Congress: Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans


#1

Congress: Obama admin fired top scientist to advance climate change plans

By Adam Kredo Published December 21, 2016

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, . . . .

. . . The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress . . . .

See the whole story here.

foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/21/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-to-advance-climate-change-plans.html


#2

I have a feeling that all the waves made with the climate change or carbon emisdions etc was a farce with the purpose of making people quiet while shutting down heavy industry. And that is because for any closure in the Usa or europe something was open in India China etc…
So the global resu!t is nil.


#3

Very interesting theory… waiting for the rest of the report and will we ever see it on national news??? It seems like nothing has changed on the media front.


#4

Let’s see. We have a right-wing publication (Washington Free Beacon) reporting on a right-wing congressional committee report - a committee that has a reputation for witch hunts against climate scientists. Yeah, that’s sure to be an unbiased and reliable source for the truth.


#5

Argumentum ad hominem. Bad form!


#6

When the facts are just facts, we can accept them from whomever. But when it is a “conclusion” reached from the facts, the qualifications of the bearer cannot be ignored.


#7

Wasn’t the recent news story how the EPA refused to divulge who was engaged in climate change meetings and working groups, because they were afraid of backlash? They have that fear because that is how they play the game,

All the available evidence shows this guy was censured for expressing unapproved positions.


#8

First of all, it was the Department of Energy, not the EPA. Secondly, they refused to turn over the list of who had attended climate change talks, etc. because it is well known that Trump wants to put an end to climate change related work, and his request sounds a little too much like McCarthyism. The Department of Energy took the stand they did because they believe in what they do and they know that Trump does not. I applaud their resolve. Of course it won’t matter because once Trump gets in power he can and will do whatever he wants with the DOE and EPA.


#9

Yes, thanks be to God, Who has ultimate control over the climate.


#10

Emphasis of the following article mine . . .

December 20, 2016 - 02:30 PM EST
House GOP alleges misconduct, intimidation at Energy Department

By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration withheld information from Congress and improperly fired an employee as part of a politically motivated push to end a Department of Energy (DOE) program, House Republicans say. . .

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the panel’s chairman, said in a statement. . . .

. . . The Obama administration has sought to wind it down after researchers found that no dose of radiation was small enough to eliminate the risk of cancer. At the same time, the administration has been increasing resources for programs in the same office studying alternative energy sources.

The Science Committee launched its probe earlier this year after learning that Noelle Metting, a biologist working on the radiation program, was fired. . .

. . . The top lawmakers from both parties in the Science Committee’s oversight panel objected to the DOE’s decision to fire Metting. . .

. . . The report released Monday goes even further, accusing the DOE of “a scheme to withhold information from congressional staff” to push Obama’s climate goals.

“The committee concludes that the DOE has attempted to usurp Article I authority by restricting Congress’ access to information during the legislative process,” the report said, referring to the article of the Constitution that gives Congress its authority.

“Thereafter, the DOE took punitive action against a scientist because she was unwilling to go along with the department’s inappropriate and unlawful advocacy scheme.” . , ,

origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311223-house-gop-panel-alleges-misconduct-intimidation-at-doe


#11

Committee Releases Report on Department of Energy Misconduct

Dec 20, 2016 Press Release

WASHINGTON – The Majority Staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology today released a report, U.S. Department of Energy Misconduct Related to the Low Dose Radiation Research Program. The report includes findings from the majority staff’s investigation that senior Department of Energy officials deliberately withheld information from Congress and removed an agency scientist from federal service for providing complete answers to committee staff. The report also covers an overview of the Low Dose Radiation Research Program and H.R. 5544, the Low Dose Radiation Research Act of 2014.

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming. In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line. Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution.”

Background:

Findings from the Report:

DOE management developed a scheme to withhold information from congressional staff.

Dr. Noelle Metting was directed to omit information from a presentation to congressional staff given during the briefing.

DOE management avoided critical information pertinent to the continuance of the LDRRP.

DOE management worked to kill the LDRRP because it did not further the administration’s goals to advance climate research.

