But you have to expect responses like this to revelations of behavior like Willie Soon's
I believe this was a NY Times article.
Lawmakers Seek Information on Funding for Climate Change Critics
By JOHN SCHWARTZFEB. 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.
Three Democratic members of the Senate sent 100 letters to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy. The letters were signed by Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The senators asked for responses by April 3.
"Corporate special interests shouldn't be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy," Senator Markey said, denouncing what he called "denial-for-hire operations."
The funding disclosure questions concerning Dr. Soon have reverberated in other quarters as well. The Smithsonian Institution said on Sunday that it had handed its investigation of Dr. Soon's dealings with funders and journals over to its inspector general. The Smithsonian's acting secretary, Albert Horvath, announced that he would lead "a full review of Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies governing the conduct of sponsored research to ensure they meet the highest standards."
The Smithsonian has already acknowledged one error in handling Dr. Soon.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said last week that a contract provision with funders of Dr. Soon's work that appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources "was a mistake."
"We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements," Dr. Alcock said in an email response to questions.
Dr. Soon has taken a view, contrary to the vast majority of climate scientists, that variations in sunlight may account for much of the recent warming of the earth. The Smithsonian has long distanced itself from Dr. Soon, stating that it does not share his conclusions about climate change, but allowed him to continue working at the Center for Astrophysics, a joint operation with Harvard that is based in Cambridge, Mass.
After news of the letters from Representative Grijalva was announced, Professor Pielke wrote on Twitter, "Climate McCarthyism alive & well. Just learned a U.S. congressman has contacted my university to 'investigate' me."
Professor Pielke went on to note in the tweet that "I'm not even a skeptic" and that he supports the conclusions of the United Nations committee that reviews climate science, as well as the Obama administration's proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gases. He has, however, expressed frequent criticism of climate scientists.
Professor Pielke also noted in a post on his blog that in 2010 he denounced the efforts of Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, then the attorney general for Virginia, to investigate the emails and papers of the climate scientist Michael Mann.
On his blog, Professor Pielke said that the pressure and "smears" had caused him to move away from climate research: "I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject." In an email response to questions, he said he had "unequivocably, never" taken money from the fossil fuel companies or allied organizations.
Andrew Dessler, a mainstream climate researcher and a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, said that he had concerns about "fishing expeditions" by Congress into researchers' work, especially drafts of testimony requested in the letters from Representative Grijalva.
"I like to apply the 'what if it happened to me test,' " he said. And while asking hard questions about funding is worthwhile, "when you start asking for these other documents, it's more difficult."
In a statement, Representative Grijalva said that "I fully support academic freedom and open, spirited debate." However, the news of Dr. Soon's disclosure issues troubled him, he said, adding that he sent the letters "because of the harm done to public confidence in our scientific and legislative procedures."
He concluded, "Congressional disclosure requirements are not always strong enough to establish a witness' full impartiality, and we need to fill in those gaps."
*******************************************************************
Grijalva is a good long ways to the left and thus he and I are in agreement on most topics, but I don't think Congress is the best place to do a piece of investigation like this. Perhaps anyone testifying should be forced to disclose all conflicts of interest and stating falsehoods in such a process would be felony perjury to Congress. But to go after sitting researchers... looks like more Congressmen looking to grab some air time. It's pretty much what they ALWAYS look like they're doing.
I believe this was a NY Times article.
Lawmakers Seek Information on Funding for Climate Change Critics
By JOHN SCHWARTZFEB. 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.
Three Democratic members of the Senate sent 100 letters to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy. The letters were signed by Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The senators asked for responses by April 3.
"Corporate special interests shouldn't be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy," Senator Markey said, denouncing what he called "denial-for-hire operations."
The funding disclosure questions concerning Dr. Soon have reverberated in other quarters as well. The Smithsonian Institution said on Sunday that it had handed its investigation of Dr. Soon's dealings with funders and journals over to its inspector general. The Smithsonian's acting secretary, Albert Horvath, announced that he would lead "a full review of Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies governing the conduct of sponsored research to ensure they meet the highest standards."
The Smithsonian has already acknowledged one error in handling Dr. Soon.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said last week that a contract provision with funders of Dr. Soon's work that appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources "was a mistake."
"We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements," Dr. Alcock said in an email response to questions.
Dr. Soon has taken a view, contrary to the vast majority of climate scientists, that variations in sunlight may account for much of the recent warming of the earth. The Smithsonian has long distanced itself from Dr. Soon, stating that it does not share his conclusions about climate change, but allowed him to continue working at the Center for Astrophysics, a joint operation with Harvard that is based in Cambridge, Mass.
After news of the letters from Representative Grijalva was announced, Professor Pielke wrote on Twitter, "Climate McCarthyism alive & well. Just learned a U.S. congressman has contacted my university to 'investigate' me."
Professor Pielke went on to note in the tweet that "I'm not even a skeptic" and that he supports the conclusions of the United Nations committee that reviews climate science, as well as the Obama administration's proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations on greenhouse gases. He has, however, expressed frequent criticism of climate scientists.
Professor Pielke also noted in a post on his blog that in 2010 he denounced the efforts of Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, then the attorney general for Virginia, to investigate the emails and papers of the climate scientist Michael Mann.
On his blog, Professor Pielke said that the pressure and "smears" had caused him to move away from climate research: "I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject." In an email response to questions, he said he had "unequivocably, never" taken money from the fossil fuel companies or allied organizations.
Andrew Dessler, a mainstream climate researcher and a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, said that he had concerns about "fishing expeditions" by Congress into researchers' work, especially drafts of testimony requested in the letters from Representative Grijalva.
"I like to apply the 'what if it happened to me test,' " he said. And while asking hard questions about funding is worthwhile, "when you start asking for these other documents, it's more difficult."
In a statement, Representative Grijalva said that "I fully support academic freedom and open, spirited debate." However, the news of Dr. Soon's disclosure issues troubled him, he said, adding that he sent the letters "because of the harm done to public confidence in our scientific and legislative procedures."
He concluded, "Congressional disclosure requirements are not always strong enough to establish a witness' full impartiality, and we need to fill in those gaps."
*******************************************************************
Grijalva is a good long ways to the left and thus he and I are in agreement on most topics, but I don't think Congress is the best place to do a piece of investigation like this. Perhaps anyone testifying should be forced to disclose all conflicts of interest and stating falsehoods in such a process would be felony perjury to Congress. But to go after sitting researchers... looks like more Congressmen looking to grab some air time. It's pretty much what they ALWAYS look like they're doing.
