SENATE GOP
merri ok
see CHECKS BALANCE ABANDONED
6 23 belated triggered by
---
2 25 all but gave up on checks and balance advise and consent max 3 mcconn murkowski and --- collins rolled on bondi? BIG BEUT BILL?!
// doge coup
---
AN 10 25
President Donald Trump has been able to have the Republican-controlled Senate confirm the vast bulk of his nominees — with the lone exception of his appointees for U.S. attorney offices.
Now, Politico is reporting that the president is leaning on his party to bulldoze the last remaining obstacle preventing his handpicked prosecutors from being fully confirmed. Trump told a gathering of Senate Republicans Tuesday that the long-standing "blue slip" procedure — in which senators from a nominee's home state have to submit "blue slips" agreeing to their nomination before it can move forward — was a "problem" that should be scrapped.
"You know, I have 10 U.S. attorneys who are phenomenal," Trump said. "And the problem is, they’re not going to ever be confirmed, I guess. I put them in, they’ll be there for three or four months, whatever it is, and then they have to leave."
The "blue slip" process is done for nominees for U.S. District court judgeships as well as U.S. attorney nominees in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the committee, has so far refused Trump's demands, and promised to continue it indefinitely after the Senate gained a Republican majority after last November's election. The "blue slip" process has affected some of Trump's more controversial nominees, like Alina Habba for the U.S. Attorney's post in the District of New Jersey, with Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) each declining to return a blue slip.
"Anytime you have a Democrat senator, not even two, just one, they’ll say, because of the time we’re in, ‘we’re not approving that person,'" Trump said during the Tuesday lunch with senators.
“Because of blue slip, I have to tell the person after three months, I’m sorry you’ll have to leave and I’ll put someone else in,” he continued. “This is not constitutional. And I really, I hope you can look at that blue slip thing.”
Tuesday is just the latest example of Trump zeroing in on the "blue slip" tradition. In July, he called out Grassley on his Truth Social platform and slammed the "blue slip" procedure as a "hoax" and a "scam." He complained that despite being in the minority, Democrats had exploited the procedure to impose an "ironclad stoppage" on his nominees coming before the Judiciary Committee.
Click here to read Politico's full report.
===
AN 5 25
'Nuclear option': GOP senators threaten to cross 'red line' they warned Dems against
an 2 25
Although some of President Donald Trump's nominees enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Senate confirmation votes — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio — others were confirmed along bipartisan lines.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't receive a single Democratic vote, and three GOP senators joined Democrats in voting against him. But a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance got Hegseth, controversy and all, confirmed by a U.S. Senate consisting of 53 Republicans and 47 senators who are either Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats (including Vermont's Bernie Sanders and Maine's Angus King).
If all senators on the Democratic side vote against a Trump nominee, four GOP defections are needed. And three of Trump's most controversial nominees — Kash Patel for FBI director, Tulsi Gabbard for national intelligence director, and anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for director of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — appear to be on track for confirmation.
READ MORE:**'Mark my words': George Conway predicts alarming showdown**
According to The Hill's Alexander Bolton, GOP senators are facing intense pressure to confirm Trump's nominees — not only from Trump himself, but also, from Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and X.com (formerly Twitter) and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"GOP senators are terrified over the prospect of facing primary challengers funded by Elon Musk if they stick their necks out by opposing President Trump's agenda," Bolton reports. "The White House has signaled that Republicans who thwart Trump's agenda by voting against his controversial nominees or opposing efforts by Musk to freeze government funding and slash federal agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, will pay a political price. And that's a threat that carries a lot more weight when Musk, the world's richest person, could easily pour tens of millions of dollars into a Senate Republican primary."
GOP senators, according to Bolton, "have taken Musk's warning to heart."
A GOP senator, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Hill that Senate Republicans "who are close to an election" are "voting for certain nominees" because they fear primary challenges.
READ MORE:**Trump is already out gaming America's last line of defense**
The senator told The Hill, "The White House hasn't been too subtle about that. I think they've been fairly threatening."
A Democratic senator, also quoted anonymously, said of Musk, "They're all terrified of the power he's wielding right now."
===
---
an 2 25
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, has been making unprecedented moves to slash federal spending with the blessing of President Donald Trump. As the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (which is not yet an official federal agency authorized by Congress), Musk is exploring major cuts to the Department of Education and plans to shut down USAID — the agency responsible for foreign aid. His team has also been granted access to the Treasury Department’s payments system. But unlike much of the country, some Senate Republicans couldn’t be bothered, NOTUS reported on Tuesday.
One major source of distress among experts is that Musk is rejecting appropriations laws passed by Congress -- in other words, taking authority over funding. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said these actions are indeed unconstitutional, but he is not concerned, saying: “Nobody should bellyache about that."
“That runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense,” Tillis said. But “it’s not uncommon for presidents to flex a little bit on where they can spend and where they can stop spending.”
READ MORE:These 'relatively traditional' Trump Cabinet picks are actually 'spineless cowards': analysis
Other Republicans are glad that Musk is looking at cutting costs.
“He’s doing exactly what he should be doing,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said Monday. “He’s going through every agency and looking at how to make sure the money’s spent right.” And while Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives that job to Congress, Scott argued: “It doesn’t look like Congress is doing their job."
“The actions that have been taken with USAID are long overdue,” Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said. “The agency is out of control.”
Unlike Tillis, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Musk has not violated the Constitution.
“Mr. Musk is acting under the authority of the president of the United States,” he said. “It’s perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional. And the issue, anyway, is not process. The issue is substance. Did they find wasteful spending, or not?”
READ MORE:'Unchecked power': Trump himself ordered firings of prosecutors working criminal cases against him
Still, some Republicans are concerned. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said she was “very concerned about Mr. Musk or any of his assistants going into federal agencies and demanding personal information on employees.” She said that his actions have not met “the requirements of the law.” BUT THEN VOTED FOR PAM BONDI?
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) joined Republicans in defending Musk. “He’s working with the president, and they’re making recommendations in some cases on agencies,” he told NOTUS. “But the whole program here is that we’re spending way more money than what we’re bringing in.”
He added: “The president has the authority to operate the executive branch of government. So.”
READ MORE:'Call somebody who cares': GOP senator slammed over response to 'friends who are upset' FOGHORN
Click here to read NOTUS' report in full.
---
tuber takes credit for broadband he voted down
olds up 250 officers joint chif b/c dod pays mileage red state abort
---
===
an 11 24
Donald Trump reportedly got a potentially devastating message from Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, and political observers are speaking up.
Trump already announced he would be relying on recess appointments to get some of his cabinet nominees pushed through, but McConnellsaid on Sunday that such a thing wouldn't happen, according to a news report.
Trump's controversial nominees include former GOP lawmaker Matt Gaetz, who has been investigated for drug use and allegedly having sex with a minor.
ALSO READ:Why Trump voters should be held accountable for their choice
After McConnell reportedly said, "There will be no recess appointments," social media was overtaken by talk of the upcoming standoff.
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman said, "Lines are drawn."
"It would be sad as well as disgraceful if the Senate caved on this," he added. "And the stakes go beyond the political, and even the constitutional. It’s an inordinate and unnecessary national security risk."
HuffPost reporter Yashar Ali said, "McConnell will not be Senate Republican Leader soon, but he may be saying this based on conversations with his colleagues."
"The idea that the U.S. Senate will give up its authority on this matter with the flip of a switch is foolish," Ali said. "They’re not going to stop using pro-forma."
Economic advisor Patrick Chovanec said, "McConnell understands this would be the end of the Senate as we know it. Whether he's in any position to stand up against the MAGAs is the real question."
Correspondent Molly Jong-Fast simply said, "Let us pray."
Legal analyst Allison Gill, better known as Mueller, She Wrote, said, "But McConnell won't be the leader. Here's hoping, though."
===
---
an 6 24
Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is not only losing his post as the leader of the Senate Republican Conference when the next Congress gavels in — he might also completely lose control of his prized fundraising operation.
According to the Hill, a growing number of Senate Republicans are going public in their opposition to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which he has deployed for more than a decade to inject millions of dollars into Senate races across the country. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), who is running for reelection this November, was particularly outspoken in his opposition to McConnell threatening to spend money against current members of the conference who supported Hawley's bill to rein in corporate campaign contributions to super PACs.
"I think the idea that a leader would use outside money, much of it dark money, to try and intimidate or threaten members of the caucus is frankly corrupt," Hawley told the Hill. "And I think it’s a corrupt practice that has gone on for far too long, and it needs to end."
READ MORE:McConnell says GOP shouldn't 'get too excited' about chances of winning Senate
Data from campaign finance database Opensecrets shows that the SLF is one of the heaviest hitters in Washington, with more than $724 million in outside spending on record since the 2000 election cycle. Much of that spending has come in recent cycles, with the SLF spending more than $246 million in the 2022 campaign cycle alone.
The Kentucky Republican recently reminded fellow GOP senators that the SLF — which is currently run by McConnell's former chief of staff Steven Law — has been instrumental in helping members win elections. In a recent meeting, McConnell reportedly read aloud the names of senators whose campaigns have directly benefited from the SLF's spending, like Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), who has also backed Hawley's bill.
As Senate Republicans debate who will be their next leader, one major departure from McConnell's time as the caucus chair is the insistence of term limits. That has been a key component of Sen. Rick Scott's (R-Florida) campaign for GOP leader, who has pushed for members of the Senate Republican Conference's rank-and-file to have more say in legislative negotiations. McConnell pushed back strongly against that idea, warning Republicans that weakening the power of leadership could result in the same brand of chaos currently plaguing House Republicans.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), who is considered one of McConnell's key allies in the Senate GOP conference, argued in a recent letter to his colleagues that it's "important that we consider proposals to strengthen not weaken the Republican Conference leader position when we fully engage in this discussion this fall," adding that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has been able to wield a significant amount of power and influence due to both the powers of leadership and the unity of his caucus.
READ MORE:Longest-running Senate majority leader delivers impassioned plea against term limits
One unnamed Senate GOP aide speaking anonymously to the Hill said Tillis' letter was "clearly was a McConnell-driven response."
"Tillis is seen as like, McConnell’s axe man in some ways," they said.
Aside from Scott, other candidates for Senate GOP leader include Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) — who served as Senate Majority Whip between 2015 and 2019, and current Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-South Dakota). Republicans will decide on their next leader this November.
Click here to read the Hill's report in full.
READ MORE:'McConnell completely blew this': GOP leader hemorrhaging support after border bill fail
---
---
an 1 24
gop # get worse with time?!
46 GOP senators sign SCOTUS brief downplaying Trump’s role in January 6 insurrection
President Donald J. Trump, joined by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO., speaks with reporters prior to attending a Senate Republican lunch Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)
Carl Gibson
January 18, 2024
All but three members of the Senate Republican Caucus have signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) urging the Court to strike down the Colorado Supreme Court's disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the state's GOP primary ballot.
The brief — which was also signed by 130 House Republicans — argued that Trump's disqualification "tramples the prerogatives of members of Congress," which they say include "the enforcement and (if necessary) removal of Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment]’s 'disability' on holding office."
"Congress—not any state court—plays a vital role in regard to [the insurrection clause]," the brief read. "It is Congress that must pass implementing legislation authorizing enforcement of Section 3."
"[T]his Court should conclude that Section 3 determinations fall within the 'political question' doctrine because they are so clearly committed by constitutional text to another political branch, i.e., Congress," the amicus brief continued. "Under current law, Congress has implemented Section 3 only in the narrow context of requiring a criminal conviction for 'rebellion or insurrection,' and provided that those found guilty 'shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.'"
