JunkScience prompts Gleick question at House budget hearing on EPA

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.) probes EPA about grants to Peter Gleick.

The Politico report is below.

JunkScience.com broke the EPA-grants-to-Gleick story.

Rohrabacher: Will EPA blackball Gleick?

By Alex Guillen

3/6/12 5:00 PM EST
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher wants to know whether EPA can block Peter Gleick from ever receiving agency grants after he swiped documents from The Heartland Institute.

Gleick, a hydrologist and president of the Pacific Institute, has acknowledged he obtained the records from Heartland employees by pretending to be a board member. He then leaked the documents to the news media.

The Pacific Institute received more than $468,000 in four separate grants from EPA, according to a grants database at the agency.

“How does the scientific integrity policy address the circumstances?” Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) asked during a House Science Committee hearing on EPA’s research and development budget.

Lek Kadeli, acting assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development, declined to answer, saying he was not familiar enough with the details of Gleick’s grants.

Rohrabacher indicated he is ready to make Gleick’s status an issue in the future.

“I would hope that this breach of professionalism on the part of Peter Gleick and the Pacific Institute is not just swept under the rug like so many of these other violations that we’ve seen,” he said.

Rohrabacher went on to compare Gleick’s situation with the so-called Climategate emails.

“My observation is anytime a Republican does anything like this, all of a sudden there’s an uproar,” he said, “but you can have all kinds of emails between people talking about hiding the real facts and trying to prevent other people from actually publishing their findings scientifically, which of course violates every scientific principle. And they just get away with it.”

The documents released by Gleick — some of which The Heartland Institute called fabricated — purported to reveal the identities of some of the group’s donors, along with a supposed campaign by the libertarian think tank to spread doubts about climate research.

11 thoughts on “JunkScience prompts Gleick question at House budget hearing on EPA”

  1. The watermelons control the UN IPCC, the EU (hence the European nations), the MSM, academia and science , the Presidency and the Senate. Their mad push for Climyddia has been arrested, just, but otherwise they go by the same playbook, they are just as zealous, they will give media/political oxygen to nothing that obstructs their radical agenda, including anything approaching meaningful coverage of the Gleick affair. In order to make even the most minor headway, the US Presidency and the US Senate must be pried from their fanatic, post-national, totalitarian grasp. The climatic version of Dr. StrangeLove. Never thought I’d say, thank God for China.

  2. And the EPA WILL do further damage, imo. We would already have a crashed economy,–the Bilder”borg”-er group’s fervent prayer,imo,–if shale-gas had received the “regulatory-strait-jacket” on Private land, that the EPA gives when it’s on Public lands. Further, Canada was already shipping gas south, via existing, smaller pipelines, establishing a significant revenue stream. Shale-gas, realized, has made a LIE of “peak-oil”. With No “peak-oil”, there’s EVERY reason to drill, drill, drill, and there’s then PROOF to the Red Chinese and our other creditors, that they WILL be paid, even if we DO default. The money is right there in the ground, default/not. If we can’t “access-it” due to EPA perfidy, imo, we will default sooner, than later. I see nothing wrong with several billion diesil/CNG-fueled cars running around Red China, fueled by our Petroleum supplies. As an OPEC-nation, all our boats will rise, even if SCYTL(?) “tallies” the expected Nobama victory, from Spain. The FED and its CIA, OUGHT to make SURE the EPA doesn’t kill the “Holstein-Cow” of Petroleum Prosperity. That cash-cow could be killed by Hyper-regulation/closing-down of USA reserves. Somebody AFTER the EPA might look at the public monies wasted on NON-PEER-Reviewed “research” that is THEN used to advance EPA hegonimy,–at the “expense” of even the Regime,–not to mention the Scientific method, and our lifestyles. If Nobama is somehow NOT re-elected, ONE AGENCY will be at “blame”,–the EPA. Although fellow-Globalists WANTED to crash the USA Economy, does the FED (–another Globalist organ, imo) WISH to be “deep-sixed” by the Bilder-“borg”-er’s EPA directives or by a Mao-ist who TOLD his EPA, imo,, that the Bilder-“borg”-er INTENT was to USE the EPA to crash the Economy? You KNOW the FED would get the “BLAME”, even though that’s probably the ONLY thing the FED is NOT “guilty” of, imo. So one can SEE WHY the LIberals/Globalists/Satanists(–at the top) are NO, demmed-good–they EAT each other, working at cross-purposes! All leftie-regimes do this,–always have,–always will. I find it truly ironic, that the FED (part of the Conspiracy, imo) might, for a few years, SAVE this nation, financially, –a nation the FED has apparently, imo, been trying to “frack”(economically), since 1913.

  3. Why isn’t Dana Rohrabacher asking the EPA why they disappeared the records of the grants altogether? The notion that EPA will blackball a supporter when they will go so far as to pretend the grants never happened seems to me to be asking the entirely wrong question. I would be far more inclined to go after the EPA than Gleick, since they have done far more damage.

  4. I think it is sort of intriguing that details of the grants to Pacific Institute disappeared suddenly from the EPA’s website when L’affaire Gleick erupted.

    H/t two different people on the blogs.

  5. “…will there be a possible application of the RICO statutes.” Don’t be silly. We have gone far beyond the rule of law, and even past the rule of men. We are now enslaved to the rule of the media, acting as a proxy for international leftism in the destruction of western civilzation, and above all its foremost defender, the United States of America. And the favorite weapon of that media is a scientific cabal that is of the same mind and corrupt to the core. It is completely safe from RICO. Who is going to prosecute it – the Obama DOJ? The question is absurd on its face.

  6. And if Gleick colluded with others on this Fakegate issue, will there be a possible application of the RICO statuetes.

  7. Oh, clearly, the executive-branch levers will be pulled to prop up Gleick and his operation, if one looks at the programs his grants came from they’re exactly the sort of ‘community organizing’ this administration’s famous for.

    My question is this: Was Gleick so inept that he was caught the first time he’d done this sort of thing, or if one looks at his past work in the area of water policy will one find further examples of information fished out of other parties by deception or opponents besmirched by fabrication?

  8. “I would hope that this breach of professionalism on the part of Peter Gleick and the Pacific Institute is not just swept under the rug like so many of these other violations that we’ve seen,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. I hate to disappoint anyone but the big broom will be well and truly put to work

  9. There are two possible reactions from the EPA:
    1. Guilt by innuendo. This reaction is reserved for anyone that the EPA deems not to be in full compliance to the EPA “Story”. This form of action is usually reserved for most constitutional or conservative points of view. This action is taken immediately usually without proof or due course. There is no appeal process offered nor do the decisions need to make rational sense. Usually such actions are take very publicly, casting as much distain as possible.

    2. No proven problem. This reaction is reserved for those that toe the EPA line and are part of the EPA extended machine. In this case, no action will be taken until the completion of all the criminal process steps (up to and including a Supreme Court Ruling – although the EPA has been known to ignore such rulings.) Said another way, there is almost no way the EPA would take “real” action against one of their priests. They may play lip service but will work behind the curtain to continue to keep their priests funded – directly or indirectly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.