Smith’s intimidation tactics offensive, dangerous Express-News Editorial Board
Published 12:00 am, Saturday, November 28, 2015
As a longtime member of Congress, Lamar Smith wields significant influence. His position as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee makes him a pivotal player when it comes to how research is funded and prioritized.
Smith is also a well-known climate change skeptic, an uncomfortable fact given his powerful position over science.
We’ve long disagreed with Smith in these pages about his views on the human impact on climate change. The debate is settled. The vast majority of scientists believe humans are contributing to the warming of the planet, a view clearly articulated in a unanimous online statement from faculty at the Texas A&M Atmospheric Sciences Department. Given the potential human and economic threats that climate change poses across the globe, and right here in Texas, the stakes are just too high to inject political doubt.
But today our concern with Smith’s chairmanship of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is chiefly about governance.
His use of cumbersome, widespread records requests; threats of criminal charges if data isn’t released; allegations of political manipulation of data without any evidence; and attacks against well-respected scientists, such as Kathryn Sullivan, a former astronaut who now heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are Orwellian. The broadened subpoena powers are new and unfortunate. No longer does Smith have to consult with the ranking Democrat on the committee before launching an investigation like this.
Smith told Express-News reporter Bill Lambrecht that he has taken such an aggressive approach because the Obama administration hasn’t been honest with the public about climate change and is ostensibly using it as a wedge to force more regulations on industry. He has focused on an NOAA study that found the rate of global warming hasn’t slowed between 1998 and 2012, a finding that runs counter to other studies. Smith has requested emails and internal communications about the study, arguing it was politically manipulated, and has threatened Sullivan with criminal penalties if she doesn’t comply.
As Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, told Lambrecht: “It puts you in a position as a scientist where you ask, ‘Do I really want to work on this stuff?’ Because depending on how the research comes out, I may have to justify whether I have the integrity that I thought I had.”
Come up with a study that Smith disagrees with and you better lawyer up. That’s a frightening use of power.
Climate science is enormously complicated and easily muddied for the public. It’s easy to confuse sea ice, for example, with continental ice sheets.
Much like intelligence on ISIS or any other threat — and climate change is a threat — skewed data serve nobody. As a key watchdog, Smith should be on the lookout for manipulated science. But using that power to suppress research, threaten scientists or inflame partisan politics is its own form of manipulation.
With so much on the line for future generations, it’s a particularly dangerous game to be playing.
mysanantonio.com |
