Raul Grijalva on witch hunt for climate skeptics

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-AZ), in his new role as ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, is going after seven researchers who dared to present evidence that the government’s position on climate change is wrong.

One of his targets is Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Pielke maintains a blog here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/

Pielke’s crime, according to Grijalva, is that he has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” This statement challenges the orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

Pielke’s 2013 testimony contained these heretical statements:

Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%).

Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.

There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allows for a comprehensive perspective), or in the overall number of tropical cyclones.

Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.

Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.

Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.”

Pielke writes of this situation in a post on The Climate Fix. In that post Pielke notes:

Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).

Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:

“The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”

Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right?

Grijalva sent a hypocritical letter to the president of the University of Colorado complaining about potential conflicts of interest on funding. (See letter here) Pielke notes in his post that when he testified before Congress, he disclosed his “funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.”

Pielke concludes his post by writing “When ‘witch hunts’ are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”



  1. Hey Poncho I thinks its kind of warm and me’s getting a bit thirsty que no… ? I thinks yur right Cicso…. Whatcu think we go find some cold beers and be cool spot by the fan awhile and think about it… me thinks you onto somethings good Poncho…. last one there is a hat dancer…

  2. Can we volunteer Grijalva to be the first person to go to Mars and check out the weather there? He’s such a scientist!

  3. UPDATE:
    Comments from Dr. Roy Spencer,U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville:


    One of the biggest misconceptions about climate research funding is that government funding is unbiased. That is, the belief that government funding does not favor one outcome over another.

    Government funding programs are, in part, formulated by government political appointees who prefer research with outcomes that support their government programs.

    Similarly, university research scientists who provide peer review of proposals for funding favor those proposals which offer to make findings that everyone knows will help to perpetuate funding. After all, it is difficult to get Congress to agree to fund non-problems, and yet climate research funding has to continue in order for the current marching army of lifelong climate researchers to have jobs.

    Follow the money, folks.

    So, while we wait to see just how the current witch hunt plays out (which I am told has now been extended to some skeptical-leaning think tanks), let me ask:

    1) Are you OK with the fact that U.S. energy policy has been informed by an international scientific organization (the IPCC) whose outgoing chairman this week admitted that global warming is his “religion“? Or that others in the IPCC have admitted their goal is global income redistribution? Is this the “unbiased” source of scientific information you want your government to rely on for energy policy?

    2) Are you OK with the fact that U.S. government funding for non-human sources of climate change has been almost non-existent?

    The governmental Goliath is coming after David. It will be interesting to see what happens.

      • aroy, not sure what you mean: Who is the “you” who massages “data to produce the desired outcome?” Mr. Grijalva isn’t really into data that much but the comment could apply to him; I’m just not sure.

        • What’s not to understand? “You” is anyone who is in a position to produce an outcome that supports a particular position, even if it’s wrong. As for Grijalva not being into data, he’s not into anything unless it’s bellying up to the federal trough.

  4. I consider this DEMONcrate grijalva, the supporter of the criminal, illegal alien, terrorist, combatant, invaders to be a terrorist just like the illegal ones he supports and anything that he says to be just more exaggerated lies. IMHO he is non essential and expendable and should be sent on a suicide mission to Syria.

  5. If his government can call it a crisis YOU can be controlled and bilked out of more money.

    We need a replacement for him. It is shameful that Americans fought and died to protect us from this.

  6. Hey mustache, there’s a whole new pod mansion waiting for you and your ilk in downtown tucson, they even have your names on them as provided by a food kitchen

  7. I completely agree with the last paragraph of this story. Politicians have gotten worse and worse and science in IMHO has gotten better. Climatology is an inexact science and as most know but don’t want to admit weather and this planet have gone through huge changes since its inception. We have no proof of global warming and when the enviors point to the last 100 years of records I laugh my ass off. Like the world has only evolved in the last 100 or so years. When an inexact science is linked to a popular cause then the human species is in deep trouble. The people behind this inexact science don’t have the facts to back them up only their inflamed feelings and that everyone should accept their word as gospel. I find it hilarious that the enviors now are trying to blame the cold weather on the east coast that comes from the arctic on global warming. Only from the mouths of idiots comes garbage like that and only a Grijalva (who has never had an honest job in his life) would back it up. It is his last recourse. Its only his “opinion” against humanity and sadly Raul is on the wrong side again. Oh and by the way, he is following the liberal play book to a T. If you don’t have the facts, use half truths and lies to make your case, right all you liberals out there????

Comments are closed.