Discussion: GOP Rep.: NOAA Rushed Publication Of Climate Study Despite Concerns

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #243022

2

‘Concerns’ like

1 Like
3

"Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers "

Translation: “We have people who will say whatever the flying fuck we need them to and it’s almost unassailable because we can claim the need to protect them and keep their identity anonymous.”

3 Likes
4

That’s one of the right-wing’s main complaints about big government–it is always so fast and nimble.

3 Likes
5

I bet he meant dogwhistle blowers.

2 Likes
6

‘Whistleblowers’ like this

1 Like
7

Lamar Smith (R-TX), a noted climate change denier, added, “Because the Karl study was apparently prematurely rushed to publication, the timing of its release raises concerns that it was expedited to fit the administration’s aggressive climate agenda.”

FIFY.

Of course, TPM would never call him out for that.

1 Like
8

Bullshit!
It took six months for the article be published in the peer review.
Normally that only takes 3-4 months, sometimes shorter.
Lamar Smith is a lying, pandering, asshole doing the bidding of his Oil/Coal Extraction PayMasters.

5 Likes
9

Another epic failure of basic science education by a GOPer which the press will completely ignore. Because what Smith utterly fails to comprehend is that publishing a paper is part of how science is debated via the scientific method. A paper is published in peer-reviewed journals for comments. The way it has been done for hundreds of years. And what he should have learned in grade school. This story is a non-starter. The press in their scientific ignorance will ignore it because a. they, like the GOP, do not understand how science works either and b. it would upset a GOPer. Plus it gives the media an angle to attack the government and, indirectly, the President, which they love more than anything.

1 Like
10

Precisely. Josh Marshall ought to seriously review just what TPM is doing, day by day. Their reporters continually coddle GOPers like never before.

2 Likes
11

It would be nice if TPM recognized how dangerous this line of attack by Smith is, and actually wrote up an article on it. Because Smith lied about how the article was published, and odds are the whistleblower doesn’t exist. I have no doubt that some scientists had issues with the article, but many of those likely thought it didn’t go far enough (scientists, as a rule, are conservative int he claims they publish in peer reviewed articles).

Come on TPM, step it up and do some real investigative reporting on this…it’s a huge attack on our ability to do science in this nation, and that’s a much bigger intrinsic threat than some refugee coming across the border.

3 Likes
12

“Because the Karl study was apparently prematurely rushed to publication, the timing of its release raises concerns that it was expedited to fit the administration’s aggressive climate agenda.”

Actually he’s concerned that his Brontosaurus might be at risk.

1 Like
13

And Smith KNOWS how it’s done because, because that’s the way he’s ALWAYS done it!

14

This is an abuse of power and an attempt to intimidate scientists. Good on the Chamber for refusing.

15

Texas has climate problems plenty without Smith’s help.

16

TeaPubbery happened when dubya made being stupid acceptable.

17

It takes varying amounts of time. Very rare that it takes less than two months. And that is still ignoring the time that went in to putting the thing together. That is often a year.

18

The way Smith’s letter is laid out, it’s not actually clear that it refers to a single whistleblower as to the supposedly central concern - that of the administration having somehow “rushed” publication of the Karl paper supposedly in violation of a normal PROCESS within the agency - or to more than one “whisteblowers” who supposedly expressed some unspecified concern about the CONTENT of the Karl paper.

The latter is not actually a valid concern, and indeed wouldn’t need the invocation of anything approaching “whistleblower” status. The Karl paper ITSELF contains references to those types of concerns: it DEALS with them directly, and gives the ones it acknowledges as carrying any coherence and possible relevance both voice and response. What that means is that any of the agency employees or consultants who identify with any of those criticisms are actually free to discuss them publicly, BECAUSE they’ve been raised by or on behalf of the agency in a public manner. You don’t need whistleblower status to say, Thanks, Dr. Karl, for not actually mentioning me by name, but I want it known publicly that I am the one/I am one of those who expressed this concern internally, and, to the extent I’m not satisfied with how it’s laid out in the Karl report, HERE, in EXCRUTIATING DETAIL, is my concern. Nothing about doing that offends any agency confidentiality rules or in the least implies the potential for internal discipline or muzzling - indeed, both the Karl paper itself AND it’s raising those criticisms within it provide full rein to any play out any desire to clarify or detail any of those criticisms. IOW whistleblower status is not needed at all.