While the question of whether a presidential candidate can only be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment will ultimately be decided by SCOTUS, the actual text of the insurrection clause doesn't explicitly say enforcement only comes after Congress votes. Rather, the clause — which prevents anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US or who has "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any "civilian or military" office — only states that disqualification can be reversed by a two-thirds vote from both the House and Senate. Even if all signees of the brief voted to exempt Trump from the insurrection clause, it would still fall well short of the two-thirds threshold laid out in the US Constitution.
Notably, the brief also minimizes the former president's role in the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, with the brief falsely asserting that Trump "quickly" asked for peace and encouraged "disbandment" of the riot even though he watched events unfold over the course of several hours before telling his supporters to go home. The brief even quoted George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 to describe the actions of "enterprising state officials" trying to disqualify Trump as an example of the statement "peace means war."
The only GOP senators to not co-sign the brief were Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski. Notably, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) co-signed the brief despite condemning Trump's actions on January 6.
---
an 1 24
a group of seventeen senators led by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), among them some of the most hardline, far-right Republicans, have joined together in calling for a special conference meeting on Ukraine funding ahead of a vote that could come as soon as next week.
The move comes as Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is aligning with Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and, effectively, President Joe Biden, in calling for House and Senate Republicans to accept a border deal crafted by U.S. Senator James Lankford (R-OK).
House Republicans have tied any funding support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan to HR2 a bill that has little to no chance of passing in the Senate. It is opposed by immigration advocates, the Biden White House, Senate Democrats and some Senate Republicans, and other groups including Catholic Bishops.
Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman was first to report the demand for the meeting, posting the letter (below) signed by Republican U.S. Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Rick Scott, Mike Braun, John Cornyn, Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, Roger Marshall, Eric Schmitt, Tommy Tuberville, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, Marco Rubio, James Risch, J.D. Vance, and Ted Budd.
The letter calls for the special conference meeting on Ukraine funding to come next week. Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio reports that meeting will take place next Wednesday, according to Punchbowl’s Andrew Desiderio.
READ MORE: ‘Staggering Refusal to Govern’: Johnson Sparks Outcry for Tying Any Border Fix to a Trump Win
Pointing to that letter, Desiderio writes, “Of note — not all of these signatories are opposed to Ukraine funding. But most of them are.”
The letter also came while the top four House and Senate leaders were meeting with President Joe Biden. The Republican Speaker, Mike Johnson, quickly announced at the end of that meeting that nothing has changed.
“Johnson’s remarks show a continued hardline position on tying Ukraine funding to border restrictions,” Politico reports. “He also said he was not wedded strictly to the name of any bill being attached, a nod to the fact that many House Republicans want the deal to closely mimic the conservative border bill H.R. 2, but said the elements in any deal ‘have to be meaningful.'”
See the letter below or at this link.
===
---
no lnx
'Dead as fried chicken': Senate Republicans lash out after Supreme Court ethics bill clears committee
https://www.alternet.org/as-fried-chicken-senate/
Brandon GageJuly 20, 2023
The United States Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday in an 11-10 vote along party lines advanced The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act for a floor debate in the upper congressional chamber. According to its sponsor, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), the bill "would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public."
But as Politico reports, the measure faces almost certain defeat in the House of Representatives, which just like in the Senate, Republicans view "as an erosion of separation of powers and an attack on the conservative court."
Thursday's hearing lasted more than three hours, Politico notes, wherein lawmakers "struck down more than a half dozen Republican amendments, on topics such as the size of the court, punishing leakers and further regulating stock trades by lawmakers. But GOP committee members never called up the vast majority of the more than 60 amendments they said they planned to offer."
READ MORE: Democrats 'don’t like democracy' claims Ted Cruz, who voted against certifying the 2020 election
According to Politico, "The Whitehouse proposal would give the court 180 days to adopt and publish a code of conduct and allow the public to submit ethics complaints that would be reviewed by a randomly selected panel of lower court judges. It also would establish more stringent rules for disclosure of gifts and travel. Justices would also be subject to clearer rules on recusing themselves from cases where they may have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of one."
Multiple jurists on the High Court — most notably Associate Justice Clarence Thomas — are under intense scrutiny for receiving gifts and having personal financial relationships with individuals who had stakes in the outcomes of cases that came before the Court. Nonetheless, Republicans were less than cordial about the legislation.
"You're going to fail miserably. This bill is going nowhere," said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), while Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) voiced similar, albeit more colorful criticism.
:{:{}:
}:
"You don't have to be Oliver Wendell Scalia to figure out that this legislation is meant to be a court-killing machine," Kennedy quipped. "This thing's dead as fried chicken on the Senate floor and it's dead as fried chicken in the House."
READ MORE: Expand the Supreme Court? Activists livid Senate Democrats are holding out
Meanwhile, Whitehouse pushed back against the GOP's claims that Democrats are attempting to "pack" the Court:
:{:{}:
}:
I would like to make a few points as we wrap this up. The first is I would react to the comments that some of my colleagues said Democrats wanna pack the court. My sense is the court has already been packed. It has been packed as the result of a very long and expensive effort run by a handful of secretive right-wing billionaires through a bunch of front groups.
:{:{}:
}:
The tally of the cost of the operation has risen from the original $250 million estimate of The Washington Post to now $580 million spent on trying to make sure that those billionaires succeeded in what has been characterized in this room as the long effort to make this a conservative court.
Watch Whitehouse's statement below via The Recount or at this link.
READ MORE: How the Supreme Court pulled a right-wing doctrine 'out of thin air' to 'invalidate' Biden’s policies
Politico's analysis continues here.
FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES
Refusal by Roberts to testify over Supreme Court ethics scandals called 'untenable' ›
'Shady and corrupt': Barrett real estate deal added to list of Supreme Court ethics scandals ›
Scathing parody mocks Supreme Court justices’ excuses for dodging ethics code ›
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Outside groups take a first stab at a Supreme Court ethics code : NPR ›
Dems start Round One in Supreme Court ethics 'boxing match ... ›
Senate probes Supreme Court ethics after questionable financial ... ›
---
scotus student debt amicus
BRIEF OF SENATOR MARSHA BLACKBURN
AND 42 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE UNITED
STATES SENATE AS AMICI CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
BRIAN A. KULP
DECHERT LLP
CIRA CENTRE
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
STEVEN A. ENGEL
Counsel of Record
MICHAEL H. MCGINLEY
JUSTIN W. AIMONETTI
DECHERT LLP
1900 K Street,NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 261-3369
steven.engel@dechert.com
LIST OF AMICI CURIAE
Senator John Barrasso
Senator Marsha Blackburn
Senator John Boozman
Senator Mike Braun
Senator Katie Boyd Britt
Senator Ted Budd
Senator Bill Cassidy
Senator John Cornyn
Senator Tom Cotton
Senator Kevin Cramer
Senator Mike Crapo
Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Steve Daines
Senator Joni Ernst
Senator Deb Fischer
Senator Lindsey Graham
Senator Chuck Grassley
Senator Bill Hagerty
Senator Josh Hawley
Senator John Hoeven
Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
Senator Ron Johnson
Senator John Kennedy
Senator James Lankford
Senator Mike Lee
Senator Cynthia M. Lummis
2a
Senator Roger Marshall
Senator Mitch McConnell
Senator Jerry Moran
Senator Markwayne Mullin
Senator Pete Ricketts
Senator James E. Risch
Senator Mitt Romney
Senator Mike Rounds
Senator Marco Rubio
Senator Rick Scott
Senator Tim Scott
Senator Dan Sullivan
Senator John Thune
Senator Thom Tillis
Senator Tommy Tuberville
Senator Roger F. Wicker
Senator Todd Young
---
---
sparked by
https://www.alternet.org/watch-senate-grand-old-partiers/
no lnx
Watch: Senate Grand Old Partiers pacify planet polluters at climate change cover-up hearing
Brandon Gage June 22, 2023
United States Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) played defense for planet-polluting petrochemical producers in his opening statement at Wednesday's Senate Budget Committee hearing on the fossil fuel industry's shadowy propaganda.
At the heart of the Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget proceeding was Big Oil's deliberate decades-long cover-up of their own studies that unequivocally established that the burning of hydrocarbons will lead to an increase in average global temperatures through the atmospheric accumulation of heat-trapping gases: water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon monoxide, and worst of all, carbon dioxide.
Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) spoke first, teeing up ninety-ish minutes of blistering expert testimony dissecting how the trillion-dollar extra-national energy enterprises have subjugated human civilization for fifty years.
READ MORE: 'I don't know what's going on': Chuck Grassley begs for donations as Democratic challenger closes in
The data collected since the latter half of the Nineteenth Century is an elementary example of the greenhouse effect beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, Republicans constitute the only major conservative party in the world that in its platform disputes said consensus.
But million-dollar-federal-family-farm-subsidy-benficiary Grassley did not just dispute the science — he also accused Democrats of being the recipients of "funding from secret dark money groups" and waging political warfare against contrarians.
Other GOP senators played goalie in their own ways.
:{:{}:
}:
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for instance, claimed that it can be "hard to discern the truth" about climate change because progressive environmental organizations outspend their right-wing counterparts. But those campaigns pale in comparison to the breadth of the fraud conducted by companies such as Exxon-Mobil.
READ MORE: Climate activists are parading a Ron Johnson 'scatue' around Milwaukee: report
Meanwhile, John Kennedy of Louisiana berated former President George W. Bush's White House ethics czar, Richard Painter, on trivialities that had no clear connection with the topic at hand.
:{:{}:
}:
Painter was not, however, having it.
:{:{}:
}:
"So I will just say the one thing that I learned in high school debate," Painter recalled. "When you have no argument, change the subject."
Please watch the proceeding in its entirety below or at this link.
Republicans And Dems Spar At Senate Budget Committee Hearing Over Fossil Fuel Dark Money
www.youtube.com
READ MORE: Republican senator: Mexico 'would be eating cat food' without the United States
LNX
...At the heart of the Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget proceeding was Big Oil's deliberate decades-long cover-up of their own studies that unequivocally established that the burning of hydrocarbons will lead to an increase in average global temperatures through the atmospheric accumulation of heat-trapping gases: water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon monoxide, and worst of all, carbon dioxide.
Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) spoke first, teeing up ninety-ish minutes of blistering expert testimony dissecting how the trillion-dollar extra-national energy enterprises have subjugated human civilization for fifty years.
READ MORE: 'I don't know what's going on': Chuck Grassley begs for donations as Democratic challenger closes in
The data collected since the latter half of the Nineteenth Century is an elementary example of the greenhouse effect beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, Republicans constitute the only major conservative party in the world that in its platform disputes said consensus.
But million-dollar-federal-family-farm-subsidy-benficiary Grassley did not just dispute the science — he also accused Democrats of being the recipients of "funding from secret dark money groups" and waging political warfare against contrarians.
Other GOP senators played goalie in their own ways.
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for instance, claimed that it can be "hard to discern the truth" about climate change because progressive environmental organizations outspend their right-wing counterparts. But those campaigns pale in comparison to the breadth of the fraud conducted by companies such as Exxon-Mobil.'''
FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES
'Greedy, selfish, self-serving': Ron Johnson blasted for 'taking comfort' in global warming ›
'What happened to these people?' Illinois Republican scolded for claiming 'we're not having a climate crisis' ›
'What a weirdo': Twitter shreds 'cartoon character' Republican for declaring 'there is no climate change' ›
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Where the GOP Presidential Candidates Stand on Climate Change ... ›
No Republican senator supported a climate plan – where is the ... ›
Republicans have large generation gap on climate change, poll finds ›
---
---
arena generous films
https://www.alternet.org/watch-senate-grand-old-partiers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4bfSveAYXY&t=13s 90 min
600b$ subsidy (world?)
cato heritage cei and --- 1/2 b$ FF
the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign has penetrated right into this committee room
4:35
via Witnesses from organizations like the Cato Institute the Heritage Foundation the American Enterprise
4:41
Institute and the competitive Enterprise Institute which through 2021 have collectively received over half a
4:48
billion dollars half a billion dollars from fossil fuel
4:54
related interests and that's only the money that we know about we're here today because fossil fuel
...
