The Abdication of Oversight
November 8th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Last summer we took issue with Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) when he sought to gain political advantage by taking on some climate scientists. I’d bet that the loud reaction to his “investigation” was one factor in Rep. Barton’s apparent decision not to follow up as yet. Such external oversight of science and politics can play a positive role in limiting the politicization of science and its negative effects on policy making. Now we have a case of Democrats playing politics through climate science, and a similarly loud reaction would seem to be appropriate from informed observers. Will we see a similar reaction?
Providing ample evidence that the politicization of science by politicians is a bipartisan pastime, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 150 fellow Democrats have introduced a rarely used “resolution of inquiry” to explore whether the Bush Administration has been hiding evidence that the current hurricane season has been caused by global warming. Kucinich said in press release last week:
“”The American public deserve to know what the President knew about the effects climate change would have, and will continue to have, on our coasts. This Administration, and Congress, can no longer afford to overlook the overwhelming evidence of the devastating effect of global climate change. It is essential for our preparedness that we understand global climate change and take serious and immediate actions to slow its effects.”
According to an InsideEPA.com news story, which Rep. Kucinich introduced to the Congressional Record (PDF), the “Resolution of Inquiry” is part of a strategy to try to divide moderate Congressional Republicans from the party. According to InsideEPA.com,
“A novel effort by 150 House Democrats to require that the White House turn over documents showing what it knows about climate change effects on U.S. coastal regions may force key Republican moderates to choose party loyalty over their environmental records, or risk leaving themselves open to attacks from conservative opponents in upcoming primaries, sources say… Kucinich’s resolution does not specifically mention hurricanes, but congressional staffers familiar with the effort say Congress is growing more concerned that climate change may have increased hurricane severity in light of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. ”This has been a brutal hurricane season and many think climate change will be the defining problem of our generation. We want to know what [President Bush] knew,” according to one staffer.”
InsideEPA.com describes the Democrats strategy as one that seeks to place a few congressional Republicans in a tight spot,
“Observers say the ROI will present House Science Committee Chairman SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY), Rep. VERNON EHLERS (R-MI) and Rep. WAYNE GILCHREST (R-MD) with a critical choice between siding with their party in deflecting attention from the president’s climate policies and their environmental records, which have won them praise and endorsements from environmental groups. Their decisions on the matter may prove crucial during their 2006 primaries, where at least one is expected to face a tough fight against a more conservative GOP candidate.”
The InsideEPA.com article goes into some details about why it is that Congressmen Boehlert, Ehlers and Gilchrest are ripe for a squeeze.
What to make of this? Congressional Democrats are playing politics, trying to gain some advantage in the upcoming congressional election, which is what they are supposed to do. With respect to the climate issue, because the Democrats are the minority party they don’t have the power to call hearings or otherwise set the agenda, so it might be appropriate to use the “Resolution of Inquiry” to access information. (For details on the congressional “Resolution of Inquiry” see this report (PDF) from the Congressional Research Service at the Federation of American Scientists website.)
No matter where one comes out on the climate issue, it is obvious that the Democrats are playing their politics through science. The tone of his inquiry smacks of black helicopters and the trilateral commission. As a close observer of the hurricane research community in NSF, Navy, and NOAA over the past 10 years, I know that there is no hidden smoking gun waiting to be discovered in the bureaucracy that shows that the Bush Administration had forewarning that this year’s hurricane season would be particularly bad, and kept that information under wraps to appease their oil and gas friends. Perhaps the Bush Administration would do such a thing, but in this case it did not, for the simple reason that such information does not exist. It doesn’t.
The playing of partisan politics by Democrats through the science of climate change and hurricanes may come at a price in policy effectiveness. As we have stated here many times, there is simply no evidence to suggest that policy makers can modulate hurricane behavior, much less their impacts for the foreseeable future through energy policies. Representative Kucinich and his 150 colleagues risk focusing attention on bad hurricane policies and, as a consequence, overlooking good ones.
