Editor’s Note: The Rivard Report received a letter to the editor from U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in response to Director Robert Rivard’s column In Praise of Science and Fact, Truth and the Media, which touches on a longstanding argument that Smith and local architect David Lake have been having over open letters and one in-person confrontation that took place at the Witte Museum.
In his column, Rivard summarized media coverage that outlined the drastic effects Smith’s proposed deregulation of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have on the environment.
“There are only facts. Science has never had a political affiliation, and it doesn’t have one now,” Rivard wrote, challenging the politicization of science.
The following is Lamar’s letter to Rivard:
It is a clear misrepresentation of reality to claim that science does not have a political dimension. We have seen issues of political influence at both NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) with the Karl Study, and EPA, where faulty science and hidden data were used to justify billions of dollars in regulations during the Obama Administration. The administration cherry-picked data to advance alarmist predictions. That is why this Committee has become increasingly concerned as we have uncovered violations of scientific integrity at many federal agencies.
I urge Mr. Rivard to take a look at the Committee’s efforts, which have uncovered a past pattern of EPA politicization of regulations. Furthermore, concern about de-regulation is unwarranted. Government over-regulation leads to a stifling of innovation and kills jobs. Our responsibility for environmental stewardship will only be achieved when the government relies on good and legitimate science, not politically correct science.
The (Science, Space, and Technology) Committee is dedicated to ensuring that agencies lead with sound science and that industry is free to discover innovative technologies that will do far more to protect our environment than ineffective and costly regulations.
Note to Lamar Smith: you’re not only a fool, you’re a dangerous fool. Clearly you will be held accountable through the ages for your blatant and destructive obstinance in the face of unmitigated, factual science.
Once these politicians have sold out, they can justify anything. In fact, the scripts are provided for them.
1. The EPA was very necessary in the 70s. Sometimes the job is basically complete but bureaucracy continues.
2. Cabinets are, by definition, political.
3. Science is almost never settled. That’s why it is science.
I hope, for the good of us all, that Mr. Smith is soon gone from Washington. Shall we charitably imagine that he only has time to read one or two chosen reports rather than the larger body of science? I’m sure there are politics involved along the way but I see restrictions as a greater good issue. And, yeah, my mind’s made up.
Meet his nemesis. Joseph Kopser is the real deal. https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/193261/joseph-kopser-new-leadership-for-tx-21
Join us! https://www.facebook.com/events/1136351316494054/
I have no words, other than to wonder why his constituents re-elect him. Short term economic interests superseding health and climate is reckless. Lamar Smith is reckless, but you can be sure he’ll accept no personal culpability as the consequences become irrefutable to more and more people, including his constituents.
Mr Smith is a disgrace. I am sure he did not write the letter, but had someone else do it for him. The words are too big and the sentence structure too complicated. He does not represent our area; who votes for him, as Kevin asks? He has an “R” by his name and that does it for the voters in this district. It wouldn’t matter who it was. He does not approve of medicine; is that political science? He will let our earth go; he will let our advancements in science come to a screeching halt. Keep after him, people.
A reckless and absurd point of view that dismisses any possibility that climate change is real. He uses regulation as a straw man to deflect from showing his ignorance. Tackling political regulations does nothing to address the threat of global warming.
For a number of years I used to give a presentation to government ministers on the interface between science and public policy (read: “politics”). I always started out the presentation with a quote from Mark Twain.: “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” Of course politics leaks into science (e.g. Lysenko) but Smith’s steadfast defense of climate change as myth simply proves that he has not read Twain. Instead, he is choosing the path of ignoring facts — the laws of basic physics tell us that by raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the earth will warm…which is why Arrenhius published a paper on it in 1896 — in favor of going straight to distortion.
What possible personal gain is worth risking the well-being of millions?
Were you to ask any of the “bigots” quoted above where we get global temperature readings I doubt more than a couple could answer NOAA. None of those have any idea that readings are taken all over the globe as has been done for years. But many of those locations no longer have instrumentation or can’t have; e.g. the North Pole as there is no place to locate the instruments. The scientists just estimate what they think the temperatures should be. If we can’t trust the basic measurements then how are so many convinced that the science is proven.
Disregard for being”Politically Correct” is just another way of saying “I lack the ability to speak or think to strategically.” Mr. Smith, your reality is not shared by a vast majority and I believe you fail to recognize and respect that.
I believe that Mr. Smith’s reality is shared by a vast majority of people that get up everyday, put their boots on, and go to work. I believe there is a need for the EPA to provide government oversight of industries that directly impact the environment. I also believe they have overstepped what many consider to be reasonable oversight. I also believe the EPA as a govt. entity has become less and less bipartisan, to the detriment of the American worker and small business alike. No one is arguing for the dissolution of the EPA. A 25% or so reduction in the EPA seems completely reasonable. This is true for three primary reasons. Big business self regulates because it recognizes the good publicity that comes from being green. The EPA unfairly targets smaller businesses because they put up less of a fight than mega corporations. The EPA has become too partisan. These are all contributing factors to the growing wealth gap in America.