...
I lived this I worked on bipartisan climate legislation from 2007 through 2009.
until inJanuary 2010 the citizens united decision set loose on limited political spending by the fossil fuel
industry worse the decision allowed that spending to be anonymous
the fossil fuel industry was ready not only with unlimited dark money but also with the secret threats and promises
that unlimited dark money permits and it immediately snuffed out bipartisanship
on serious climate legislation it's been a big operation
collectively fossil fuel aligned trade organizations and dark money groups have spent tens of billions of dollars again
just that we know of on ads lobbying campaign contributions and dark money front groups
the delay in action that those billions bought directly caused the economic perils that
our hearings have spotlighted fossil fuel spending has done direct
damage to our nation's fiscal future not just to our environment
lawsuits abound against major oil and gas corporations for deceiving the public about the climate damages that
they knew their products would cause the house oversight committee started its own investigation into fossil fuel
deception an investigation I intend to see through to hold accountable the players in
Industries spreading the disinformation that will rock the very foundations of
our economic well-being we will pay a terrible economic and
human price if the campaign is not exposed and disabled with that I'll turn this over to my
...
distinguished ranking member Senator Grassley for his opening remarks and I went a minute over so feel free to go a
minute over Mr German Senator Grassley thank you thank you Mr chairman today
marks the 10th airing on climate change at the budget committee
and our 14th missed opportunity to work together on a responsible budget all for the sake of the American people we're once again here to discuss an
alleged scheme involving fossil fuel overlords
from the banks to the insurance companies to those they call friends on my side of the aisle
Democrats accuse those they disagree with of wrongdoing
they equate asimple difference of opinion to collusion and of course to
corruption this is not the type of discussion that encourages bipartisanship or promotes the
development of valuable legislation it's a perfect example of why Congress
has deteriorated since I came here many years ago and it's contributed to the extreme
division within our society today throughout these climate hearings
Democrats have claimed that climate change will cause catastrophic economic
collapse due to devastating natural disasters they've also attributed a republican
rejection of extreme climate policy to an alleged fossil fuel disinformation
conspiracy to defraud the public this premise either insults the
integrity or the intelligence of Republican legislators that diligently
serve their constituents as well as our constituents
not only does it assume catastrophe without clear scientific
backing but also it ignores the simple fact that most Americans don't want
expensive in burdensome climate regulations but Democrats think that you're too dumb
to think for yourselves they somehow think that all knowledge resides here in Washington DC
when in fact Washington is an island surrounded by reality
Democrats argue that Americans only despise top-down climate policy because
of disinformation they think Americans have been easily fooled into rejecting the Democrat
Narrative of climate destruction I don't agree and most Americans don't
either Iowans can clearly see that President Biden's war on fossil fuels
has been disastrous for our economy and terrible for consumers remember five
dollar gas last year I've always said that sunlight is the
best disinfectant when it comes to the people's business but for sunlight sunlight to work it needs to shine more
than in just politically convenient places we've heard
of apocalyptic uh claims and alarming statistics in
these climate hearings but we've yet to have a real conversation about the source of these
assertions because it doesn't help the Democratic agenda the Congress has had multiple hearings
regarding so-called dark money but I've yet to hear a clear definition of what dark money is since Democrats
receive much more secret or dark money than Republicans is clearly a partisan
definition so all we get to today I'm looking forward to hearing Mr
Walters explanation of this Democratic disinformation strategy he's been the
president of capital Research Center for seven years and investigative think tank that connects the dots between left-wing
politicians lobbying groups labor unions foundations and other non-profits if
we're going to discuss climate disinformation it seems to me that we should take a balanced and analytical
approach this means we must first affirm the validity of information
what the science actually says before making a claim of disinformation
objective climate scientists are best suited to do this which is why I'm
excited to welcome Dr Pilkey the only climate scientists on the panel Dr
pelkey is a professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado teaching and writing on the intersection
of climate politics prior to his 22 years at Colorado he was a scientist at
the national Center for atmospheric research I'm cobson that he will shed
much needed science driven light upon real climate disinformation I would also
like to welcome the Democratic Witnesses who come from a diverse array of non-climate science backgrounds to
testify on climate disinformation one is a filmmaker another a historian
and the latter a democratic farmer labor politician I look forward to listening to their
testimonies and hope that they'll even be even-handed in their assessments and
fourth rate about their professional relationships with dark money groups
we've seen Democratic Witnesses who've been receiving funding from secret dark
money groups it would behoove all of us to be honest about the prevalence of
so-called dark money on both sides of the aisle I yield
we have five witnesses today first we have Dr Naomi oreski's
she is the Henry Charles Lee professor of the history of Science and Affiliated
professor of Earth and planetary Sciences at Harvard University
's is the author or co-author of nine books and over 150 articles essays and
opinion pieces and her best-selling book merchants of doubt studied how and to what extent large Industries manufacture
doubt about the state of the science for their own benefit Dr oreskis thank you
for being here our second witness is Christine Arena she is the founder and producer at
generous films an award-winning production company that brings cinematic storytelling to the social impact space
before that however she was a 20-year veteran of the communications industry
and served as Executive Vice President at the public relations firm Edelman
thank you Ms arena for bringing that experience here to share today
next we have Richard painterthe S Walter Ritchie professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota law
school and former associate counsel to the president in the White House counsel's office as the chief ethics
lawyer to President George W bushhe was previously a board member and...
Mobil turned from information to disinformationin various venues the
company claimed or insinuated that there was no consensus among scientific experts and that the underlying science
was too uncertain to Warrant action the graph shown here presents an
analysis undertaken by exxon's own scientists in 1982 in which they forecast future levels of atmospheric
CO2 and the mean Global temperature that would ensue from that the black lines
are Exxon mobil's projections the red and blue lines we have added to show what actually happened in the real world
and you can see that the Exon projections were extremely accurate in
fact they actually thought it would be slightly worse than it's turned out to be Exxon knew what would happen
but in public starting in the 1990s and continuing for decades company Executives disparaged climate science
particularly climate models in 2015 for example CEO Rex Tillerson said we do not
really know what the climate effects of 600 parts per million versus 400 parts per million will be but if we look at my
second diagram here whoops some help thank you very much thank you
sir we've added these arrows to highlight what in fact Exxon mobil's own
projection showed and we see that 600 parts per million produces 1.3 degrees
Centigrade so more than two degrees Fahrenheit more warming than 400 degrees and it pushes the total warming well
above the 2 degree threshold that climate scientists had concluded would be dangerous interference
now Exxon mobil's disparagement of climate science was part of a larger corporate narrative which I don't have
time to discuss in detail today but which Eric Conley and I have documented in our new book The Big myth that denied
the reality of market failure the reality is that markets do fail and
climate change is a massive market failure as you heard from the chair the international monetary fund estimates
:{:{}:
}:
that the unpaid damages from using fossil fuels are quote a staggering 5.2
:{:{}:
}:
trillion dollars or 6.5 percent of global GDP every year
now these costs are not just measured in money they are measured in illness in suffering and above all in lives
according to the U.S department of Agriculture in 2021 the heat Dome that
affected the U.S Pacific Northwest caused over 250 deaths in Oregon in
Idaho in Washington and in Alaska scientists have concluded that the
occurrence of a heat wave of that severity in that region was quote virtually impossible with our human
cause claim [Applause] four years have passed since president's....
Oreskes, clean creatives?
and thank you members it's an honor to be with you here today in March 1969 the U.S senator from
Washington StateHenry scoop Jackson received a letter from an angry constituent the man had watched an
episode of a popular television show where the beat poet Alan Ginsberg told an alarming story of planetary demise
Ginsburg claimed that quote the current rate of air pollution brought about by automobiles could cause the rapid
buildup on of heat on Earth which would melt the polar ice caps causing a flooding of the greater part of the
globe the constituent wanted the senator to stop the kooky poet from spouting such irresponsible nonsense after all he
wrote quite a few million people watched this show Senator Jackson forwarded the letter to
Richard Nixon's science advisor Lee Dubridge asking for clarification dubridge replied with a long letter
affirming that Ginsburg was basically correctwe were indeed filling the atmosphere with a great many gases and
in very large quantities from the burning of fossil fuels he wrote which could indeed warm the planet and melt
the ice caps were the scientists who raised this concern being alarmist do bridge didn't think so quote I don't
like to be a Calamity howler he said but sometimes it takes a few Calamity howlers to arouse people to the point
no lnx
Watch: Senate Grand Old Partiers pacify planet polluters at climate change cover-up hearing
Brandon Gage June 22, 2023
United States Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) played defense for planet-polluting petrochemical producers in his opening statement at Wednesday's Senate Budget Committee hearing on the fossil fuel industry's shadowy propaganda.
At the heart of the Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget
https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/dollars-and-degrees-investigating-fossil-fuel-dark-moneys-systemic-threats-to-climate-and-the-federal-budget
proceeding was Big Oil's deliberate decades-long cover-up of their own studies that unequivocally established that the burning of hydrocarbons will lead to an increase in average global temperatures through the atmospheric accumulation of heat-trapping gases: water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon monoxide, and worst of all, carbon dioxide.
Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) spoke first, teeing up ninety-ish minutes of blistering expert testimony dissecting how the trillion-dollar extra-national energy enterprises have subjugated human civilization for fifty years.
READ MORE: 'I don't know what's going on': Chuck Grassley begs for donations as Democratic challenger closes in
The data collected since the latter half of the Nineteenth Century is an elementary example of the greenhouse effect beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, Republicans constitute the only major conservative party in the world that in its platform disputes said consensus.
But million-dollar-federal-family-farm-subsidy-benficiary Grassley did not just dispute the science — he also accused Democrats of being the recipients of "funding from secret dark money groups" and waging political warfare against contrarians.
Other GOP senators played goalie in their own ways.
:{:{}:
}:
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for instance, claimed that it can be "hard to discern the truth" about climate change because progressive environmental organizations outspend their right-wing counterparts. But those campaigns pale in comparison to the breadth of the fraud conducted by companies such as Exxon-Mobil.
READ MORE: Climate activists are parading a Ron Johnson 'scatue' around Milwaukee: report
Meanwhile, John Kennedy of Louisiana berated former President George W. Bush's White House ethics czar, Richard Painter, on trivialities that had no clear connection with the topic at hand.
:{:{}:
}:
Painter was not, however, having it.
:{:{}:
}:
"So I will just say the one thing that I learned in high school debate," Painter recalled. "When you have no argument, change the subject."
Please watch the proceeding in its entirety below or at this link.
Republicans And Dems Spar At Senate Budget Committee Hearing Over Fossil Fuel Dark Money
www.youtube.com
READ MORE: Republican senator: Mexico 'would be eating cat food' without the United States
LNX
...At the heart of the Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget proceeding was Big Oil's deliberate decades-long cover-up of their own studies that unequivocally established that the burning of hydrocarbons will lead to an increase in average global temperatures through the atmospheric accumulation of heat-trapping gases: water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon monoxide, and worst of all, carbon dioxide.
Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) spoke first, teeing up ninety-ish minutes of blistering expert testimony dissecting how the trillion-dollar extra-national energy enterprises have subjugated human civilization for fifty years.
