|
Banned
|
What is going on here is a political battle between Republican committee chairmen in both the house and in the senate. House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) has now come out to publicly voice criticism of Rep. Joe Barton that parallels what I have posted concerning Barton's attack on science and on scientists.
In the senate (see bottom quote box), moderate Republican Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) who is pro-scientific research methodology and findings, is opposed by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,[who] has called global warming the “greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
I view this as unusual because there is a publicly exposed split between Republican legislative leaders who attempt to represent the interests and future wellbeing of the American people who they represent, at least in this instance, and those who back the agenda of the Bush administration, which seems to coincide with the polluting and exploiting industry and development lobbies. Ironically, as politicians like Bush, Cheney, Barton, and Inhofe sell out the air, water, energy, mineral, forest, and wildlife resources of the U.S. to their influential campaign contributors, business partners, or future employers, once these resources and the oversight of regulatory agencies are compromised or gutted, what will these politicians, or the younger political supporters who aid and support their agenda, have left to sell to lobbyists?
When the agenda to bankrupt the federal government and end all regulation is complete, assuming the defense industry is left standing, will there be a government relevant enough to support the careers and compensation of all of the lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians who are currently occupied in implementing this agenda?
Quote:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...torial/3273517
July 20, 2005, 1:27AM
TRULY CHILLING
Rep. Barton's harassment of scientists, disdain for fellow lawmakers a disservice
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
The heart of science isn't quiet. Challenges to data, methodology and interpretation churn throughout the scientific process. Harassment of scientists, however, deserves no role in scientific inquiry. U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, ignores this principle in his shameful hectoring of well-known climatologists.
Late last month, Barton requested mounds of documents from three scientists known for studying global warming. As chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Barton demanded detailed documentation of almost every aspect of hundreds of studies the scientists had penned.
He made a similar request to the head of the National Science Foundation, writing, "The term 'records' is to be construed in the broadest sense ... whether printed or recorded electronically or magnetically or stored in any type of data bank, including, but not limited to ... summaries of personal conversations or interviews ... diaries ... checks and canceled checks ... bank statements."
Barton gave the scientists 18 days to comply with the request, which he has the power to convert into a subpoena.
One recipient was University of Virginia researcher Michael E. Mann, whose studies suggest the Earth's climate has grown warmer in large part due to humans' use of fossil fuels. Mann co-authored a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Since then, numerous climate studies have supported Mann's original findings.
Partly because of its influence, Mann's early work still draws critiques from global-warming skeptics. Barton cited these critiques in his letter to Mann, adding "this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely."
The extraordinary scope of Barton's investigation has rightly appalled many scientists and lawmakers. The European Geosciences Union called the requests "burdensome and inappropriate." The director of the National Academy of Sciences vainly offered to appoint an independent panel to review the consensus on global warming claims.
A mark of the inappropriate nature of Barton's actions, a fellow Republican rebuked him in a public letter. U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, warned Barton that his investigation was outside his committee's jurisdiction and showed "an insensitivity toward the workings of science [that] may reflect your Committee's inexperience in the areas you are investigating."
Calling Barton's precedent "truly chilling," Boehlert added, "My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them."
Barton has responded to his critics with a bizarre tone unsuited to the subject's gravity. "We regret that our little request for data has given them a chill," his committee spokesman recently said.
Barton is right that global warming is a pressing and controversial issue � and tracking the use of federal funding is a worthwhile endeavor. In his indiscriminate mining for documents, however, Barton ignores the first steps of fact-finding: hearings, discussions with the scientists and reading the peer-reviewed and published papers in the field.
Given his indebtedness to the oil and power industries � from 1989-2004 he received more money from these industries that any other House member � Barton seems to be acting on motives other than a thirst for truth. This is a disservice to the nation. Harassing scientists is the wrong way to find answers to environmental questions that affect us all.
|
Quote:
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...5/climate.html
July 21, 2005
Climate-change debate may hinge on Senate committees' jurisdiction
By Kari Lundgren
The opening salvo of a jurisdiction battle over climate-change regulation will be fired today at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
The issue highlights a sharp division between leaders of two Senate committees. Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and ranking member Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), on one side, have shown interest in passing a bill, while Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has called global warming the “greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
The hearing is the first of two promised by Domenici in June after 53-44 passage of a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate amendment calling for mandatory action to “slow, stop and reverse the growth” of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Today’s hearing will focus on the scientific research behind climate change and the economic strategies to manage global warming.
The Environment and Public Works Committee has said it will hold its own hearings on climate change next week. “We’re interested in hearing whether the U.S. is really behind the power curve on this issue,” said John Shanahan, the committee’s press secretary..............
........There is a lot to be said for Environmental Protection Agency regulating this, but that does not mean you can’t write a program that’s run by the Energy Department.”
Before the passage of the energy bill in June, Bingaman circulated a draft proposal based on the recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), a nongovernmental panel funded mainly by the Pew Charitable Trusts. According to research done by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the NCEP proposal would reduce emissions by 4 percent in 2015 and 7 percent in 2025, at an annual cost of $78 per household.
Jason Grumet, executive director of the NCEP, will testify at today’s hearing, a fact welcomed by environmentalists as a step forward but dismissed by some industry lobbyists who question the work of the NCEP.
“The NCEP is not a national commission,” Ebell argued. “It wasn’t created by any official action. It’s a special interest, and it should have no more credibility that any other interest group.”
Ebell said the witness list is stacked in favor of climate-change activists, a charge dismissed by Black. “We picked the broadest, biggest institutions to tell us about climate change. These institutions reflect the center of the debate,” Black said..........
..............A similar battle played out in the House earlier this week between House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas). In a tart letter sent July 14, Boehlert chided Barton for pursuing an investigation into several leading climate-change scientists and raised questions over the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction on the issue.
“The only conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate,” Boehlert wrote.
|
|