The Arizona Congressman who last week asked the University of Colorado to disclose the sources of funding for professor Roger Pielke Jr. now admits an additional request for communications regarding such funding was an “overreach” — but defended the search as an effort to seek important disclosures for figures in the climate change debate.

Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva last week sent letters to seven different universities — including CU — that employed researchers who have been skeptical or controversial in their positions on climate change in an effort to determine whether any had received research funding from fossil fuel companies.

In the letters, Grijalva asked the universities to disclose all sources and amounts of external funding for those professors, as well as any communications regarding the funding or testimony by the professors to Congress or other bodies.

But on Monday, Grijalva told the National Journal that his request for the communications went too far.

“The communications back-and-forth is honestly secondary, and I would even on my own say that that was an overreach in that letter,” Grijalva told the publication. “I want the disclosure (of funding sources). Then people can draw their own conclusions.”

Grijalva said he would be willing to back off the communications request if it prevented him from obtaining the other disclosures he was seeking.

“As long as we get a response as to the funding sources, I think everything else is secondary and not necessary,” Grijalva said.

Pielke said that Grijalva’s letter was “absolutely” a witch hunt, and that his statements Monday further show that the letters were just a smear attempt.

“That just goes to show, if all he wants is material that is already out there in the public record, the point of the letter was purely political,” Pielke told the Daily Camera on Tuesday. “If you’re a young academic, you see this kind of retaliation for giving testimony that one party or another doesn’t like, and it provides a pretty strong disincentive.”

Grijalva’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

University complying with request

CU spokesman Ryan Huff said in an email that the school is “still in the process of gathering documents that are responsive to Rep. Grijalva’s request. We plan to reply to Rep. Grijalva by the requested date of March 16.”

Huff said he is not aware of Grivalja sending any other letters narrowing the initial request.

A polarizing figure among climate change scientists, Pielke — who directs CU’s Center for Science Technology Policy Research — has written extensively on climate change economics, and testified before Congress that it is incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.

Pielke says he’s not a climate change denier, although, because of his research, some have labeled him a skeptic.

At the time of Grijalva’s request, Pielke wrote that he has disclosed all possible conflicts of interest and has no funding “declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest.”

CU officials also stood behind Pielke last week, stressing that, “None of his research has been funded by oil companies or fossil fuel interests.”

‘Rise above the partisan debate’

Pielke on Tuesday said that he is all for better disclosure of funding and possible conflicts of interest for those testifying before Congress, but said Grijalva’s actions were political and a “low blow.”

“If he wants to have stronger conflict of interest requirements for witnesses, I’ll be the first person to applaud that,” Pielke said. “But if that’s the goal, then he would not have gone about it this way.

“There’s really only two reasons to do what he did,” Pielke added. “You’re a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil-hat type, or you have to believe that there are certain voices that have to be silenced or delegitimized by attacking their character.

“I can see no other reason.”

But Pielke said that while Grijalva’s request has been a headache, the support he has received from the scientific community has been encouraging, and he hopes the academic community can learn a lesson from it.

“I hope that there is some good that can come out of this, because it is not fun having your name dragged through the mud,” Pielke said. “In politics, people don’t always play nice, but if we do care about science and politics, science has to be able to rise above the partisan debate to protect the integrity of what we do.”

Mitchell Byars: 303-473-1329, byarsm@dailycamera.com or twitter.com/mitchellbyars