This would be a good time for leaders in the scientific community to discuss the policy issues associated with hurricanes and climate change. Is there a smoking gun on the science of hurricanes in the bureaucracy? Can energy policies be an effective tool of disaster mitigation? This would also be a good time for the “war on science” crowd to burnish their alleged bipartisan credentials. Call me a jaded cynic, but my guess is that both groups will be stony silent, reflecting their own committed partisanship. If so, then you will be seeing a very real consequence of the politicization of science – the abdication of oversight.
November 8th, 2005 at 7:26 am
I say:
“The motion (as described above) is on completely the wrong track (ho ho) and looks like band-waggon jumping after an “exciting” event: from a climate science point of view what their motion should be about is something different. The real Bush failure is to acknowledge the considerable degree of certainty of the attribution of recent, well observed, climate change to anthropogenic factors. Bush/Republicans/Skeptics/Whoever need to start by acknowledging the existing warming as real (Bush has done this, but quietly and weakly) and stop quibbling about it; admit that the current best science attributes most of the warming to us and stop overplaying the uncertainty; and then have a proper policy-relevant type debate about what to do; in the meantime the scientist types can go back to quietly refining estimates of attribution an future warming.”
and some other things: see http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/abdication-of-oversight.html
Sadly I’m not a leader of the scientific community so I’m not sure if I count…
November 8th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
William
Get real.
Increasing numbers of political leaders around the globe have essentially stopped listening to the alarmist wing of the climate research community. Instead, they have begun to follow the advice of their chief economists and treasury departments.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are perhaps to best examples for this major policy shift in Europe. Now that a new international “consensus” seems to be emerging and Kyoto-style time-lines and emission targets are being scrapped left, right and centre, governments throughout the world will – almost by necessity – inceasingly rely on (and fund) anti-alarmist climate scientists able to conduct balanced impact risk assessments of moderate warming. In fact, I actualy predicted some time ago that this (ironic) role reversal would happen once the real economic burden of the Kyoto Treaty would become evident in Europe -which is basically what has happenend and what explains Blair’s dramatic U-turn on climate change policies.
While this policy shift will be detrimental to the disaster brigade, it is bound to bring about much more realistic and thus cost-effective assessments of how complex societies such as ours, that rely on economic growth and growing energy consumption, can advance by means of societal and technological adaptation to climate change.
If you don’t believe the game is over I suggest to read up on what Blair has been saying about Kyoto and post-Kyoto in recent months. From a policy point of view, the global warming debate is truely over. As Blair has stressed over and over again, “the blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge.” I couldn’t have said it better.
Benny Peiser
November 8th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
I thought that NOAA did predict a large number of hurricanes. Am I wrong or is that not what you are saying?
I would expect that the reaction to Kucinich would not be as strong partially because Kucinich is going after polititions and Barton was going after scientists.
Also the effort by Barton was viewed as part of a much larger effort to discredit legitamate climate science.
The move by Kucinich is not as pollitically or as scientifically as significant so it will not generate the as strong a reaction.
I’m just commenting, not tying to justify or excuse Kucinich’s actions.
November 8th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Hello “Abstract” Peiser! (http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/) You’re mostly talking about the politics, I mostly stick to the science. But sometimes…
I’m no great fan of the Blair record – see http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/uk-govt-record-on-climate-change.html and more recently http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/blur-on-climate-change.html
November 8th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Roger, get a grip man. The resolution of inquiry says nothing about hurricanes. In spite of your weak attempt to imply that he did, neither did Kucinich. Your screaming is resting on a quote from unidentified staffers. Even there, they are merely pointing out that people in Congress and the public are concerned that hurricane severity is increasing and want to know what reports are out there, but not cleared to the public. Note the difference. They splits a lot fewer hairs than you do above.
Are you so silly as to believe there is no probability that this administration is holding back publication of reports on anthropic climate change effects in coastal areas? Especially in coastal states such as Florida.
