SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
GOP Climate Denier Recasts Big Oil's Corporate Crime as Scientific 'Disagreement'
'I happen to believe that you shouldn't be prosecuted for disagreeing about climate change,' Texas Republican says at House committee hearing
Mar 17, 2016
A Republican congressman on Wednesday stepped up his ongoing anti-science campaign, accusing the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of "hyping a climate change agenda."
What's more, the remarks from Texas Rep. Lamar Smith laid bare how climate deniers are seeking to derail attempts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for covering up their role in global warming.
The testy exchange between Smith and NOAA administrator Kathryn Sullivan at a House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing was the first to happen face-to-face, though Smith's crusade against Sullivan's agency has lasted for months.
"That fight has included Smith sending broad subpoenas" to NOAA, The Hill reports, for internal documents related to a June article in Science by NOAA scientists that took issue with the notion of an 18-year pause in global warming--a notion oft-cited by climate skeptics.
"Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes priority at NOAA," Smith said at the hearing Wednesday. "This was demonstrated by the agency's decision to prematurely publish the 2015 study that attempted to make the two-decade halt in global warming disappear."
Sullivan, a former astronaut, stated that she stood by "the integrity and quality of the [NOAA] study."
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking member, defended Sullivan and NOAA, denouncing Smith's investigation as "unfounded, and... being driven by ideology and other agendas."
In fact, Smith's questions also pointed to growing concern among Capitol Hill climate deniers and fossil fuel interests over attempts to hold polluters legally accountable for using Big Tobacco's playbook to block action on climate change for years.
According to the Houston Chronicle:
In aggressive questioning, Smith asked Sullivan if she "or anyone she knows" had been involved in discussions in the Obama administration about using an anti-racketeering statute "against anyone who might question some aspects of climate change."
[...] "I have been part of no such conversation," she replied twice.
"That's reassuring to hear," Smith said, "because I happen to believe that you shouldn't be prosecuted for disagreeing about climate change."
Activists and public officials alike have suggested that oil giant ExxonMobil could be in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for intentionally misleading the public for decades about the role fossil fuels play in climate change.
But as Smith demonstrated at the hearing, conservatives are attempting to distort the potential investigation into Exxon, Daniel Angster wrote Wednesday at Media Matters, "falsely alleging that the investigation could broadly apply to 'those who question human-caused climate change science,' when it would actually examine evidence that oil companies knew of reality of climate change but publicly sowed doubt about climate science in order to protect their profits."
As Angster explained, "The case against Exxon would be based not on the company's 'skepticism,' but on whether Exxon violated the law."
Watch the exchange below:
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
A Republican congressman on Wednesday stepped up his ongoing anti-science campaign, accusing the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of "hyping a climate change agenda."
What's more, the remarks from Texas Rep. Lamar Smith laid bare how climate deniers are seeking to derail attempts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for covering up their role in global warming.
The testy exchange between Smith and NOAA administrator Kathryn Sullivan at a House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing was the first to happen face-to-face, though Smith's crusade against Sullivan's agency has lasted for months.
"That fight has included Smith sending broad subpoenas" to NOAA, The Hill reports, for internal documents related to a June article in Science by NOAA scientists that took issue with the notion of an 18-year pause in global warming--a notion oft-cited by climate skeptics.
"Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes priority at NOAA," Smith said at the hearing Wednesday. "This was demonstrated by the agency's decision to prematurely publish the 2015 study that attempted to make the two-decade halt in global warming disappear."
Sullivan, a former astronaut, stated that she stood by "the integrity and quality of the [NOAA] study."
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking member, defended Sullivan and NOAA, denouncing Smith's investigation as "unfounded, and... being driven by ideology and other agendas."
In fact, Smith's questions also pointed to growing concern among Capitol Hill climate deniers and fossil fuel interests over attempts to hold polluters legally accountable for using Big Tobacco's playbook to block action on climate change for years.
According to the Houston Chronicle:
In aggressive questioning, Smith asked Sullivan if she "or anyone she knows" had been involved in discussions in the Obama administration about using an anti-racketeering statute "against anyone who might question some aspects of climate change."
[...] "I have been part of no such conversation," she replied twice.
"That's reassuring to hear," Smith said, "because I happen to believe that you shouldn't be prosecuted for disagreeing about climate change."
Activists and public officials alike have suggested that oil giant ExxonMobil could be in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for intentionally misleading the public for decades about the role fossil fuels play in climate change.
But as Smith demonstrated at the hearing, conservatives are attempting to distort the potential investigation into Exxon, Daniel Angster wrote Wednesday at Media Matters, "falsely alleging that the investigation could broadly apply to 'those who question human-caused climate change science,' when it would actually examine evidence that oil companies knew of reality of climate change but publicly sowed doubt about climate science in order to protect their profits."
As Angster explained, "The case against Exxon would be based not on the company's 'skepticism,' but on whether Exxon violated the law."
Watch the exchange below:
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
A Republican congressman on Wednesday stepped up his ongoing anti-science campaign, accusing the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of "hyping a climate change agenda."
What's more, the remarks from Texas Rep. Lamar Smith laid bare how climate deniers are seeking to derail attempts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for covering up their role in global warming.
The testy exchange between Smith and NOAA administrator Kathryn Sullivan at a House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing was the first to happen face-to-face, though Smith's crusade against Sullivan's agency has lasted for months.
"That fight has included Smith sending broad subpoenas" to NOAA, The Hill reports, for internal documents related to a June article in Science by NOAA scientists that took issue with the notion of an 18-year pause in global warming--a notion oft-cited by climate skeptics.
"Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes priority at NOAA," Smith said at the hearing Wednesday. "This was demonstrated by the agency's decision to prematurely publish the 2015 study that attempted to make the two-decade halt in global warming disappear."
Sullivan, a former astronaut, stated that she stood by "the integrity and quality of the [NOAA] study."
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee's ranking member, defended Sullivan and NOAA, denouncing Smith's investigation as "unfounded, and... being driven by ideology and other agendas."
In fact, Smith's questions also pointed to growing concern among Capitol Hill climate deniers and fossil fuel interests over attempts to hold polluters legally accountable for using Big Tobacco's playbook to block action on climate change for years.
According to the Houston Chronicle:
In aggressive questioning, Smith asked Sullivan if she "or anyone she knows" had been involved in discussions in the Obama administration about using an anti-racketeering statute "against anyone who might question some aspects of climate change."
[...] "I have been part of no such conversation," she replied twice.
"That's reassuring to hear," Smith said, "because I happen to believe that you shouldn't be prosecuted for disagreeing about climate change."
Activists and public officials alike have suggested that oil giant ExxonMobil could be in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for intentionally misleading the public for decades about the role fossil fuels play in climate change.
But as Smith demonstrated at the hearing, conservatives are attempting to distort the potential investigation into Exxon, Daniel Angster wrote Wednesday at Media Matters, "falsely alleging that the investigation could broadly apply to 'those who question human-caused climate change science,' when it would actually examine evidence that oil companies knew of reality of climate change but publicly sowed doubt about climate science in order to protect their profits."
As Angster explained, "The case against Exxon would be based not on the company's 'skepticism,' but on whether Exxon violated the law."
Watch the exchange below:
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.