READ MORE: 'I don't know what's going on': Chuck Grassley begs for donations as Democratic challenger closes in
The data collected since the latter half of the Nineteenth Century is an elementary example of the greenhouse effect beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, Republicans constitute the only major conservative party in the world that in its platform disputes said consensus.
But million-dollar-federal-family-farm-subsidy-benficiary Grassley did not just dispute the science — he also accused Democrats of being the recipients of "funding from secret dark money groups" and waging political warfare against contrarians.
Other GOP senators played goalie in their own ways.
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for instance, claimed that it can be "hard to discern the truth" about climate change because progressive environmental organizations outspend their right-wing counterparts. But those campaigns pale in comparison to the breadth of the fraud conducted by companies such as Exxon-Mobil.'''
FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES
'Greedy, selfish, self-serving': Ron Johnson blasted for 'taking comfort' in global warming ›
'What happened to these people?' Illinois Republican scolded for claiming 'we're not having a climate crisis' ›
'What a weirdo': Twitter shreds 'cartoon character' Republican for declaring 'there is no climate change' ›
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Where the GOP Presidential Candidates Stand on Climate Change ... ›
No Republican senator supported a climate plan – where is the ... ›
Republicans have large generation gap on climate change, poll finds ›
---
4:35
Miss Arena please proceed with your statement
24:46
20 years of experience in the communications industry and I'm also an author and research on greenwashing a
24:52
tactic I will discuss shortly disinformation is not a matter of
:{:{}:
24:58
differing opinion it is the deliberate dissemination of false or misleading rhetoric that is spread for profit or
25:05
political gain in the hands of industries that make lethal products including cigarettes
25:10
opioids and fossil fuels disinformation strategies have led to Decades of delay
25:16
on important policy issues and resulted in immense costs to society modern disinformation campaigns do not
25:23
merely seek to convince people that something true is false or that something false is true their aim is to
erode the very basis for Discerning between empirical fact expert knowledge and Industry propaganda
}:
25:37
they seek to undermine people's ability to calculate risk and make informed decisions leading to mass confusion and
25:45
a lack of political will in recent years we have witnessed a striking evolution of the methods used
25:51
to deceive people about the harmful effects of fossil fuels while climate disinformation rhetoric
25:58
has become more manipulative and divisive it has also become more pervasive thanks to the power of digital
26:04
technology and the billions of dollars that fossil fuel interests spend each year to remain this to ensure that
26:10
Society remains hooked on oil and gas my written statement outlines a series
26:16
of blatantly deceptive and obstructive methods from the mass marketing of false
26:21
climate Solutions and yet zero commitments to the capture of critical climate negotiations like cop it
26:28
illustrates how fossil fuel money is linked to the deployment of hundreds of front groups across the country as well
26:34
as sophisticated bot networks fake social media accounts and hacking operations targeting climate activists
26:41
it describes the tactics used by fossil fuel corporations and trade associations to block climate action including number
26:49
one greenwashing or the purposeful production of false positive perceptions of a company or industry's environmental
26:56
performance number two astroturfing those are activities creating the illusion of
27:02
community support for a corporate position without concealing who is really paying for them
27:07
number three flooding that refers to the production of online noise and concentrated ad placements to disorient
27:14
people and drown out opposing viewpoints and number four infiltration a strategy
27:20
using Financial influence to manipulate among other things the climate research from renowned academic institutions
27:26
including Harvard Stanford MIT among others collectively these tactics make it
27:33
almost impossible for legitimate climate scientists to be heard over industry voices for well-intentioned consumers to
27:40
make informed choices and for concerned lawmakers including members of this committee to take the necessary steps to
27:47
protect their constituents fossil fuel companies and interests are not engaging in disinformation solely in order to
27:54
sell more products they are using these tactics in bad faith to interfere with
27:59
matters of policy for this reason more than any other the American public has a
28:05
right to know the truth citizens deserve to know who is organizing and funding AstroTurf
---
bush ethics
...
uh in the democratic form of labor party primaries in 2018 and again for congress in 2022 with a
strong environmental platform with a strong support of the former Republican
governor of Minnesota Arne hedge Carlson I've worked a lot with Arnie Carlson and
others of both political parties and many Independents such as myself on clean water issues in Minnesota
protecting the environment this is not a partisan issue this is not about being a democrat or republican or an independent
this is about caring and doing something about a brave threat to the human race
and I'm here to testify about the intersection between two calamities one
climate change uh which if we do not confront will lead to catastrophe and second
uh the role of money in politics I am not a climate scientist I will defer to
the scientists on this panel and to scientists around the country on the question of climate change the role of
fossil fuels and CO2 emissions but I will speak now about the role of
money in politics which is very very relevant to this conversation it once again is not a part of an issue I've
looked at therole of money in politics going back to the time of the American Revolution when the East India Company
corrupted Parliament and tea party Patriots through the Tia to Boston Harbor to let them know what we thought
of corporate money in politics and taxation without representation of the
people I have started the role of corporate money and politics in the United States
in the 18th 19th and 20th centuries I've looked at what happened during the
Reagan Clinton Bush years through the Obama years up through the
Trump and Biden Administrationsmoney corrupts our government this is
not a partisan issue it was bad when I was in the bush White
House I saw the influence of campaign contributors in both political parties
President Bush signed into the law the McCain feingold ing which would try to restrict some of that
however ineffectively I wrote a book in 2008 called getting the government
America deserves on how the campaign money ultimately was undermining
government ethics across the board and that was before citizens united when the
United States Supreme Court opened the floodgates of dark money in politics by
striking down critical portions of the campaign Finance reforms in the McCain
feingold Act on a fundamentally flawed assumption a
theory and I will emphasize that in in the law nothing has been more pernicious
in law than abstract theories untethered from reality and the abstract Theory
underlying the citizens united case is the corporations are people just like
the rest of us that transactions flows of money from One bank account to
another into an electioneering communication organization whether it is the United or
any other or into a Super PAC that that's the same thing as a citizen standing on a soapbox delivering a
speech completely untethered from reality and the flood of money in the both
political parties is destroying our democracy and yes is making it much harder for us
to fight climate change to come together to come up with solutions to this problem instead of calling each other
names instead of always pointing the finger at
someone else instead of saying what can I do about this problem
and that's why we're here today thank you very much Mr painter Dr Pilkey
---
---
26:49
one greenwashing or the purposeful production of false positive perceptions of a company or industry's environmental
performance number two astroturfing those are activities creating the illusion of
community support for a corporate position without concealing who is really paying for them
number three flooding that refers to the production of online noise and concentrated ad placements to disorient
people and drown out opposing viewpoints and number four infiltration a strategy
using Financial influence to manipulate among other things the climate research from renowned academic institutions
including Harvard Stanford MIT among others collectively these tactics make it
almost impossible for legitimate climate scientists to be heard over industry voices for well-intentioned consumers to
make informed choices and for concerned lawmakers including members of this committee to take the necessary steps to
protect their constituents fossil fuel companies and interests are not engaging in disinformation solely in order to
27:54
sell more products they are using these tactics in bad faith to interfere with
matters of policy for this reason more than any other the American public has a
right to know the truth citizens deserve to know who is organizing and funding AstroTurf
campaigns investors deserve to know their financial exposure to climate risks consumers deserve to know the
health related consequences of breathing fossil fuel polluted air as well as the economic and environmental risks of
prolonged fossil fuel reliance they deserve to know that in the absence of accountability from the fossil fuel
industry they are the ones who pay for climate Havoc whether through Rising Insurance costs loss of coverage loss of
property or even loss of life without complete candid disclosure there is no
freedom of choice the majority of my industry supports the principal outlined by The Institute for
advertising ethics that is professional communicators we share a common objective of honesty transparency and
high ethical standards in serving the public in my view the majority of current Fossil fuel industry
Communications do not comply with these standards I will end my testimony by noting that
despite ample demonstrable evidence to the contraryU.S fossil fuel Executives maintain and have always maintained that
they have never deliberately misled the public what that tells us is not that they are blameless but that they will
never alter course without being legally compelled to do so thank you
thank you very much Mr painterETHICS please proceed
thank you very much chairman Whitehouse
ranking member Grassley for inviting me here today
I have been in the public law school
teaching for 30 years since 1993 at the University of Oregon the University of
Illinois and since 2007 the University of Minnesota I was proud to serve as the chief White
House ethics lawyer for President George W bush from 2005 to 2007.
