Climate-change defectors having to weather Democrat-led storm

Saunders noted the hypocrisy of many Left-leaning climate-change activists who plead that Republicans have made the debate a political issue. "... [T]rue believers [in climate change] always say they want to keep politics out of science, but they cannot help themselves," he points out.

Pielke corroborates Saunders' take by demonstrating that the liberal media has chided him for being a turncoat on global warming because he challenged allegedly doctored figures presented by climate-change scientists.

"Several reporters have asked me why I testify before Congress if I know that my results will be used by Republicans," Pielke shared, pointing out "the interesting framing of this question."

Besides Pielke's fellow researchers being investigated, others outside the university scene are under high scrutiny.

"Pielke calls it a 'politically motivated witch hunt designed to intimidate a point of view," Saunders said. "What prompted the probe? On Feb. 21, The New York Timesreported that Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock 'Willie' Soon, a global warming skeptic, had received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry but failed to disclose his funding in journals that published his work. So Grijalva apparently decided to interrogate others presumed guilty by association of belief."

Excuses, excuses

Grijalva's self-proclaimed justification for hunting out those pointing out holes in climate-change science is contended to be problematic in and of itself. This mindset is recognized by many climate-change critics.

"When partisans want to silence those with whom they disagree, they often concoct a host of phony reasons to convince themselves and others that they really aren't trying to bully anyone into submission," Saunders explained.

Grijalva attempted to use his attack on Soon to explain how he was merely being a good steward of the land that he has been commissioned to protect.

"I have a constitutional duty to protect public lands," Grijalva argued. "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."

Green funding vs. oil funding?

Saunders reports that UCB provost Russell Moore supports Pielke's contention, which states that he never received a dime of fossil fuel money only government grants. She outlines this argument.

"I object to the Democrat's apparent presumption that any global-warming skeptic is likely to be driven by oil money, whereas climate-change enthusiasts have nothing to gain financially," Saunders asserts. "To the contrary, David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean & Environment, who is skeptical of climate-change predictions of catastrophe, told me that he realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees."

"The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues," Pielke stated on his blog. "I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me I'll be just fine, as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can't imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: 'When people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus, there's no reason to go on a witch hunt.'"

Saunders also concedes that because the government holds the purse strings and pink slips, it will continue to get away with bullying those not on board with its environmental agenda, which is buttressed by untold billions of tax dollars.

"Me, I am no scientist I'm just an observer who expects academic disagreements to be settled after passionate debate and civil discourse," Saunders concludes. "What I see instead is an inquisition from the side that considers its biggest selling point to be the fact that it represents the scientific 'consensus.' Once again, this is how they build their 'consensus' by the heavy-handed use of political muscle and brute intimidation."