With regard to H.R. 5544, DOE management sought to manipulate congressional staff – both republican and democratic staff.

DOE management and senior employees gave intentionally misleading statements to Congress.

Dr. Julie Carruthers and Dr. Sharlene Weatherwax both made inconsistent statements at different points during the Committee’s investigation.

Management quickly took steps to remove Dr. Metting from federal service.

Dr. Metting was removed for providing Congress with candid testimony without regard to the potential chilling effect on other scientists.

Dr. Metting was the DOE’s sole expert on LDRR and her opinion was silenced to further political interests.

Conclusions and Recommendations in the Report:

The DOE exhibited a complete disregard for the legislative process and Constitutional separation of powers at an institutional level.

The DOE must overhaul its management practices to ensure that the Department carries out its Constitutional responsibilities to be truthful with Congress and respects the legislative process.

To view the full report, click here.

114th Congress

science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-releases-report-department-energy-misconduct

Full Congressional Committee report here:

science.house.gov/majority-staff-report-department-energy-misconduct

Above not from a “news story” but a Congressional Committee report. Therefore the extended quote (the document is public information).


#12

Bold mine . . .

Scientist claims ‘unrelenting intimidation’ from Energy management

By Jory Heckman | @jmheckman
September 21, 2016 2:10 pm

. . . . “I suggest it’s unacceptable that **scientists are put under pressure to espouse views that are not their own, and that federal scientists are persecuted for presenting accurate information **and [their] professional opinion to those charged with providing funds for this research,” Metting said. . . .

federalnewsradio.com/agency-oversight/2016/09/scientist-claims-unrelenting-intimidation-energy-management/


#13

It is just a committee report - not the result of any impartial judicial process. There is no reason to think it does not simply represent the opinion of those who would do anything to discredit climate change science.


#14

Congress: Obama Fired Scientist to Advance “Climate” Agenda

The Obama administration fired a top scientist, intimidated other staff, censored important information from Congress for political reasons, and waged “a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself,” U.S. lawmakers concluded in a blistering new report about Obama’s scandal-plagued Department of Energy. All of it was done in order to advance Obama’s controversial “climate-change” agenda, according to congressional investigators. It is time for some serious changes in management at the U.S. Department of Energy, members of Congress declared. But even that is not nearly enough to remedy the damage unleashed by Obama via the unconstitutional bureaucracy.

The shocking revelations about the Obama administration’s lawless attempts to pursue its “global-warming” regulatory regime at all costs were exposed in a congressional staff report released this week by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. . . . .

. . ,. The firing had a chilling effect on other scientists and staff, of course. Lawmakers were outraged.

“The Committee concludes that the DOE placed its own priorities to further the President’s Climate Action Plan before its Constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the lawmakers said in the report’s executive summary. “ . . .

climatechangedispatch.com/congress-obama-fired-scientist-to-advance-climate-agenda/


#15

LeafByNiggle.

Earlier your objection was directed at a . . . .

right-wing publication (Washington Free Beacon) reporting on a right-wing congressional committee

Then I showed how this is being reported far beyond the Washington Free Beacon.

Now your objection focus seems to have moved to . . . .

It is just a committee report - not the result of any impartial judicial process.

If you want to think that that’s all that’s going on here in Washington, that’s OK with me.

And if this was the only time anything like this has happened in the Global Warming evangelization world, I might be inclined to agree with that.


#16

“Climate Change Dispatch”. Just another climate change denier blog. The committee report is true. It did happen. But blogs like this elevate it way beyond its true significance.


#17

I thought everyone had agreed not to use the words denier or alarmist wrt climate change?


#18

Maybe you should tell that to Theo, Cathoholic, SuperLuigi, ucfengr, Ender, qui est ce, peter26, abucs, and Monte first.


#19

Not everyone, obviously. I’m not a climate change denier; I’ve frequently said that climates do change, because another of the things that Nature abhors (besides vacuums) is absolute stability. However, I remain a huge skeptic, maybe even a denier, of the claimed anthropogenic component of that change.


#20

You sure about that?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.