30:01
I am a political independent in Minnesota we are allowed to vote in
either Republican or Democratic primary we do not have to register for parties we're allowed to run for office in
either party uh regardless of our prior or current party affiliation Iran as an
uh in the democratic form of labor party primaries in 2018 and again for congress in 2022 with a
strong environmental platform with a strong support of the former Republican
governor of Minnesota Arne hedge Carlson I've worked a lot with Arnie Carlson and
others of both political parties and many Independents such as myself on clean water issues in Minnesota
protecting the environment this is not a partisan issue this is not about being a democrat or republican or an independent
this is about caring and doing something about a brave threat to the human race
and I'm here to testify about the intersection between two calamities one
climate change uh which if we do not confront will lead to catastrophe and second
uh the role of money in politics I am not a climate scientist I will defer to
the scientists on this panel and to scientists around the country on the question of climate change the role of
fossil fuels and CO2 emissions but I will speak now about the role of
money in politics which is very very relevant to this conversation it once again is not a part of an issue I've
looked at the role of money in politics going back to the time of the American Revolution when the East India Company
corrupted Parliament and tea party Patriots through the Tia to Boston Harbor to let them know what we thought
of corporate money in politics and taxation without representation of the
people I have started the role of corporate money and politics in the United States
in the 18th 19th and 20th centuries I've looked at what happened during the
Reagan Clinton Bush years through the Obama years up through the
Trump and Biden Administrations money corrupts our government this is
not a partisan issue it was bad when I was in the bush White
House I saw the influence of campaign contributors in both political parties
President Bush signed into the law the McCain feingolding which would try to restrict some of that
however ineffectively I wrote a book in 2008 called getting the government
America deserves on how the campaign money ultimately was undermining
government ethics across the board and that was before citizens united when the
United States Supreme Court opened the floodgates of dark money in politics by
striking down critical portions of the campaign Finance reforms in the McCain
fine gold Act on a fundamentally flawed assumption a
theory and I will emphasize that in in the law nothing has been more pernicious
in law than abstract theories untethered from reality and the abstract Theory
underlying the citizens united case is the corporations are people just like
the rest of us that transactions flows of money from One bank account to
another into an electioneering communication organization whether it is the United or
any other or into a Super PAC that that's the same thing as a citizen standing on a soapbox delivering a
speech completely untethered from reality and the flood of money in the both
political parties is destroying our democracy and yes is making it much harder for us
to fight climate change to come together to come up with solutions to this problem instead of calling each other
names instead of always pointing the finger at
someone else instead of saying what can I do about this problem
and that's why we're here today thank you very much Mr painter
Dr Pilkey
Senator White House Senator Grassley the privilege to testify today in 2015 following testimony I delivered
before the house and the Senate summarizing the consensus conclusions of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change or ipcc a member of Congress demanded that I'd be investigated by my University
he suggested that I may have been receiving undisclosed funding from fossil fuel companies my University
35:06
complied the results of the investigation were of course not surprising to me I was not the recipient
of any fossil fuel funding from any fossil fuel interests and never had been however the very public accusation was
enough to derail my work and upend my career in ways that continue today
one important role of us experts is to call things as we see them sometimes research results are inconvenient or
uncomfortable to certain interests and that includes political interests please know that I call things like I see them no one is paying me to express
certain views my written testimony discusses four take-home points which I will Briefly
summarize first human-caused climate change is real it possesses
it poses significant risks to society and the environment and both mitigation and adaptation policies are necessary
and make good sense second the best and likely the only antidote to misinformation is accurate
information successfully producing communicating legitimizing and trusting accurate information to inform policy requires
upholding standards of scientific integrity today there is General agreement that our current media environment and
political discourse are Rife with misinformation in my areas of expertise this is certainly the case
the U.S Congress has long recognized the importance of scientific Integrity on climate in 1990 Congress established an
advisory mechanism in the form of a National Climate assessmenthowever locating the National Climate assessment
within the Executive Office of the President has made it a tempting Target for political meddling under both
Democratic and Republican presidents third in important areas of climate science the self-correcting function of
science has short-circuited the persistent misuse of climate scenarios one area where I research is
perhaps the most pervasive and consequential example of climate misinformation today
36:54
if there's just one sentence you take from my testimony today it is this you
are currently being misinformed scenarios are inputs to projections of
future changes in climate its impacts on society and the environment and the consequences and costs of alternative
policy actions however the scenarios that are currently prioritized in climate research
assessment and policy are badly outdated carbon dioxide emissions in the real
world are already at a level far less than projected in the most commonly used climate scenarios in that gap between
scenario assumptions and reality is only getting wider specifically the most commonly used
climate stereo scenario is calledRCP 8.5 which according to the ipcc
represents a global temperature increase in 2100 of 4.8 degrees Celsius
RCP 8.5 projects that all Global energy consumption will come from coal
that is obviously wrong the real world is actually tracking below what is called an RCP 4.5 scenario which
represents a 2100 Global temperature increase of 2.9 degrees Celsius this matters because important policy
guidance relies on these outdated scenariosfor example the 2022 White House paper titled climate risk exposure
and assessment of the federal government's Financial Risk to climate change use the RCP 8.5 scenario to
represent where we're heading the RCP 4.5 scenario to represent successful climate policy
and the difference between the two to represent the benefits of mitigation all of this is wrong
eliminating eliminating misinformation is difficult for instance a widely cited 2020 paper defending the use of the most
extreme RCP 8.5 climate scenario is notable because its authors failed to disclose a financial conflict of
interest they were funded by a major Global consultancy that relies heavily on RCP
8.5 in its business promotion and services so far in 2023 about a dozen studies are
published every single day using the outdated RCP 8.5 scenario according to
Google Scholar misinformation has powerful momentum fourth and finally concerns Express
about misinformation are sometimes weaponized one reason for this is that climate change is now big business that
means it is essential that everyone follow well-established standards of scientific integrity and this includes those funded by fossil
fuel interests renewable energy interests and in fact all Financial interests partisans May believe that the rules
apply only to their opponents they may argue over which side is worse however bringing accurate information into the
policy process means that Principles of Scientific Integrity must be applied to everyone
Congress has an important role to play in ensuring the Integrity of science effective policy making depends on it
thank you and I look forward to your questions thank you Professor will now turn to
Mr
Walter chairman Whitehouse ranking member Grassley distinguished members of the committee thank you for the honor of
testifying I'm president of the capital Research Center and we've studied political money debates for decades
40:02
including of course Mr chairman your speeches and writings dark money isn't really mysterious
unless you count that rumor that Leonard Leo invented dark money in a lab in Wuhan
no to say that a group uses dark money is like saying the group uses telephones it's a universal technology oddly the
people who most often use the term never Define it with legal Precision even when they're speaking in a Judiciary
Committee hearing or Senate Finance hearing where that would seem necessary but if you're trying to scare others
with a boogeyman best to keep the monsters outline shadowy now if dark money be a monster it's not
a large one the biggest number I can find is open Secrets one billion dollars in 2020 which sounds big until you see
open Secrets number for the hard dollars disclosed to the FEC which makes the dark money Boogeyman about seven percent
of election spending so dark money is universal in politics and not a large part of politics but
dark money is not equally or if I were a man of the left I'd say fairly distributed
uh it tilts strongly toward the Democratic party a few simple stats open Secrets totals for dark money in the
2020 election showAlmost a two and a half to one advantage for the Democratsin just the presidential race Mr Biden
enjoyed six times the dark money of his opponent the Democrats had a dark money advantage
in the 2022 cycle 2020 2018. here's another example Mr chairman the
conservative judicial activist you especially Target received in 2021 a 1.65 billion donation to a C4 dark money
group but just weeks after that story broke a left-wing billionaire gave about twice that amount to a dark money group
on the left a better comparison for that 1.65 billion is the money raked in by the
left's biggest non-profit Network the Empire run byArabella advisors it
raised almost exactly the same amount the same year the year before it raised 1.7 billion dollars so what the
Chairman's special Target enjoyed as a once in a lifetime windfall it's just the yearly take for Arabella
again I'm arguing C4 dark money is not a big deal in American politics but if
anyone insists it pollutes our politics then the big polluter is the Democratic party and the strongest drivers of big
pollution are environmentalists for instance the Arabella network was founded by environmentalist Eric Kessler
who's deeply tied as well to the dark money League of conservation voters which is both the biggest source of
campaign contributions to the chairman and also quote a dark Money Heavyweight says the Center for Public Integrity
another strong environmentalist tie at Arabella the Sierra Club helped launch arabella's 1630 fund quote the
indisputable heavyweight of democratic dark money says the Atlantic arabella's
environmentalist ties do have an unusual and especially disturbing feature foreign dark money
one of arabella's top donors for two decades is the environmentalist Hans Georg vis a foreign National who's
admitted violating bans on foreign money in American politics in the past and now
funds arabella's Network to influence our politics still dark money and all money in
politics is simple people who believe in causes raise money for those causes start groups for those
causes collaborate with each other buy ads to persuade the public support their
Champions criticize their opponents when the chairman takes money from the league of conservation voters that
doesn't mean the league has captured him it means they agree with him the people on the other side of the
issues operate the same way using the same kind of but a lot less of various
types of political money so to act outraged that somebody is using dark
money reveals the real definition of dark money support for speech the left wants to
silence trying to silence one's opponents is the opposite of democracy but it's
understandable given how unpopular some of the lefts especially environmentalists agenda items are
the ESG movement for example funded with Millions from billionaires like George Soros and millions from the Arabella
network is currently trying to have Banks stop loans to any company related to fossil fuels which would mean
Americans couldn't buy gas for their cars and trucks and might have an effect on the federal budget
trying to stifle speech with the boogeyman of dark money drives debate away from the substance of issues to
issues of money I urge the committee instead to focus on the substance of issues like climate change
thank you thanks very much um the ranking member has stepped out
for a second but I'm going to go ahead and proceed with my questions at mazorski let me go back to the quote
about the threat of climate change that you use in your testimony sometimes it takes a few Calamity howlers to wake
people up to the fact that there are serious problems and to arouse people to the point where they're willing to do
something about it I think we are at that point now again who said that
Lead You Bridge the science advisor to president Richard Nixon in 1969
thank you you are involved in the study of the
fossil fuel disinformation campaign and have been for many years You Are Not
Alone could you describe for us the academic
study of the fossil fuel disinformation operation
how roughly many scientists are engaged in it how robust the science is on this
45:54
subject and um what why don't you answer that first and then I'll ask sure okay and thank
you for that question and thank you also for the opportunity to set the record straight about my own qualifications so
I'm trained as an earth scientist I have a PhD from the school of Earth Sciences at Stanford University and as you noted
the outset I'm also an Affiliated professor of Earth and planetary Sciences at Harvard University and I
have published numerous papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals on climate science particularly on the
statistics of temperature records because I have formal training and statistics today I am employed like
Roger as a social scientist but I consider that to be a form of Science and so I didn't start out to work in
this area my work is in the history of science I'm interested in the development of scientific knowledge and
I was studying the development of climate science knowledge as a scientific question and I was doing that
work in the early 2000s when there was not really a scientific field of studying uh this question of
46:55
disinformation it became clear to me from my historical research that the scientific evidence
for the reality and potential severity of man-made climate change was very deep that it went back my question is more
about the disinformation yeah so okay yeah climate change so if you could focus on that in the short time I have sure I'll try thank you sorry for that
um so I published a paper in 2004 called the scientific consensus on climate change where I documented this consensus
as a result of that paper I became a target of the disinformation campaign I started getting hate mail I had people
file complaints against me at my University and went through some unpleasant experiences as well and
you're not alone in that people like Michael Mann have also been the subject what I learned as I started to
investigate that I was not alone and that in fact there was a network of people who were attacking climate
science tests like Ben santer like Michael Mann and like myself and so that
experience of being attacked led me to try to understand what these attacks were who was funding them who was behind
them and why they were doing it and and over as a scientist how would you describe the state of the
science that looks at the climate disinformation campaign as a phenomenon
just in its nascent stage is it fairly robust is there a scientific consensus
is it passing peer review what are the what are the markers of how real it all