Remember the Bush administration did about the National Climate Assessment with the aid of CEI? A lot of good science thrown into the memory hole. http://tinyurl.com/d2kdp, but, of course, that was the heroic Republicans not those nasty Democrats.
Such a horror, that Kucinich and friends want to see all the reports about this. Learn to hide your dissapointment.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:39 am
I’m confused. Kucinich is asking for information to be turned over? Granted, they are claiming documents exist that don’t, but what happens if the GOP just turns over whatever documents they are asking for? I can see opposing a meritless investigation, but if they are asking for specific documents on the science of climate change, what’s the big deal? Turn them over. If what you say is true, the story’s over. I see no national security issue here.
I see the most insidious form of abuse to be an attempt to undermine or alter the scientific process, which would be the suppression or altering of data, or intimidation of scientists. If this is asking for information, it sounds like grandstanding. If it’s an open ended investigation for the purposes of a witch hunt, then it’s closer to abuse, I suppose, in the sense that it might give a megaphone to an idea that’s not backed up yet by the science, which I guess is what you’re saying; asking for these documents deliberately distorts the consensus view.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:10 am
William
It is rather illuminating to see how well you’ve spotted Blair’s hidden agenda for his Kyoto U-turn: “This now lines up a possible explanation, that Blair is angling to lead the post-Kyoto organisation in retirement from being PM.”
Dream on, my friend. Or are you seriously banking on Gordon Brown? Forget it. Brown and other senior government ministers are just as desperate as Blair to scrap Britain’s CO2 emission targets (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article325172.ece). The reason for Britain’s new climate policy isn’t that difficult to understand either (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4415818.stm).
Let’s face it. The climate alarmists have lost the political battle in Britain while the moderates have essentially won the argument. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Get over it. It’s time to look for a pragmatic, long-term and cost-effective approach to climate change – come hell or high water.
Benny Peiser
November 9th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Eli -
The press release’s headline says: “In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change.” I’m not sure how he could have been any more clear about his intention to link this inquiry to the hurricane question.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Thanks to the reader who sent this along:
House Committee on Science
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman
Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Minority Member
http://www.house.gov/science
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 9, 2005
Contact: Joe Pouliot, 202-225-0581
joe.pouliot@mail.house.gov
COMMITTEE DEFEATS RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY
WASHINGTON, DC – The House Science Committee today defeated a resolution of inquiry that would have required the Administration to provide to Congress, within 14 day of enactment, all documents related to “the effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United
States” produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Weather Service, National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Assessment Synthesis Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
The resolution, which was introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), was defeated 11 to 16 and, by voice vote, was reported from Committee adversely. It will not be brought before the full House.
Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) delivered the following opening statement at the markup:
“I want to welcome everyone to what I hope will be a brief mark-up of what I see as a frivolous resolution on a serious subject, global climate change. I wish we did not have to take time on this resolution, but under the rules of the House, Committees must act on resolutions of inquiry within 14 days or they can be brought up under a privileged motion on the House floor. And I certainly don’t want to be responsible for the whole House having to devote time to this
measure.
“I want to make clear at the outset that any debate or vote on this measure should not be seen as any kind of barometer of what the House thinks, or is willing to do about, global climate change. Personally, I support mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, and I think there is growing concern about climate change around the country.
“But I don’t think that this resolution would advance the debate on climate change one iota. Rather, this resolution is a broadly drafted, partisan political ploy that tries to create a phony issue about documents. I don’t see how that helps anyone.
“It’s difficult even to determine how anyone would comply with the resolution. What documents are being sought? Every Administration document related to climate change and U.S. coasts? How many truckloads of materials would that be?
“Moreover, what would we do with this information if we got it? What would we find? What new insight would we arrive at concerning climate
change or climate policy? The resolution reminds me about the old line about dogs chasing cars: What would they do if they caught one? What would anyone do if this resolution succeeded?
