President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 17, 2013 10:46 AM UTC

Still waiting to hear why Coffman thinks climate-change research is controlled by radical environmental orthodoxy

  • 24 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Last month, Rep. Mike Coffman told long-time KOA talk show host Mike Rosen that a lot of scientists can't get climate-change research grants unless they "submit" to the "orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists."

Some media outlets quoted Coffman's radio comments, but not a single journalist has reported asking Coffman to explain himself, even though global warming, even if you're a skeptic, ranks at the top of the list of environmental issues of our time.

So, since Coffman won't talk to me, I'm left to speculate about what he was talking about. 

I found a handy breakdown of U.S. government funding for climate research.

The top granter is NASA. Does Rad Enviro orthodoxy prevail over there?

Next is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, followed by the National Science Foundation. Both aren't known for harboring the radical environmental set.

But what percentage of the total funding for climate-change research comes from the feds anyway?

I asked Prof. John Reilly, who Co-directs the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Center for Environmental Policy Research at MIT's Sloan School of Management, and he estimated that over 90 percent comes from governments worldwide, with the U.S. government providing the most money.

He added: "The definition of 'radical environmentalist' will of course depend on one's views and interpretation of the science. Both environmental groups and private companies with a range of perspectives fund some research."

So this opens up a serious line of questioning for Coffman. What is his definition of a radical environmentalist?

In a Twitter discussion of this topic, "AFPColorado" told me NASA may be be submitting to radical-enviro-global-warming orthodoxy because "it helps fatten budgets and supplants [its] abandoned original mission (manned space flight)." AFP Colorado offered me an article claiming that "climatism" is, as AFPColorado put it, an "orthodoxy-enforcing religion," used to create alarmism and justify grants.

In his interview with Rosen, Coffman said he'd read "viable sources" backing up his view that radical environmental orthodoxy controls grant funding for climate change. Maybe Coffman was thinking about the article from AFPColorado? It's titled "Science in the Public Square: Global Alarmism and Historical Perspectives" by Richard Lindzen.

I asked Prof. Reilly if he knew what sources Coffman might possibly be thinking of. He told me via email:

Reilly: I am not aware of "viable sources" that have evaluated whether research grant applications that challenge the "orthodoxy of climate change" are more or less likely to be funded. A great strength of the US research system is that there are many different sources of research funding. These programs award grants on the basis of peer review by scientists, and so the grant managers are relatively constrained by the results of the peer review. In the US there is also an important tradition of industry and philanthropist funding of research. The Program I run at MIT is funded in part by a large industrial consortia (the industrial sponsors are identified on our WEB site) and so that provides us with additional freedom to investigate the climate issue, unconstrained by any Federal funding bias, if that is the Congressman's concern. Ultimately, whatever the source or potential bias of research funding, to ultimately have scientific credibility any research findings must find their way into the peer-reviewed literature. Hence that is another check in the system.

It is the case that granting programs are very competitive. Climate change is an area that has energized scientists, in part because of the intensity of the public debate, and so there are many scientists competing over a limited amount of funding. Such competition, just like in the market place, is a good thing but it means that many proposals rated excellent and very good don't make the cut. It is probably only human nature to look for larger reasons if one's proposal fails. For competitive grants from the NSF, for example, my guess is that the success rate is only 10% or less, and even for my Program at MIT I must confess probably no higher success rate than that. Human beings must one way or another make decisions throughout the research system and so there are no doubt imperfections. However, the US system of multiple competitive grant programs, private funding, peer review of grants, and peer review of research findings introduces many checks, balances, and funding opportunities, and so the system is not easily manipulated.

I provide you with Reilly's entire response because you have to admire his effort to be fair and thoughtful about Coffman's assertion, but I'll re-quote his last seven words because I think they sum up his view "so the system is not easily manipulated."

Coffman is saying that, in the case of global-warming grants, science is being manipulated, and not just in subtle way, but by extremists. He's attacking science.

But the good thing is, science welcomes attacks, especially from real-life Congressman like Coffman, because they force scientists to justify their work.

Except Coffman isn't explaining himself, and journalists aren't forcing him to.

Who's to blame for this? Radical environmentalists?

