Prima Donnas With Hockey Sticks

The SacBee editorialized -- a nice way of saying "ranted" -- today against Joe Barton (R-TX) for daring to question the global climate scientists who cooked up the infamous "hockey stick" model that "proves" global warming's exponentially nasty effects.

Barton has asked the three scientists to testify about the validity of their model before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which he chairs. The SacBee is incensed, as are many of its MSM compatriots:

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas ... represents the worst of an anti-science attitude in a lobby-dominated Congress.

Barton worked in the oil industry before he was elected to Congress in 1984, is consistently among top five recipients of oil industry campaign contributions and openly caters to oil industry interests.

Worst has been his attack on scientists who study climate change.

Barton has launched a full-fledged investigation of three climate scientists who study the temperature history of the Earth. Their sin? They published papers concluding that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century were the warmest in 1,000 years.

Since when has it been anti-science to question science? I thought that was what science is all about. It's not as if Barton just cooked up the idea that the hockey stick might be a bit juiced; the model is falling out of favor with, or at least being questioned by, many legit climate scientists.

The fact that he worked for Big Oil and now chairs a committee that dares to put two nasty, nasty words together -- energy and commerce -- notwithstanding, there is reason to question these three guys. The decidedly anti-Barton science policy blog Prometheus admits as much:

Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits. The great irony here is that in many instances the supporters of the hockey stick have often been their own worst enemies and fed the flames of this debate, which now threatens the integrity of all of climate science, and to turn all of climate science into climate politics. The debate also consumes a lot of scarce attention on the climate issue – attention that would be better devoted to debates about policy options. (emphasis added)

This post answers critics who say it goes beyond bounds to take scientific inquiry into the arena of political inquiry. If the supporters of the hockey stick model have politicized the model, shouldnt' they expect to go before a political committee to justify their model?

Besides, since when has science shied away from Congress? A continuous stream of scientists trek up to the Hill every day Congress is in session to testify for or against this bill or that bill, more often than not out of some financial consideration (new grant funds). Indeed, hockey stick model proponents have used that model as a basis for testimony requesting millions of federal research dollars.

That they think they can testify when it suits their purposes, but howl, sign petitions and say the ugliest things when it doesn't brings two words to mind: prima donnas.