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
Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Tx.) crusade against NOAA has lasted for months. (Photo: NASA HQ PHOTO/flickr/cc)
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.