Tweet
Share

Comments

24 thoughts on “Still waiting to hear why Coffman thinks climate-change research is controlled by radical environmental orthodoxy”

  1. Jason, Coffman is never going to talk to you, because you are not a reporter. Would you encourage a Democrat to talk to Colorado Peak Politics? How do you think that would go? It's the same difference.

    1. Not the point. The point is if Coffman is going to make a wild ass claim he needs to back it up in order for anyone to have the slightest reason to believe he isn't just making it up. Of course he can't do that because that's exactly what he's doing. Whether he's speaking to journalist or a clown like Rosen is irrelevant. 

      1. redcat:  you would not believe him, regardless of whether or not he  had back-up, comrade.  You are obviously too stupid to follow logical thought.  Perhaps you could just have a nice cry.  

         

        1. Fishingblues – sounds like a name created for someone trolling Democrats.

          The way debate ideally works is – you provide some facts, I provide some facts, we rebut each others' positions using logic and more facts…

          Coffman provides no facts. His position is that the vast majority of climate science is propaganda, but climate change deniers have no backing for that aside from conspiracy theories and papers paid for by the oil and gas industry. There's as much validity to Coffman's claim as saying that tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that vaccines cause autism – all of them are founded on bunk science at best.

          1. What's rising? – Since no one asked for your opinion on my post, I'm not sure why you are offering it.  Do you believe yourself special?

            Redcat has proven himself an ass.  As such, I am simply treating him as one.  Don't like it?  Tough shit.

            1. Stupid too.  You're posting on a blog, if you want to have a one-on-one with someone find a chat room dumbass.  Putz, we have already established that. 

              1. Once more for the slow kids twit, if you beleive what you say, why are you responding directly to me?  Freaking nimrod.  Liberals are sure slow witted, Jazus!

                1. Holy shizzle.  You're far stupider than even the last set of trolls that finally left in shame.  I predict some fun and crazy Gooper antics this cycle if you're an indication.

            2. Easily offended much?

              And nice attempt to distract from the topic of the diary… You failed to respond to the actual point I posted, preferring to go ad hominem instead. I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything better in a conversation from someone sticking up for Coffman's subpar "debate" skills.

  3. We know that Mike Rosen is a big fat pile of turd (and yes I've sat down next to his fat ass at my local synagogue a few weeks ago during Kiddush). And Coffman has never proven shit and nothing but a loser. I don't care if he served – because his service is still bullshit (he was JAGing off there instead of real combat).  

    Hopefully Romanoff can remove Coffman from his service as the U.S. Congressman and honorably serve the district right next to me.

     

          1. Precious?  Are you freaking kidding me?  Do you actually talk that way?  See post above to ascertain why I treat redcat with disdain.  None of your freeaking business really.

            1. Hey putz.  Little putz that is, its not a chat room.  No one would hang out in one if you had to interact one on one with you, so you come here and pretend we don't see your sophmoric barely literate inarticulate crap?  Are you even in high school yet? 

                1. I can see I was right. fishbreath doesn't seem to know the difference between a chat room and a blog.

                  The quality of rightie trolls has certainly plummeted of late. Makes you long for the day when they assigned actual adults to this beat.

                  Can't wait to see how you are going to eviscerate me with one of your, oh, so witty, insults. Let's have it fishboy, I'm feeling masochistic tonight. Hit we with your best shot.

                    1. C'mon, guys, you're being had…. Fishy isn't a real Conservative troll. He's obviously one of us Libs who is having a little fun by pretending to be every nasty stereotype of what's bad about the Right Wing….  Pig-headed, Ignorant, Reactionary, Misogynistic Internet Tough Guy, somehow locked in the 1950's, who thinks he's somehow picking a physical fight on a blog. It's just too much to believe.  It's pretty obvious from this gross caricature that that he's actually a limp-wristed, pantywaisted Chardonnay-sipping Godless Liberal, who smokes "reefer" and probably even wears a beret. 

  4. "…why Coffman thinks climate-change research is controlled by radical environmental orthodoxy"

     

    Because that's what he was told. Or he read in some right wing talking points memo.  No one talks like that – esp. Mr Coffman.

    But I agree- he should cite a source or stfu.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

104 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!