The concern - assuming there really is one - would have true potential for being real, and actionable by Congress or even in the court system under judicial review, if it were about PROCESS. But again, this isn’t stated as such in the Smith letter; instead, it’s very hinted at in such a manner that it would be overstating the case to say it’s being implied. What the Smith letter actually SAYS on this front is that someone or some several - it’s not even clear on that - DURING the internal pre-publication process, raised concerns and/or criticisms about “the timing and readiness of the study’s release”. All that could amount to is someone - one, even - saying to the House staff in an interview, Yeah, we were all aware of there being a target, that Paris was the target, and I/I among others raised that our releasing this paper AT THIS TIME might be seen as feeding into that POLTICAL process.

I’ll go all Captain Obvious here in asserting that there’s absolutely nothing wrong, legally, administratively or procedurally, with a political officer reaching down thru normal channels in an agency to inquire as to whether the agency has any study or studies available or pending of relevance to a set of questions or priorities of relevance to a political process. Indeed, the legitimate employment of that power is exactly the same one being used by Smith and his committee on behalf of Congress in reviewing the agency’s production of the Karl paper.

So - SO: when Smith actually or impliedly threatens “compulsory process”, how legitimate or meaningful IS that threat, exactly? The answer lies in the fact that the Smith letter has been released publicly, threat included. IOW this is actually a desperation tactic on Smith’s part because he knows from the legal staff to his committee and from the legal staff available to the House on contempt proceedings that he can’t make out the case.

Who else knows that? Well, the same legal staff opinions are just as available to the minority, so the House Dems on the committee know this as well. And the legal staff to the agency know this, with the DoJ, who would be charged with defending the interests of the agency and its officers and employees in court, knowing it best of all.

Now for the kicker: where would this “compulsory process” go to for judicial review? That is, ASSUMING Smith were to go to the House Majority leader to get his committee’s desire for a contempt proceeding voted on in plenary session, and ASSUMING the GOP control and hubris is such that they would go ahead down that road, where would the judicial review process go to?

It would go to the DC Federal District Court - the one single most Obama-turned district court panel in the entire country. It would be heard by a judge or panel assigned by the current chief judge of that court: Chief Justice Richard Roberts, a Bill Clinton appointment. Including Roberts himself, there are 12 “regular” judges, that is the Chief and 11 “puisne” judges, on that court - of which fully TEN were appointed by Obama (7) or by Bill Clinton (3), and of the remaining 2, both appointed by GW Bush, one of them is Reggie Walton, who might just as well be a Dem appointee, and the other, Richard Leon, is pretty much a strict constructionist on executive privilege.

Smith’s threat is totally hollow, and everyone directly involved in this paper tiger roar is fully aware of it.

19

I should add to this that any appeal from a DC federal court opinion of course goes first to the DC Circuit appeals court. That appeals court is currently comprised of 1 chief judge - appointed by Bill Clinton - and 10 regular “puisne” judges: 4 appointed by Obama, 3 by GW Bush, 2 more by Bill Clinton and 1 appointed by GHW Bush. That last one is a real lightweight, and while it’s true that the 3 Dubya appointees are each different manifestations of Hell, those 4 are up against a majority of 7 Dem appointees, with a Dem in charge of assignments.

Ah, but, you say, there’s still the 5:4 conservative majority in the SCOTUS. To which I say, this ain’t gettin’ anywhere near that level.

For example, with the notable exception of Justice Kennedy, the members of the conservative majority are all preternaturally inclined towards deference to the executive branch; they’re much more inclined to expressing concern and coming together on opinions that strip Congress of it’s ‘intrusive’ exercise of powers into areas of state hegemony than they are with curtailing executive authority and discretion, which all 4 have a general history of strongly supporting.

Yes, those 4 could easily choose to go against the Obama administration in a battle with a Republican-dominated Congress, but not on this narrow ground. If they were to open the door to Congress hounding open discussion within an administrative branch agency, there’d be no end to what Democratic-led oversight could do with that, particularly within military procurement. What would happen is what’s BEEN happening under Roberts: a general refusal to take on all but a few dozen cases per term, with a general tilt towards stripping power from collective bargaining, heading off Congressional ‘intrusion’ into state hegemony, and empowering religious and other ‘conscientious’ or ‘principled’ individual objections to both Congressional and, to a decidedly lesser extent, executive branch compulsion.

20

It’s all theater, and on that score, it’s a win-win for Smith. NOAA can either:

  • continue to refuse to turn over the internal communications, and then Smith can pretend that they are hiding something nefarious, or
  • capitulate, setting a horrible precedent as @ddriddle has noted and allowing Smith to distort information he doesn’t understand, e.g., Researcher1: “Excel munged a bunch of the dataset when it formatted everything as dollars instead of temperatures.” Researcher2: “Rats! I’ll have to fix the data so it comes out right.” Smith: “They altered the data!”