Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have
Barton's committee, Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), wrote a letter expressing their
“concern with the letters you sent to some of the world's most renowned climate scientists.”
20
They
indicated, with some degree of sarcasm, their appreciation of Barton's newfound interest in the topic
of global climate change after not having “held a single hearing [on the subject] in the past 11 years.”
They were nonetheless “very concerned that the tone of [Barton's] letters indicate that these were not
requests for hearing background materials, but rather an attempt to intimidate Dr. Michael Mann and
discredit peer reviewed scientific research.”
The critical development, however, came in mid-July, when a clash erupted, pitting two
Republican House committee chairs against each other: Barton, chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chair of the Science Committee.
Boehlert was an old-school moderate who represented a rural district in upstate New York. He was
widely recognized as a friend to both science and the environment, and he clearly viewed Barton's
actions as a threat to both. Firing a shot across Barton's bow, Boehlert wrote a letter criticizing
science and pointed out that the only allegation that could have justified congressional notice—that
my coauthors and I had purportedly refused to share the data used in our studies—had already been
“soundly rejected” by the National Science Foundation, adding that Barton was “well aware of that.”
Boehlert was far more blunt than even Waxman had been: “I am writing to express my strenuous
objections to what I see as a misguided and illegitimate investigation you have launched concerning
Dr. Michael Mann, his co-authors, and sponsors…. My primary concern about your investigation is
that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute
Congressional political review for scientific peer review,” something he believed “would be
pernicious.” Boehlert's remarks were eerily evocative of Harry Truman's admonition over “the
creation of an atmosphere in which no man feels safe” that began this chapter, warning that Barton's
attack “raises the specter of politicians opening investigations against any scientist who reaches a
conclusion that makes the political elite uncomfortable.” He added, “The only conceivable
explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent scientist…. The precedent
your investigation sets is truly chilling. Are scientists now supposed to look over their shoulders to
determine if their conclusions might prompt a Congressional inquiry no matter how legitimate their
work? … If Congress wants public policy to be informed by scientific research, then it has to allow
that research to operate outside the policy realm.” Barton, in Boehlert's view, was seeking to “erase
that line between science and politics.”
The political theater of two Republican House chairs going head to head proved irresistible to
journalists, and it drove much of the ensuing media coverage that summer, most of it unsympathetic to
Barton's view. An article entitled “Barton Blasted by Peer,” for example, appeared in Barton's
hometown paper, the
Dallas Morning News,
on July 18. The only support Barton could find was in
right-wing venues like the
Boston Herald
, the
Washington Times
, and the Richard Mellon Scaife-
owned Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review
. The
Dallas Morning News
did afford Barton an opportunity to
justify his actions in the form of an op-ed, “How Bad Is Global Warming,” on July 31, but Boehlert
corrected the record with a letter to the editor on August 10, noting that the sole basis Barton gave for
his attacks was the “work of two Canadians, one an assistant professor of economics, another a
