Last week I wrote about the work of Congresman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and what the Committee under his Chairmanship is attempting to do to scientific research.  This past Wednesday he penned this OpEd piece in the Wall Street Journal.  I do have concerns with anyone who might try to intimidate or influence scientific research for whatever reason.  But here’s my rub.  For well over 35 years, beginning in the early 80’s, it was climate change skeptics that tried to shut up climate scientists and those that supported their work.  I was one of those early believers and promoters.  We were ridiculed, joked about and otherwise scorned.  But we persisted because the science continued to be born out.  Sure, this is not an exact science and early predictions have been refined and revised. You would certainly hope that as research continues it would be more precise.  You’d hope that 5 or 10 years from now we’ll be better at understanding and predicting causes and consequences of climate change.

And over all those years, more and more skeptics have come around to a scientific consensus.  And while some may still question, there is no question whatsoever that the credible climate scientists of the world almost unanimously agree with the basic science and consequences, as imprecise as they may be.

What I find peculiar and laughable, is when someone says that because of a campaign contribution you will support whatever they say.  No matter who you are, you are going to give money to a candidate who supports your issues and beliefs.  Would Tom Steyer or George Soros give money to someone who was a climate denier?  Of course not.  Just as the Koch brothers aren’t about to give money to Nancy Pelosi.  So, for me, “that dog don’t hunt.”

So, as far as I’m concerned, this article by Congressman Smith is irrelevant.  What about the fact that both Exxon and Shell have known that climate change is real since the 80’s from their own scientist employees!!!  And, that their products are causing it.  Talk about a coverup and intimidation and subterfuge… The concept that there is a world wide conspiracy designed to extract scientific research funding that has gone on for 4 decades by disparate scientists and independent institutions of the highest caliber worldwide is preposterous and simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

But this is what the American public has put into command of our government.  Pretty scary, I’d say.  What do you think???

 
OPINION COMMENTARY
 

Getting to the Bottom of a Climate Crusade

Are investigations by the ‘Green 20’ an effort to intimidate scientific dissenters

By LAMAR SMITH
March 8, 2017

Transparency for thee, but not for me—that seems to be the motto of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Last year they led a group of their colleagues—dubbed the “Green 20”—in a sweeping initiative to target dissenting views on climate change. Exxon Mobil, for instance, was asked to turn over decades of documents.
The Green 20 investigations have been criticized as blatantly political. Last year a federal judge overseeing Ms. Healey’s suit against Exxon expressed concern that she may be conducting it in “bad faith.”
For nearly a year, the congressional committee I lead has been trying to understand the effects of these investigations on scientific research. Unfortunately, the attorneys general have obstructed our inquiry at every turn. Last July, after two months of unanswered requests for information, the committee issued subpoenas to Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey.
The subpoenas asked for communications between Green 20 offices and environmental activists. This would show the level of coordination in this campaign to harass and silence scientists who challenge prevailing climate-change orthodoxies. The attorneys general have refused to comply, hiding behind vague excuses.

The committee has not sought information about the investigations of Exxon. Instead, our interest is in discovering how this attempt at intimidation affects federally funded scientific research. Then we may consider changing the law to allow this research to continue.

The hypocrisy of the attorneys general here is evident—though perhaps understandable. Mr. Schneiderman has accepted nearly $300,000 in campaign donations from environmentalist donors, including members of the Soros family. He has also used the investigation as a way to curry favor with anti-Exxon billionaire Tom Steyer for a potential gubernatorial run, according to the New York Post.

Perhaps Mr. Schneiderman is afraid of what the House committee might confirm in the course of its investigation. Is he using his public office to advance the priorities of interest groups that support his personal political ambitions?
The American people deserve to know how Mr. Schneiderman’s and Ms. Healey’s actions affect the nation’s scientific community. By refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, they have shown they have something to hide.
To borrow their premise, this obstruction is a coverup—and they must be held accountable for their hypocrisy. On Feb. 16, the House committee reissued the subpoenas, as is customary at the beginning of a new Congress. Although the attorneys general have not yet made any effort to cooperate, I remain hopeful that they will act in accordance with their public statements about transparency and accountability and will comply with the committee’s investigation.
Mr. Smith, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.