is so I'd say that the field is mature now so it was nascent in the early 2000s it's been around for about 20 years now
uh we're academics we mostly publish in peer-reviewed scientific literature although we also
um publish books and opinion pieces I'd say it's a well-developed network now of academics both in the United States and
elsewhere and there are now many scores of academic researchers who study this as an empirical problem as a scientific
problem let me shift to Ms arena for a moment your testimony
makes comparisons between the tobacco Industries campaign of fraud
and what the fossil fuel industry is doing these days
could you elaborate a little bit on that comparison between the tobacco campaign
to deny the dangers of its product and the fossil fuel campaign to deny the
dangers of its product sure there are many uh parallels first first and foremost the
denial that the products in question were dangerous to people the denial of the science
um for the tobacco industry as Dr riski's knows better than I uh that was a 50-year campaign for fossil fuels it
took a very long time before corporations acknowledge the reality of climate change let alone acknowledge
that it was human driven let alone acknowledge that it was the burning of fossil fuels that is primarily responsible for that climate change
second tobacco companies really took advantage of uh the opportunity to
Market filtered and Light cigarettes to almost seizing the lung cancer link as a
50:03
business opportunity and we do see fossil fuel companies doing something very similar with carbon capture
Technologies with other Green Solutions that they tried to Market uh in in a
sense defending their core business model now I'm not saying carbon capture should not not be scaled it absolutely
should but really as an expert on marketing and you're talking about the marketing campaign exactly and so we see
a similar marketing tactics in a similar denial approach attacking science for
then questioning science then hiring their own experts and then really taking advantage of Market opportunities
I can remember Grassley I have a point of personal privilege before I start my questioning I want you
to know that Senator Johnson and I were accused of spreading right and disinformation for two and a half years
and everybody now knows that we were not spreading Russian disinformation on an
investigation that we were doing uh Dr pelkey
you were fired from your position at 538 Wikileaks later revealed an explicit
campaign against you the editor of Think Progress a website that's part of the51:22
lobbying arm of a far left-wing Center for American progress wrote The Following in an email to
billionaire dark money Democrat donor Tom steyer quote I think it's fair to
say that without climate progress the environmental armor of Think Progress Pilkey would still be writing on climate
change for 538 why do you believe you were fired from 538 and smeared
in the media yeah thank you I had written a piece I was hired by Nate silver to write for
538 um and since climate change was so contested I said well if you let me write something about sports I also
write about climate change my first piece was to summarize an ipcc report um in 2012 the ipcc released a report a
special report on Extreme events and it was straight up ipcc consensus science that I wrote about what I said in that
piece was that disaster costs are increasing but they're increasing because we have more stuff more property
more buildings In Harm's Way that's what the ipcc concluded there was an organized campaign released years later
and you know where you'll find yourself I was in the Wikileaks and it was
organized by Center for American progress along with a climate scientist named Michael Mann and they were very
explicit why they wanted me to be removed my message even though it was on consensus science was not politically
comfortable or acceptable so it was a very clear reason why I was attacked my
only uh regret is that the editor is at 538 didn't stand firm and say we're going to support strong science
Mr Walter Witnesses called to testify before this committee this year by the
majority worked for organizations that have received dark money from Arabella advisors the president of the niskan Inn
Center even admitted on the record to receiving funding from Anonymous donors
in the past but in 10 climate hearings Democrats have never asked a single one
of their Witnesses about their receipts of dark bunny let alone attempted to impugn the Integrity or accuse them of
conspiracy why do you think that is and how does Arabella advisors influence
Democratic legislators and why is the Democratic dark money conveniently ignored by the left
uh thanks for the question Senator uh I can't explain uh exactly why your
colleagues aren't willing to look at the dark money ties of their own Witnesses because of course they're very extensive
and influencewatch.org our website will provide lots of information on that
um Arabella is a stunningly powerful uh it affects the executive branch it
affects regulations uh it affects legislation uh with as I said billions
of dollars a year um some of it from uh from foreign donors now uh one of my favorite
examples of this would be that the almost the entire Biden regulatory uh agenda has been shaped by an especially
dark bit of Arabella called governing for impact um and uh interestingly that has ties to
uh witness that appeared at the last hearing where I had the honor of testifying to Chairman chairman
Whitehouse are any Democratic Witnesses on this panel linked to the web of uh liberal
dark money donations uh yes just today you have a witness for instance who spent years at the group
called crew which is tied to thedark money of Empire of David Brock and other dark money you have a witness who's
55:05
connected to a non-profit that receives money from the Rockefeller Brothers fund uh which is one of the donors tied up in
the Arabella Network uh Mr doctor or rescue the environmental
law firm Sheriff edling receives funding by way of the resource legal fund and
the Arabella advisor's new adventure fund from foreign and domestic Elites to
promote Progressive climate policies Democratic dark money Giant George Soros
and Leonard DiCaprio are among their donors are you currently or have you
ever been retained by the environmental law firm share edling
to talk about the case that I consulted on San Mateo versus Chevron where the
people of San Mateo County have sued for redress because of the damages that that County and the state of California is
55:58
experiencing from sea level rise caused by climate change caused by their product oil and gas my time zone thank
you Senator stabenow well thank you good morning and thank you very much for this
really important hearing I'd like to just do a little history lesson Mr chairman and take you back over 100
years ago when Henry Ford and Thomas Edison were building the first automobile and they wanted to build an
affordable electric car and in 1914 there was an article in the New York
Times where they were lamenting the fact that they had challenges developing a
battery with enough range that sounds familiar unfortunately at the same time in Texas
they were developing oil fields and we
saw just two years after this article Congress passed a change in the tax law
to in effect provide oil companies interest-free loans was the first fossil fuel subsidy our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for those of us that work on battery and solar and wind and other clean energies say we shouldn't pick
winners and losers Mr chairman over a hundred years ago we picked a winner and they won for 100 years
and so now we move and we look at the fact that it's no surprise that Henry Ford chose to focus
on the technology of the time and developed the internal combustion
engine now it's true that my home state of Michigan has benefited from these choices we put the world on wheels
we are extremely proud of our place in history as we move now to cleaner
Technologies as well but I would also say wouldn't it have been better if we had understood the issues of carbon
pollution at the very beginning and had built that in to what was happening imagine the difference just
imagine if we had an incentives at the very beginning for Battery Technology instead of the first fossil fuel subsidy
and imagine if the oil and gas industry had not used their profits in
basically every resource to stop efforts to recognize and end carbon pollution or
even acknowledge it imagine if all of this Mr chairman had gone into Technologies
to stop carbon pollution methane pollution other greenhouse gases imagine
what a different world we would have today if all this dark money had gone
into a cleaner environment and and supporting
the realities of science so the reality is that
the climate is changing we have a climate crisis hitting us over the head every day I chair the agriculture committee you can't talk to a farmer now
that does not acknowledge what is happening and their long time efforts and overwhelming Financial influence
using Dr money has cost us Precious Precious time just last week we had hail the size of
golf balls destroying farms in homes in small town of Howell Michigan and their
story after Story of wildfire smoke coming at us droughts and floods and everything else and you can tally the
total cost in terms of dollars or you can tally it in terms of lives both
all right historic levels in terms of loss in the last 2022 saw 18 separate billion dollar
weather and climate disasters inflicting 175 million dollars in Damages and costing
475 people their lives so Dr oreskis in your testimony you talk
about these real costs can you talk a little bit more about the
price everyday folks have to pay for this inaction I would argue a
1:00:01
hundred years of an action on the climate crisis and can you talk a little bit more about the tactics big oral has
been using that has created this situation
well thank you for that question I'm not an economist but I do follow the work of my economic colleagues and we have
numerous studies now uh this is an area where the science really has advanced and changed dramatically in the last 20
years most of the basic science of climate change really hasn't changed that much in the 20 years I've been
working on this issue but the economic analyzes and the detection and attribution Studies have so detection
and attribution sometimes called DNA not DNA but DNA refers to analyzes that try
to answer the question would this have happened but for climate change or would it have been as bad and there have been
major advances in that and we now have scores and scores of scientific studies that prove Beyond any reasonable doubt
that numerous extreme weather events floods wildfires hurricanes droughts
hail storms they're harder they're trickier but almost certainly hail storms as well maybe tornadoes those are
scientifically tricky but that many many of these events have become worse and in some cases so much worse that scientists
could say as they did about the Heaton that this would not have happened but for climate change and as you know
billions of dollars in losses from hurricanes floods extreme precipitation events uh no attracts these data I don't
have them with me but I could easily find them we've seen huge increase and with all due respect to my good
colleague Roger who I've known for many years Roger's point about people moving to Coastal area is not wrong but it's
incomplete because yes there is more damage in coastal areas because more people live there but in addition sea
level is rising because of climate change storm surge has become worse because of climate change hurricanes and
extreme precipitation and these cost billions of dollars to the American people to insurers to reinsures and to
the federal government because of federal disaster relief so yes this is extremely costly and yes it is caused by
climate change and the point of my testimony was to say we have known this science for a long long time and so if
we ask the question question why haven't we acted on this very robust body of Rich deep sophisticated scientific
knowledge a big part of the answer is not the only but a big part of the answer is because the way the fossil
fuel industry and its allies have deliberately set up out to undermine our confidence in the science and to make us
think that the science wasn't strong enough to Warrant action thank you Mr chairman thanks Senator
Stephen down to your uh urge that we imagine there's a very
specific thing we could imagine which is that if the Republican Chaffee Schneider climate legislation of 1988 had passed
we would be at 282 parts per million carbon dioxide as of 2005.
instead we're at 418 parts per million today Senator Johnson hey Mr chairman uh
Mr painter pointed out that money corrupts politics um Mr pelkey you talked about climate
change is Big Business do you you believe also that money can corrupt research
yeah absolutely it's yeah I study Science and Technology policy and and matters of financial conflict of
interest are a big deal in the medical Sciences uh in energy across the board and it's important to have standards
applied to make sure that conflicts of interest don't warp science one way or another now I think we've seen certainly
with pandemic the fact big Pharma funds these studies they don't release the data our federal
health agencies aren't aren't transparent so again I I think this hearing shows that there's big money on
both sides of the equation there's nastiest on both sides and it's hard to certain the truth uh Mr
waltry do you ever read the book The New Leviathan David Horowitz 2012.certainly
did so in that book um he lays out just talking about
Progressive environmental groups versus conservative environmental groups on the Progressive side there's it again
this is in 2012 there are 553 groups that he identified on the Progressive
side 32 conservative groups the net assets of the progressive groups was
9.53 billion dollars the net assets of the conservative environmental groups
was 38.2 million dollars so that's a 249 to 1 Advantage in terms of annual grants
and this is really the main part of his book The the progressive groups whether it's environmental or whatever
Progressive group they utilize their financial wherewithal to impact
government to get government to spend its money on their causes whereas
conservative groups basically just tried to spend money on their causes but the annual grants from progressor groups 540
1:05:02
554 million dollars per year spent on Progressive
or granted to Progressive environmental groups 1.2 million for conservative groups that's a 462-1
Advantage is that's kind of what you're talking about Arabella and and the whole issue dark money
it's really dark money on the left that overwhelms the dark money on the on the
right correct that's absolutely right sander and we did a uh our own studies
on this at climatedollars.org and you can see the enormous left-wing advantage on this if
left-wing policies are not succeeding it is not because there's uh big money on
the other side and Mr chairman I'd like to enter those facts from 2012 under the record if if I
could and I'll provide that information to you um it is interesting in these good will remain open for a week great thank you
1:06:00
I'll do it I'll do for you to add whatever you wish you know it's interesting we have these these uh budget hearings in his ranking member
Grassley points out we're really not talking about the budget we're talking about climate change which is fine I'm enjoying them I've got an open mind I've
never denied climate change I'm just not climate change alarmist because climate
has always changed uh I find it interesting on the the majority witnesses there really aren't very many
scientists uh we're bringing a few more environmental Sciences on on the minority so you can't really get into
the discussion on climate change um but I think it's interesting that uh
Dr oresky you say you you actually are an earth scientist or something so
here's the question that the questions I have that remain unanswered are you familiar with the vostok is core sample
yes absolutely so that's 400 something the more the most famous ice core about 400 and some thousand uh years of
climate history showing uh you know temperatures you know average global temperatures at that spot CO2
concentration methane what is you realize we're about our
fifth cycle temperature variation of 22.7 degrees
uh also you take a look at thesea level rise in the Bay of San Francisco
390 feet over the last 10 20 000 years I'm just what caused that
well um the claim that climate has always changed is a claim that we hear all the
