The saga of The Man in the US Congress in Charge of Science but Who Doesn鈥檛 Understand It continues.
For those new to this, Texas Republican Lamar Smith 鈥� chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives 鈥� doesn鈥檛 think global warming is real. He thinks it鈥檚 a huge conspiracy by climate scientists who fudge the data to make it look like the planet is heating up, .
Advertisement
I wish I were being hyperbolic. But this is literally true.
In , Smith subpoenaed Kathryn Sullivan, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claiming that scientists in her agency were 鈥渁ltering the data鈥�.
Smith got this idea after . This research was done by a team of NOAA scientists and, I鈥檒l note, is correct. .
That didn鈥檛 stop Smith. He also demanded the data, methodology and emails of NOAA scientists be released (despite the first two already being publicly available). We also learned that Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson 鈥� who is the senior Democrat on the science committee 鈥� sent Smith a letter accusing him of harassing and second-guessing scientists, and also pointed out he鈥檚 not qualified to assess the data or methods. This, too, is correct.
Conspiracy theories
In , Smith made public his conspiracy theories about scientists fiddling with the data (they did this, Smith claims, 鈥渢o advance this administration鈥檚 extreme climate change agenda鈥�, in case you were wondering just how far removed from reality Smith is on this), and I showed why these ideas are nonsense (to be very very very very polite).
In I went into more detail, showing that Smith doesn鈥檛 understand even the most basic principles of scientific data measurement.
And now here we are, at Part 4 of a presumably infinite series. His new claim? That the NOAA Science paper in question was rushed into publication, and that Smith has 鈥渨histleblowers鈥� who will attest to it.
However, that鈥檚 at odds with the facts. , outlining where his claims are clearly wrong. She lays out a timeline, showing that the paper was submitted to the journal in late 2014, and took months to publish. Not only that, it relied on data from papers submitted to the journal in 2013, hardly a rush job.
I鈥檒l note that these alleged whistleblowers had ample opportunity to file a complaint with NOAA itself. Yet no complaints have been registered (even though NOAA ).
A Washington Post makes the case that not only was this paper not rushed, it actually underwent more scrutiny than usual.
Curious fact
On top of all this, Smith has sent several letters to NOAA and other groups 鈥� seven in total 鈥� with his demands, but only just now, in his most recent one, did he mention whistleblowers. That鈥檚 curious; Johnson has asked him repeatedly why he thinks the scientists have fiddled with the data, but he鈥檚 been silent on that.
It鈥檚 also curious, as Johnson notes, that Smith has declined to share any of the information about his alleged whistleblowers with any of the Democratic minority on the committee. If he鈥檚 not purely politically motivated, why wouldn鈥檛 he give this information to them? Who are these whistleblowers? What are their specific claims? Why has Smith waited so long to mention them?
I strongly urge you to read Johnson鈥檚 letter; it really shows that Smith鈥檚 actions are the results of political grandstanding. NOAA had been complying with his requests, as silly and wasteful as those requests were, but Smith ignored this and kept making more and more unreasonable demands.
Role model
Finally, NOAA put its foot down; NOAA administrator Kathryn Sullivan has refused to comply any further.
I鈥檝e been saying that Smith is harassing scientists, and he鈥檚 abusing his power of congressional subpoena. : He鈥檚 been pressuring Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker over all this, trying to get her to in turn pressure NOAA to turn over the scientists鈥� emails. If NOAA doesn鈥檛 comply, he鈥檚 threatened to subpoena the secretary herself.
Not only that, but his threats to Sullivan are atrocious. As Johnson points out, in what may be my favourite part of her letter:
鈥淚 think it might be informative to take note of whom you are threatening. Dr Kathryn Sullivan is PhD [sic] geologist, former naval reserve officer, former three-time NASA astronaut, former chief scientist of NOAA, and former member of the National Science Board. As an astronaut, Dr Sullivan became the first American woman to ever 鈥榳alk鈥� in space.
鈥淒r Sullivan is the very definition of service to country, and she is a role model for us all. I highly doubt Dr Sullivan is intimidated by your threats, but it is an indication of how low the Majority is willing to stoop to perpetuate their anti-science agenda when a legitimate American icon is dragged through the mud in furtherance of an ideological crusade.鈥�
Boom. Smith is out of control. I earlier likened him to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who, in the 1950s, went on a huge and reckless witch hunt, looking for communists in government, ruining people鈥檚 careers and lives in the process. That likeness grows ever clearer.
Damaging behaviour
I don鈥檛 see any reason to change my assessment of Smith now. He is a demagogue, using his power to stifle scientific research, to create a climate of fear and pressure for those scientists, and to obfuscate and further cast doubt in the public鈥檚 mind about the reality of climate change and its effects (an effort that has of course found purchase with the usual right-wing media suspects).
This behaviour is as appalling as it is damaging and clearly based on falsehoods. . We are seeing the effects of that now. And we know that , pumping every year. These are facts.
But the majority of and Congress members in charge of critical committees reject these facts, replacing them with their own fantasies of conspiratorial scientists.
These people . It鈥檚 good news that , but the sad and embarrassing truth is the ones in key positions are not. And while they fiddle, the world burns.
This article first appeared on
Phil Plait writes Slate鈥檚 Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelist, and author of
