COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS: George Mason University climate scientist Jagadish Shukla is the
focus of questions from the House Science Committee regarding finances.
Earlier this year,
House of Representatives liberal Raúl Grijalva of Arizona sent a letter to seven universities
asking for detailed financial records from sources such as fossil fuel
companies that gave money to scientists who’ve questioned how much humans cause
climate change.
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
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.
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.”
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.
Rob is the National
Energy Correspondent for Watchdog.org. Rob is an Emmy-winning news anchor who
has held many prominent positions in the journalism field for over 10 years
working for MSNBC, Fox Sports Net Pittsburgh and several local television
stations. He served as the bureau chief for New Mexico Watchdog and Capitol
Report New Mexico for four years. Rob can be reached on Twitter at @NMWatchdog
or by email at rnikolewski@watchdog.org
No comments:
Post a Comment