opinion

Editorial: Lawmaker fights science with intimidation

It has long been obvious that U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, should not be chairing the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The problem with Smith chairing that particular committee is that he has very little respect for science or for the process of scientific research.

Smith has made no secret of the fact that he doesn't believe there is any sort of scientific consensus as to the existence of climate change or humankind's role in it. And this year, his committee approved a bill that would cut more than $300 million from NASA’s “Earth-science budget,” which includes money for the study of climate change.

But now Smith has ratcheted up his war on science. He is now using — or, rather, abusing — his power as committee chairman not just to cut off funding that’s necessary to conduct climate-change research, but to go after the scientists themselves. His committee recently subpoenaed the scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanding that they turn over all internal e-mails related to their research on climate change.

It seems Smith doesn’t like their recent findings that global warming is continuing to occur and has not paused or plateaued, as suggested by other research that conforms to Smith’s view of things. The congressman is waging this crusade as global leaders in Paris work to create legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Smith doesn’t have any reason to question the new findings or the process by which the scientists reached their conclusions, all of which has been made public. He’s just looking for dirt that might call into question the scientists’ professionalism, or lend support to his unsubstantiated claim that they are distorting data to advance the political agenda of the president.

“Their agenda comes first, and the facts come second — if at all,” Smith said last month. “The science is clear and overwhelming, but not in the way the president says. … NOAA employees altered historical climate data to get politically correct results.”

The truth is, the scientists’ findings were subjected to a much more rigorous peer-review process than is normal — perhaps because any high-profile findings related to climate change are sure to be the focus of intense scrutiny by people and industries with political and financial interests at stake.

The scientists’ report underwent two separate rounds of peer review by a larger-than-normal array of outside reviewers, and the time from submission to publication was about five months, or 50 percent longer than is normally the case. The report was not, as Smith has alleged, “rushed” into print.

Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a half-dozen other organizations that represent hundreds of thousands of scientists wrote to Smith. They protested the practice of challenging research through congressional “inquests,” and said the practice will have a chilling effect on scientists’ willingness to study other controversial issues that have public-policy implications.

In the three years he has chaired the Science Committee, Smith has issued more subpoenas than the committee issued in all of its previous 54 years of existence. In this particular instance, no evidence suggests any sort of wrongdoing by the NOAA scientists, and yet Smith wants to read their emails. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, congressional oversight is important but has its limits. Probes that are intended only "to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible," the court has said.

Smith argues that climate change is a concept peddled by “those who want to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of energy for all Americans,” but of course he doesn’t say who those people are or why they’re hell-bent on making energy more expensive.

He, of all people, should be careful about suggesting that science is being distorted or suppressed in order to appease those who have a financial stake in the findings. Otherwise, someone is likely to point out that he hails from a state that is home to nearly one-third of all the crude oil and natural gas reserves in the United States, and that over the past 15 years, the oil and gas industry has been the single biggest contributor to his political campaigns.

They might even say something along the lines of, "His agenda comes first, and the facts come in second — if at all."