by some mysterious person. They think that because they are motivated by greed, they think that scientists can be bought off.

Actually, the person testifying against climate change, and against the overwhelming opinion of scientists who have studied weather data for the last hundred years or so, is the one that they have paid off, Wei-Hock Soon.

They are doing what they are accusing Rep. Grijalva of doing. Projection.

[Bandit]

27. All Scientific "theories" are considered FACT until proved not to be.

People get confused by the word theory. Scientist do their questioning during the hypothesis faze. Science presents a hypothesis and it is torn apart in every way possible until NO ONE can find any fault and then and only then does it become Scientific Theory...

[erronis]

35. Uh - I think you may be from another warped universe.

Are you "trolling for dollars"? Not knowing how to spell "phase" seems adequate to put you as a very young adolescent or having maybe imbibed a bit too much.

Still, a great view of an alternate universe. Hope you go back.

[Helen Borg]

38. I'm unfazed.

[NuclearDem]

42. Yeah, that was necessary.

[pnwmom]

45. Actually, they ARE scientific theories, but not "just theories." And facts are something else.

They are well established, well-proven theories accepted by scientists worldwide.

As opposed to the false claims made by the climate-science-deniers.

In science, the word theory means something different than it does outside science. It doesn't mean something is merely a hypothesis or a guess.

And facts are something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.[4][5]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[6] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[4] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

In science, a "fact" is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. ........."chilling effect"?

Seriously?

[Dont call me Shirley]

32. Chilling effect on their bank accounts...

[Scuba]

15. Raul Grijalva is the best kind of Democrat. Love this guy.

[Skidmore]

28. I hope he's around in Congress for a long time.

Really love him too.

[C Moon]

17. This is so funny! The GOP always look like school children in these situations.

They can have the worst poker faces, sometimes!

[freshwest]

18. Love Grijalva!

[mountain grammy]

20. Good for Congressman Grijalva for calling foul on this.

The runaway effects of climate change is the biggest threat the human race faces. We don't have time for this bogus nonsense.

[Thespian2]

21. K&R

No way to say enough bad things about a thug like James Inhofe. Fight on, Grijalva!

[G_j]

23. K&R

[diane in sf]

24. Funding sources for any research, particularly at public universities, should be open information

[erronis]

36. +1 - totally!

[Cha]

25. Yeah, because they must be paid a lot to show themselves off as such

knuckledraggers.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

26. Just for the record, Grijalva is from Arizona!

demostrating that not all of us in Az. is Jesus rode dinosaurs nuts

[hobbit709]

30. what's that old saying about throwing a brick at a pack of dogs?

[love_katz]

31. Good!

Anything that pi$$es of those fundy fanatic repukes is something to support and cheer over. Get 'em!

[Dont call me Shirley]

33. Keep on it Rep. Grijalva!

[DeSwiss]

37. K&R

If one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Then the definition of political naïveté must be expecting a corrupt system and the corrupt people running it to commit acts of honesty and pass fair and honest legislation.

~DeSwiss

''Put the glasses on.....''

[Mustellus]

39. As a scientist who has done funded research.....

... scientific ethics, and most journals, mandate that you release the source of your funding. We usually do this as a thank you at the end of the paper. But its required to show what bias may have been induced by the funding received.

[Michigan-Arizona]

43. K&R n/t