time from people who are skeptical about climate change it's true I mean so let me explain let me answer the question so
yes of course the climate has always changed and earth scientists have studied this for literally centuries but
the key point about anthropogenic climate change is that it's different from natural variability and leader
Bridge even said that in 1969 how do we know it's different because scientists have studied things like the ice cores
and we now see what caused oh what caused what caused the 22.7 degree you know thosefive
Cycles a sea level rise of 390 feet in the Bay of San Francisco what caused that
natural variability is mostly caused by changes in the Earth's orbit these have been well documented scientifically did
that change have those
it has changed because the human contribution has been added on top of it think about it this way do you realize
the the CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator in the vostok ice core samples right because we didn't have people
putting CO2 into the atmosphere until the last hundred or 150 years yeah
CO2 rise actually lag temperature I'm not trying to answer your question Mr Johnson natural variability is like a
sine curve it's like a radio wave it goes up and down the human forcing function is a linear curve that goes up
up and up so if you impose one on the other what you get is something that looks like this so the natural variability still exists the Earth continues to have orbital variations but in addition we have added another
component and that component is the human forcing from greenhouse gases mostly produced by the burning of fossil
fuels and deforestation and this has been documented in chapter and verse in numerous peer-reviewed science so it's
Indian our Indian shining going to stop using fossil fuels I'm sorry what will India and China Star quite honestly will
the U.S well now you've changed the subject but that is the answer is they won't and there's nothing they would have about this value and framework
convention that President Bush signed in 1992 the whole point of that convention was to bring all the countries on the
world on board and but that got derailed because the United States refused according to testimony in this committee
we've spent over six trillion dollars combating climate change probably haven't made a dent in it we won't make
a dent in it this is a Fool's errand we're on and we're destroying our
ability to have the resources to adapt to the climate change that's going to happen whether we do anything or not well I'm sorry you feel that way because
I think it's a full Aaron to think you could ignore what has happened and not see serious consequences for the
1:10:05
American people in the American taxpayer Senator Merkley well thank you Mr chairman uh we've had
this discussion about dark money and my colleagues have pointed out there's a lot more dark money on the left than the right what I find interesting is that if
you take the assumption that disclosure uh is and I think the chairman used the
sunlight is the best disinfectant then we should simply have all political
money be disclosed where it comes from and the citizens can decide on what what
impact that has and we have legislation like that the chairman has sponsored we voted on it three times and I would
invite my colleagues across the aisle to to join us in ending dark money on both
sides it's quite interesting that if in fact there's more dark money on the left that it's that it's only one side of the
aisle that wants to end dark money that sounds like a pretty principled position to me in betterment of the Integrity of
our campaign system now Dr oreskies the my understanding is
that Exxon worked with public relations firms to have strategies like saying
it's committed to the depth and breadth of climate solutions that it wanted to reframe itself as an energy company
rather than a gasoline or fossil fuel company that that increased its
favorability by 10 percent that it put forward that it strongly aligned with Paris all of which is a way of saying uh
Hey folks don't pay attention to our massive fossil fuel undertaking we're somehow a good guy is this the basic
strategy of Exxon and other major fossil fuel companies yes it is and it's what we've sometimes referred to as
misdirection to try to distract attention away from the basic facts into some distracting issue so it is true
that Exxon Mobil Chevrolet on other companies other oil and gas companies have sometimes spent small amounts of
money on renewable energy most estimates show that it's less than two percent but in their advertisements for example
they're often very much focused on renewable energy even though 98 of their commitment is the continued development
of oil and gas and we know from the work that's been done by the ipcc and others the ipcc and scientists have introduced
the notion of a carbon budget it's the idea that there's a certain amount of oil and gas that we can use without
essentially derailing the planetary climate but nearly all of these groups including the
IMF by the way have said and the International Energy agency that this would require not developing new
resources of oil and gas we can use a fair amount of what still existing but
not searching for new oil and gas and yet Exxon Mobil Chevron and all of the major oil and gas companies are
continuing to explore for and develop new oil and gas reserves that will commit us to burning fossil fuels for
- well I want to turn to that carbon budget idea the idea is this is how much we can burn before we hit 1.5 degrees
and we're already here pretty close to it but there's some space left but the
last analysis I saw said that the amount of carbon already in kind of the
affirmed assets of of patrolling companies is 200 percent more than what
will take us from here to 1.5 degrees and it's 40 percent more than what would take us to two degrees in other words if
we bring out of the ground everything that has already been identified in the reserves we shoot past 1.5 we shoot past
two degrees is that a fairly accurate presentation correct and if we keep
developing new sources uh then essentially what we're doing is we're committing ourselves to a path of
warming that that goes on for the generations to come to be much more than 1.5 or 2 or even three degrees
I you know I come from a state that's burning up with forest fires we've lost our average snowpack by 20 feet over 90
years and it's kind of a striking decade by decade drop analysis our farmers are
really hurting as a result of loss of groundwater which isn't recharged as fast less spring melt off so there's
less less water less rain severe drought and so I I know that for many of my
colleagues that say well you know these are speculative studies about what will happen you know 50 years from now or
something but the farming the fishing and the forestry are being severely impacted in my state right now just
within in my lifetime really within the last last 20 years and so is this how
urgent is it that we really have to get past the kind of the the green washing
or the political messages and act now well I think it's absolutely urgent and
as I think we've already said today we've lost 30 years I mean President Bush signed the framework U.N framework
1:15:05
convention on climate change in 1992 and that's a long time if we had started
working seriously on this problem at that time we could have developed many of the large-scale energy
infrastructures for solar for wind for storage for demand response pricing many
of these solutions that we know were and if the U.S keeps doing new fossil projects doesn't that essentially give
the rest of the world a free pass to say Hey you already burned much of the carbon budget that has been burned
already why should we stop our coal or our fossil methane gas or or our oil if
the US is still doing new infrastructure well exactly and that's exactly what China and India are saying
thank you Senator uh Kennedy is next
thank you Mr chairman and thank you Senator Kane
okay uh thanks Mr chairman and thanks to all of our our Witnesses here today
uh Professor painter on May
fifth of this year put out a tweet you said I'm going to
quote there are some things money can't buy
for everything else there's this Supreme Court
would you tell me which members of the Supreme Court you believe are bought
I was particularly concerned at that point when I posted that tweet I I
understand but if you could I've got really limited time and I apologize for
interrupting just tell me which members of the court you are by I did not think that Justice Clarence Thomas should be
failing to disclose his trips on a billionaire you think he's bar playing do you think he's I believe that there
is grave risk do you think it's Bob I said there is grave risk do you think
he's borrowed the confidence of the American people in our Supreme if you don't think he's bought why did you say
it I said yes you said members of the Supreme Court or bought you're here
testifying as a expert for my Democratic friends and you're saying the members of
the Supreme Court are bought I said when the American people feel that way when we have Supreme Court Justice on yachts
and in Planes of billionaires and not being disclosure anybody besides Justice
Thomas you think is bought on the Supreme Court I I believe that the court needs to anybody besides Justice Thomas
I'm not going to go through each I mean you tweeted it I tweeted what the way
the American people did you mean it when you tweeted it and I stand by that tweet this supreme court of the United States
needs to clean up its let me ask you a couple others here because you you've uh
on September 17 2020
you you tweeted it looks like Putin's favorite Senator could lose
referring to Senate Senator Lindsey Graham could you tell me your evidence for
saying that Senator Graham is President Putin's favorite Senator I don't recall
that tweet and the story I've got it read it out it's right here I'm happy to look at the tweet and I'm happy to write
you explain that I don't know what that has to do with climate change it has to
do with your credibility did you say what is your basis for saying that Senator Graham is is President Putin's
how many have you ever talked to President Putin not talked to President Putin and I would be happy to go look at
the Tweet look at the story that I tweeted out and what Senator Graham had said in that context you know this is
something I say all this stuff for example in here you're here as an expert for my
Democratic friends and you say all this stuff you you called on on September 16
2023 a professor at University of Chicago very distinguished Professor
Brian leiter you called him a racist can you explain to me why you think he's a racist I
remember a series of tweets with him he's a Marxist who put out a number of
statements attacking African-Americans and women and he also and he also was
raising money for someone who had called the police on a black student for sleeping in the common room and now has
a woke kkk.com website attacking me fair enough
I will just say one thing that I learned in high school debate that when you have no argument you simply change the
subject all right on October 15th of 2020 you said Lindsey Graham is
1:20:06
soliciting cash payments in return for voting on a supreme court nomination
what evidence that's pretty bold statement professor what evidence do you you have for
alleging that Senator Graham was taking cash in return for one of his votes I don't recall that specific tweet here
to recall and I didn't think he was taking cash for one of his votes I have
received campaigns do you think he was taking cash for one of his votes I'm answering your question Senator I have
received solicitations from both political parties do you think Lindsey Graham was for mistaken pushed us to one
of his votes it's a simple question received cash solicitations for cash on
my email and yes from both political parties in connection with Supreme Court
confirmation voters I'm out of time but let me just say for the record wrong my aunt's Facebook page has more
credibility than you do I could spend the rest of the day unless reading
your quotes where you make allegations against people and you can't defend them
you've said nothing about climate change you quoted everybody from a Marxist senator who all sorts of other people
that says absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the hearing Senator Senator Cain is recognized thank you Mr chair um
two items that I want to talk about one some good news Mr painter you challenged
us at the end of your opening testimony hey don't just be finger-pointing at each other get something done and I do
think we have to say this hearing is within the still recent aftermath of two
really powerful pieces of legislation that Congress has passed to help us battle climate change to help the United
States become leaders in the battle against climate change the bipartisan infrastructure bill
um a number of my colleagues worked hard on this bill makes significant investments in all kinds of infrastructure the nation needs it but
including clean energy infrastructure and then the inflation reduction act which was which was partisan it passed
by one vote in the Senate um also really Rockets the United States ahead in climate leadership by promoting
investments in clean energy we've seen the effect of this in Virginia Virginia was one of the worst states in the
country in terms of any Embrace of wind or solar low carbon energy at the same
time as we were one of the state's most vulnerable to sea level rise but now in both wind deployment offshore Virginia
is becoming a leader not only in deploying wind offshore but also in become a hub becoming a hub of
manufacturing offshore wind components good for the economy but also in the Solar space Virginia is moving sort of
bottom 10 deployment to top ten so um the the efforts of disinformation
nation is notwithstanding it's not like Congress has just basically accepted the disinformation
and gridlocked we've we've taken action and we can debate too hot too cold just
right more steps to take I believe we do need to take more steps but I do think Congress is acting on this and we're
acting on it in a way that is uh rocketing ahead Great American innovation creating jobs putting us in a
position where we can encourage others to do the same a Global Leadership position and I think that's important
and then the other point I wanted to make was with respect to something that Mr Walter said in his testimony because
I don't want anybody watching this to to uh be confused or disinformed you used a
phrase that said the left is the left wants to silence the left wants to silence speech it doesn't like we're
talking about disclosure we're not talking about silencing anyone
Dr Pilkey said it's important to know resources can pervert research research
and those resources could come from the left or the right or from anywhere or from foreign sources it could pervert
research and you said it's really important that on Research you'll be able to figure out if there's a conflict
of interest resources can pervert campaigns Mr painter you talked about watching it
from the George W Bush Administration through and seeing the effect on campaign contributions and dark money
perverting campaigns research can pervert the reputation of
the Supreme Court when people appearing before the court are hosting members of
the court on luxury vacations who then choose not to disclose it there is a possibility that worries
Americans that Justice is being perverted so who would argue that we
shouldn't route out conflicts of interest and if we can't eliminate them all at least we can make them
1:25:01
transparent so that voters and citizens and legislators and journalists can figure out what's going on
that's why the American public overwhelmingly supports the disclose act if you look at polling Republican
independent democratic everybody believes they should have the right to know who's funding campaigns
even even a person who may never go look at that the website to determine who's
doing it still thinks they have the right to it and that and that should they want to that information should be there for them and that's why I'll go
back to what my colleague Senator Merkley was saying I don't believe for an instant that if you added up the
total of dark money it's a more significant problem on the Democratic side than the Republican side because
all Democrats are very wanting to get rid of dark money because all Democrats support the disclose act and since Mike
Castle was defeated in a Republican primary for Senate in Delaware in 2010 I
