 Now, House of Representatives conservative Lamar Smith of Texas — also chairman
of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology — has launched an
investigation into the financial dealings of a climate scientist who signed a
letter “strongly” supporting using federal racketeering laws to investigate
those who “undermine climate science.”
The two congressional probes into the increasingly polarized global warming
debate have gone in different directions.
Grijalva backed down amid charges of McCarthyism, but Smith’s investigation into
George Mason University climate dynamics professor Jagadish Shukla is proceeding
apace.
What’s the difference?
Smith’s critics say there essentially is none, but his supporters say there’s a
big difference — namely, the questions do not focus on one’s opinion about
climate change but government tax dollars.
One noted scientist who has been in the center of many a climate crossfire told
Watchdog.org it appears the Smith investigation is worth pursuing.
“It should be investigated,” said Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry.
“It’s a topic of discussion among my colleagues and no matter what side of the
climate change debate they’re on, they agree something looks suspicious here.”
Curry was one of the scientists targeted in February by Grijalva, the ranking
Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, who cited “documents I
have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to
disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research.”
Curry objected, saying at the time, “Absolutely, this letter is intimidation.”
Hit by criticism, Grijalva withdrew the letter — the link to the letter from
Grijalva’s office at the Natural Resources Committee can no longer be found —
and conceded it was “overreach.”
The Shukla backstory
Image from CSPAN
Image from CSPAN
Judith Curry at Senate hearing in 2014
Shukla is now the latest scientist drawing attention from Capitol Hill, but the
attention he’s getting is the result of a political boomerang.
Shukla was the lead signatory of a September letter from 20 climate scientists
calling on President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the head of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to use the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to file civil lawsuits against
“corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters” who have
“knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
The RICO law is commonly used to go after Mafia figures, but Sen. Sheldon
Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, has advocated using it against “fossil fuel
companies and their allies” as it was used against tobacco companies.
The letter sparked backlash from critics — including Curry — who said invoking
RICO would silence scientific discourse and act as a blunt instrument to
intimidate policy discussion.
Signers of the letter said it was not aimed at fellow scientists.
But in the letter’s fallout, questions arose regarding Shukla and his finances.
The decorated scientist heads the Institute of Global Environment and Society,
as well as the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies at George Mason.
A financial examination first initiated by University of Colorado environmental
studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. and subsequent followups from journalists and
bloggers raised allegations Shukla may be double-dipping to the tune of millions
of dollars.
Shukla earned $314,000 last year from George Mason, a public university based in
Fairfax, Virginia. IRS documents show Shukla also received $333,048 in
compensation from IGES in 2014 for working an average of 28 hours a week.
[to top of second column]
|
 His wife, Anne, received $166,097 in compensation as the IGES
business manager. National Review reported that Shukla’s daughter is
also on the payroll, but her earnings have gone unreported.
There is some question about whether Shukla’s salary at IGES
comports with state and federal laws. In addition, IGES has
reportedly received $63 million in taxpayer-funded grants since
2001.
That prompted Smith’s investigation. A letter sent to Shukla’s
lawyer last week said the reports raise “serious allegations about
Dr. Shukla’s use of grant money.”
Two different committee actions
How is the Smith investigation different from the aborted Grijalva
inquiry?
In an email to Watchdog.org, Smith said, “IGES appears to be almost
fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in
partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of
companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama
administration on climate change.”
Smith’s office said the committee is not focused on the opinions of
scientists, but on the potential misuses of federal funds by Shukla
and IGES. None of the other 20 signatories of the letter to Obama
have received a similar letter from the committee, Smith’s office
said.
“Regarding Shukla, that remains to be uncovered, but it appears
there is some sort of irregularity,” Curry told Watchdog.org in a
telephone interview.
It seems the partisan lines have been drawn.
After the letter from the scientists — called the #RICO20 on Twitter
— got lambasted by critics, Whitehouse took to the Huffington Post
to call detractors part of “the right-wing attack machine” who “are
having fun twisting” the application of RICO “around in service to
their fossil-fuel friends.”
“The bottom line is this,” Whitehouse wrote. “A private company
and/or its industry allies should not knowingly lie to the American
people about the harms that are caused by its product.”
Whitehouse also called Curry “a prominent climate denier” and Willie
Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics “a small cog
in a massive climate-denial machine.”
“For anyone who tries to say that this RICO thing is only about the
oil companies, Sen. Whitehouse’s continued writings imply
otherwise,” Curry said Sunday.
Whitehouse “didn’t mention any specific oil companies,” in the
Huffington Post article, Curry said, “but he mentioned two climate
scientists by name, including myself. So when the ‘RICO 20’ say, oh
this isn’t about the scientists, well, it clearly is.”
RELATED: Congress investigating scientist who advocated RICO use for
climate change skeptics
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, the ranking member of the House
Science Committee, has not responded to emails from Watchdog.org
about the Shukla investigation, but there appears to be tension
between her and Smith.
Johnson sent a letter to Smith Friday, according to the Washington
Post, complaining about recent subpoenas from Smith to NOAA,
demanding information from the agency about a recent study that
contradicted claims that there has been a “pause” in global warming.
Accusing Smith of “furthering a fishing expedition,” Johnson wrote
the subpoenas represent “a serious misuse of Congressional oversight
powers.”
Smith wrote Johnson back, saying his actions are an “appropriate
constitutional oversight” and do not constitute harassment.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
