by CKR
Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) has sent letters to Michael E. Mann (University of Virginia), Raymond S. Bradley (University of Massachusetts at Amherst), and Malcolm K. Hughes (University of Arizona) demanding large volumes of information about their climate-change studies and other scientific work. Their work on global climate change has been some of the most visible in that field.
The information demanded goes beyond what might be needed to educate the Congress on this issue. It seems, rather, to be designed to disrupt their work and send a message to others; in short, to intimidate those whose conclusions are unacceptable to Representative Barton and the energy company interests that have funded him. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the oil and gas and electrical industries were the top contributors to his 2004 campaign, with a total of almost a half-million dollars. The oil and gas industry is anticipating his 2006 campaign, continuing as the largest contributor with over $47,000.
Although Barton justifies his demand by the fact that the scientists are federally funded, the historical bargain has been that Congress allows federal funding of science to be directed by scientists appointed by the agencies sponsoring the research in a form of peer review. The purpose, of course, is to keep politics from driving scientific conclusions.
If Barton is concerned that there is something wrong with they way these three men are doing their science, the appropriate route to take would be to ask one of the agencies or the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review. Since their climate change work has been accepted by numerous review bodies and reproduced by other scientists, Barton could well expect that convening another review body would once again validate their approach and findings. Hence this extraordinary demand.
The scientists have responded strongly. The ball is now in Congressman Barton’s court.