don't think we've had a single Republican member of either the house or the Senate who has been willing to
support the disclose act those who are willing to say let it all be transparent
are not trying to silence anyone they're trying to actually provide the best information to everyone while those who
insist upon opacity insist upon secrecy resist
transparency they got something to hide they got something to hide and so my
hope is I I just resonate with what Dr Pilkey said we ought to be able to
determine wherever we are Everyday People journalists elected official expert
whether there's a conflict of interest that could threaten The credibility of information that we receive
everybody ought to be able to determine that and we get there by doing things like the disclose act and it would be my hope that at some point we would be able
to get some Republican votes to back that up thank you Mr chair thank you very much we thank the
witnesses for uh very helpful hearing I'll make a brief closing statement if I
may in uh to follow up on what Senator Kane has said Senator Kane is a very
able lawyer I've got to get down to judiciary Senator Kane is a very able lawyer
and one of the key features or subtopics
if you will of this hearing has been the problem of conflicts of interest
and how to explore conflicts of interest um exploring conflicts of interest is
how you distinguish in part between a simple difference of opinion and motivated
opinion opinion that is paid for and is perhaps not even sincerely held
um and I think it's important to recognize the importance of
bias and conflict of interest when you're dealing with testimony whether it's in Congress or whether it's
in courtrooms as Senator Kennedy just said it has to do with your credibility
and it's important that that be disclosed because the difference between paid for
opinion and real research is a very important thing
Mr Pilkey has been quite good about this if I may quote from a sub stack experts
monetizing their expert is one important reason why people become experts but where expertise and financial interests
intersect things can get complicated that is why there are robust mechanisms
in place for the disclosure and mitigation of financial conflicts of interest all of this is just common
sense your doctor can't prescribe you drugs from a company that pays him fees you wouldn't think much of a report on
smoking and health from a researcher supported by the tobacco industry and I
because we're both lawyers we also have spent some time in courtrooms and one thing I can tell my colleagues about a
courtroom is that when you have a witness particularly when you have an expert witness
one of the things you explore in your cross-examination of that witness is
their bias is there conflicts of interest it is so normal
in courtrooms to challenge Witnesses on how they're paid and who is paying them
that it would be error for a court to refuse to allow the
lawyer to conduct that examination it is as established a principle of
trial practice as exists so let's
appreciate that if it's essential in a courtroom
for a jury and a judge to be able to test the credibility of a witness by having their conflicts of interest
made a matter of record for the judge and jury to see
1:30:02
it is also appropriate for other hearings as well
so with that Mark thank you Mr Pilkey you want to make your own a minute me
and John offer a minute I'll give one one minute for me of course okay thank
you of course for a closing statement I've been listening to this back and forth at this hearing I've come to the
follow three conclusions despite attempts to observe the obvious Democrats receive more dark money than
Republicans and don't want the public to know it secondly the problem of climate change is worthy of consideration but
these hearings go past consideration uh Democrats don't even bring in climate
scientists to bring hearing to have a conversation about extreme unrealistic
modelings Democrats want Americans to think that you're as Americans too
stupid to think of for themselves our time was clearly be better spent doing
budgetary Works in this committee which I'm fully prepared to do Mr chairman Johnson has recognized for
just unusually just just to give him the courtesy of a one-minute closing statement just just real quick Point uh
listen I certainly want disclosure as well but I think should be toward candidates
and certainly when it comes to scientific research you know conflicts of interest the issue with the
disclosure of donors to groups uh really was settled by the Supreme Court in the 50s with Alabama versus
NAACP where Alabama wanted to disclose the donors to the NAACP the NAACP and we
know why and that same concern exists today
because we've seen individuals being doxxed we've seen people being attacked for supporting a group that maybe the
other side doesn't particularly like so there is a rationale for donors being able to donate to a
cause that they feel strongly about without their donation being disclosed okay so there's a
legitimate argue on the other side argue on the other side I mean you know I'm I'm I would be pleased with unlimited
campaign contributions full disclosure than 24 hours that's an appropriate use okay but again there's funding so many
different ways different organizations Union it's just not it's again it's I know it's a good sounding bill but it's
misguided Mr chair 30 seconds none of that yes Senator Kane we're having a have your minute too I I'll take 30
seconds I don't think you can analogize NAACP members in the Alabama of the 1950s and
their need for protection from Criminal prosecution to wealthy individuals who want to
support often untrue political ads without their name being associated with those untruths I just challenge that
analogy as do I and with that the hearing has concluded the um
members will have a week to add any questions for the record
I would invite Miss Arena
to provide a response to Senator Merkley because I thought his questioning was
much directed to you if you would care to do that and if um
Dr oreskis would like I saw you making some comments during the testimony of some of the other Witnesses if you'd like to
elaborate a little bit on that through a question for the record I will invite that as well anyone else seeking to put
a question for the record in you've got a week to do it we'll try to turn that around and get them to you as quickly as
possible so we can get answers back to our members this has been a very helpful and instructive hearing and I thank you all for your participation
---
9 pp pielke
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Dr.%20Roger%20Pielke%20-%20Testimony%20-%20Senate%20Budget%20Committee.pdf
Four Take-Home Points 1. At the outset, I emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense. 2. The best and likely, the only, antidote to misinformation is accurate information. Successfully producing, communicating, legitimizing, and trusting accurate information to inform policy requires upholding standards of scientific integrity. 3. Unfortunately, in important areas of climate science such standards have not been upheld and the self-correcting function of science has short-circuited. In my testimony, I illustrate examples of shortfalls, with a focus on the persistent misuse of outdated and implausible scenarios. 4. Concerns expressed about misinformation are sometimes weaponized by politicians, journalists, and experts, ironically and pathologically, to spread misinformation and to undermine accurate information.
...
For a deeper elaboration of my views on the science and policy of climate, please see my book The Climate Fix (2010).Nothing in the testimony that follows should be interpreted as downplaying the importance of climate change or policy responses to it. In fact, the issue is so crucial that we should expect nothing less than the absolute highest standards of scientific integrity in research and the information being provided to policymakers...
p 4
long-term future to produce projections of future changes in climate, their impacts on society and the environment, and the consequences of alternative possible policy actions. 11 However, the scenarios that are currently prioritized in climate research and in policy analyses are badly outdated, and for a range of reasons have not been updated.12 Carbon dioxide emissions in the real world are already – today -- at a level far less than those projected in the most commonly-used climate scenarios found in research and assessment. This can be clearly seen in the figure below which shows baseline scenarios of the IPCC for carbon dioxide emissions (from energy and industry) to 2100.13 The overwhelmingly most-used scenario in climate research and cited in the assessments of the IPCC is the highest curve on the graph (called SSP5-Baseline, or SSP5-RCP8.5). Under current policies, the real world is currently following a trajectory consistent with the blue curve titled “Stated Policies.”14 The difference between the two is wide and getting wider. Every day that we continue to prioritize the most extreme scenario in research and policy is a day that we mislead ourselves...
The most used climate scenario in research and assessment is the RCP8.5 scenario (meaning 8.5 watts per meter2 ) which represents a global temperature increase of 4.8°C above 1850-1900, according to the IPCC. 16 The real world is actually tracking below a RCP4.5 scenario (meaning 4.5 watts per meter2 ) which represents a global temperature increase of 2.9°C above 1850- 1900. 17 Here is why this matters: Much if not most policy guidance relies on the outdated RCP8.5 scenario as our current trajectory and a RCP4.5 scenario as indicating policy success. For example, the 2022 White House White Paper titled, “Climate Risk Exposure: An Assessment of the Federal Government’s Financial Risks to Climate Change” used the RCP8.5 scenario to represent where we are heading, the RCP4.5 scenario to represent successful climate policy, and the difference between the two to represent the benefits of mitigation.18,19...
The pervasive misuse of climate scenarios is not a unique failure of scientific integrity in climate
science. Here are several other important examples, documented in detail at the links provided:
• Misrepresentation of NOAA’s “billion-dollar disasters” as an indicator of climate
change;21
• Misuse of scenarios in the production of “social cost of carbon” estimates;22
• Promotional claims of disaster “event attribution” at odds with the IPCC;23
• Clear errors on tropical cyclone intensity in the IPCC AR6 report;
24 Confirmed by an
IPCC insider;25
• Misrepresentations of agricultural science by IPCC AR6;26
• Inaccurate IPCC AR6 challenges to the quality of NOAA’s hurricane “best track” data;27
• Conflicting claims between IPCC AR6 Working Groups 1 and 2;28
• IPCC AR6 claims in many places that the RCP8.5 is “business as usual”;29
• Misuse of extreme scenarios by the Network for Greening the Financial System;30
• False claims by the United Nations of increasing disasters;
31
Most of these examples are clear and unambiguous cases of information that are wrong or
misleading (as opposed to legitimate differences of judgment). There are enough examples of
failures of scientific integrity that the climate science community and those who oversee and
fund its research should take steps to ensure that quality is upheld....
Dr. Pielke- Senate Budget Testimony Page 7 of 9 21 June 2023
p7
- Concerns expressed about misinformation are sometimes weaponized by politicians,
journalists, and experts, ironically and pathologically, to spread misinformation and to
undermine accurate information.
In 2015, following testimony I delivered before both the House and the Senate summarizing
consensus conclusions of the IPCC, a member of Congress suggested that I may have been the
recipient of undisclosed funding from fossil fuel companies.He demanded that I be investigated
by my university. My university complied. I was investigated and the results were of course not
surprising to me – I was not the recipient of any funding from fossil fuel interests – openly or
hidden – and never had been. However, the very public accusation was enough to derail my work
and upset my career in ways that continue today.32
This is a good example of the creation of misinformation in the insinuation that I was receiving
payments from fossil fuel companies in exchange for expressing the results of peer-reviewed
science in my area of expertise. In this way, the substance of my research and testimony on
climate (and specifically on extreme weather and climate change) could easily be discounted as
misinformation paid for under-the-table by fossil fuel companies. Because my testimony was
based on the IPCC assessments, the creation of misinformation about me was used to turn robust
science and assessment into perceived misinformation, without confronting the IPCC assessment
itself.
My experiences are far too common. For instance, in Financial Times last week Oxford
professor Ben Caldecott, director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group, wrote of challenges
to academic freedom related to ESG research.
33 Specifically, he wrote,
. . . of instances where financial institutions and ESG data providers have sought to
undermine academic freedom. They have done this by trying to change the results of
research before publication, or have attempted to prevent it from being published at all, to
protect their products and services.
Harassment and intimidation, including threats of legal action and of funding being
withdrawn, have been used to bully universities and individual researchers. The
organisers of academic conferences have also been pressured to remove peer-reviewed
papers from schedules.
To cite another example, in 2020 several scholars published a paper in PNAS defending the use
of the most extreme RCP8.5 climate scenario as the most appropriate climate scenario to inform
policy.
34 It is of course common for researchers to disagree with each other’s work in the
literature, so a defense of RCP8.5 is neither unexpected nor inappropriate.
However, what was inappropriate was the authors’ failure to disclose an actual or perceived
financial conflict of interest. They were funded by McKinsey & Co., a consultancy that relies ...
heavily on RCP8.5 in its business promotion and services.35 In their funding disclosure
accompanying paper the authors declared “no competing interests.” This was false.
That PNAS study has been cited in other studies more than 500 times since it was published – a
rate of every other day – typically as justification for the continued use of the outdated and
implausible RCP8.5 scenario in research. Meantime, so far in 2023, about a dozen studies have
been published every day using the outdated RCP8.5 scenario, according to Google Scholar.
The mere fact that research is commissioned or funded by an interested party of course does not
mean that the research is improper or flawed, much less that it is misinformation. However, it is
standard practice in science to acknowledge funding and actual or perceived conflicts of interest,
as a basis for adding context to interpreting published research.
Climate research does not play by the same rules as, for instance, the medical sciences, in
disclosing or managing financial conflicts of interest. This is problematic in the context of many
billions of dollars devoted to climate advocacy and incentives found in philanthropy, business,
and government.36 Climate change is big business. Maintaining standards of scientific integrity
means that it is essential that everyone follow well-established standards of scientific integrity –
and this includes those funded by fossil fuel interests, renewable energy interests, and, in fact, all
interests.
Partisans may argue that the rules apply only to their opponents, and not their allies. They may
argue over which “side” is worse. Such behaviors are pathological – the simple fact is that
principles of scientific integrity apply to everyone.37 Anything less is a recipe for systemic
failures of scientific integrity and misinformation. Congress has an important role to play in
helping to ensure that standards of scientific integrity apply to everyone across the board.
---
Witnesses
---
- Dr. Naomi Oreskes
Henry Charles Lea Professor Of The History Of Science
Harvard University
- Ms. Christine Arena
Founder And Producer
Generous Films
- Mr. Richard Painter
S. Walter Richey Professor Of Corporate Law
University of Minnesota Law School
- Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor Of Environmental Studies
University of Colorado Boulder
- Mr. Scott Walter
President
Capital Research Center
---