“The more I’ve read this short resolution, the more baffling I’ve found it. Information on the potential impact of climate change on U.S. coasts is readily available. The potential impacts of climate change on coastal areas are the subject of countless scientific papers.
“So what prompted this? Has anyone sought specific documents for specific reasons under standard procedures and been denied? Not that we know of.
“But then again, there’s not much that we know of related to this resolution because it was introduced without any discussion with me, even though, under House rules, it has to move swiftly. This is not the way things work around here if one wants to solve a problem rather than try to score a political point.
“By now, I assume no one has any doubts about where I stand on this matter. I urge my colleagues to swiftly defeat this resolution so this Committee can return to more worthy business – including looking further into climate change. I should add that we hope to have a subcommittee hearing in the next month on the Administration’s draft Climate Change Technology Program plan.
“So we will continue to work on this important issue – unimpeded, I hope, by political gamesmanship.”
###
109-159
November 9th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
While granting John Fleck his headline point, why precisely do you think people are interested in hurricane futures at the moment and effects on coastal areas?
If I wanted to be as contentious as some, I would point out that the headline “In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change.” says nothing about whether Kucinich is claiming that recent hurricanes are due to climate change and everything to do with the fact that Kucinich wanted all information that the administration has on Climate Change. But I would not do that.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Fellas, the only lesson here is that Kucinich is clueless and he got the staffers of 150 other D’s to play along. Somebody forgot to tell him that the chances of using climate change to create an election-year wedge between R’s is slim to none. Why? Because first, all three are safe seats and second, the voters in the districts he’d like to affect could not possibly care less about the issue. InsideEPA was very generous in calling this “a novel effort.” As Roger pointed out, it is counterproductive at best (it certainly got Boehlert’s hair up) and I’ll say moronic at worst. It certainly cannot – with a straight face – be called anything other than playing politics with the science.
Eli – you have got to be kidding. Better call Oliver Stone so he can make a movie on how the Bush Administration has somehow stiffled all public academic research on “hurricane impacts on coastal areas,” keeping all that info closeted within the executive branch agencies where Dick Cheney has iron control and can ensure none of it leaks out. Haven’t you noticed? Anything even remotely sensational that can be in any way linked to anthropogenic climate change now is not only published but disseminated to the media in countless press releases and press conferences. You’ve heard of Judy Curry now, right? Had you ever heard of her before her paper with Peter Webster last month?
November 10th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
If Kucinich was asking for what could mean truckloads of documents, then it does sound like an attempt to cause mischief. Such documents should be publicly available, and if some aren’t, then Kucinich has a point.
But, I would agree that Kucinich is an idiot in general.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
DOK – you would have a point in other arenas, especially in those that carry a statuatory proscription that controls the sharing of info such as for classified material. But in the case of atmospheric science there are no documents to hide. Just data that anybody can access (via NCDC if nowhere else), anybody can analyze and anybody can publish.
And the more I have thought about this since my comment yesterday, the more I have realized just how stupid this was. Angering your committee chair is always a bad idea. Doing so when he’s already on your side and is already your only hope of doing anything at all in the House about climate change is beyond stupid.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Kevin, I don’t think it can be said that Boehlert is at the point of being willing to openly break with the Republican leadership over climate change. If I’m right about that, then it’s not inappropriate to want to push him in that direction. On the other hand, I don’t for a second believe that most of the Dems who signed onto the Kucinich effort will be much more willing to get real on climate change than are the Reps.
November 11th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Mmm…I would say Boehlert both is willing and already has. He hasn’t hesitated from calling out the Bush Administration on climate change (this is one example of many: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2002/087.html) And his fight against Barton this summer (see Roger’s and my posts in the archives) is indication that he doesn’t much care what the other R leadership thinks.
November 13th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Kevin, I was thinking more along the lines of things like producing legislation in conflict with the Bush agenda (or absence thereof) and being willing to push it hard, or actions similar to what the small group of moderate Republicans (including Boehlert, I assume) just did in blocking the budget bill over the ANWR drilling issue.