Hayhoe said she would work in a different industry if money were a primary concern but admitted that she does for-profit “climate-focused consulting” while she is not teaching. She is the Founder and CEO of ATMOS Research & Consulting, whose listed clients include the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Federal Highway Administration.
Hayhoe did not immediately return a Western Wire email seeking comment.
In response, Pielke said, “It wasn’t disclosed… It just creates unnecessary vulnerabilities for the national climate assessment.”
Pielke added that he has “catalogued a whole range of issues—from relying on Tom Steyer-funded research, to elevating the most extreme case, to having a review editor who used to be John Podesta’s chief climate advisor, now to the lead scientist having these undisclosed conflicts of interest. These are all things that should have been avoided.”
"The US has unquestionably been experiencing a remarkably benign period of weather in recent decades. Extremes of weather are now much less severe and less common than on many occasions in the last century or so. Of course, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, who put together this report, NOAA, who are the lead agency, and the assortment of climate scientists who wrote it never intended the public to see the real facts. Those would have been far too inconvenient to their agenda."
Former EPA Whistleblower Dr. Alan Carlin: "The Trump Administration claims that it never reviewed the report before it was published and that it represented the views of its bureaucratic authors from 13 different departments and recruited from the outside world...the staff that prepared it included some climate activists and featured some research that was funded by noted activists like Tom Steyer.
The Administration now has a problem since some Democrats say they will use the report to oppose a number of the Trump Administration’s attempts to weaken a number of the Obama climate regulations that they have proposed, including using the report to persuade courts to reinstate the original Obama Administration regulations. See: Democrats Will Use US Climate Report Against Trump In Court
One obvious possibility is that they wanted to avoid the charge that they had “corrupted” the report writing process. But the costs are likely to be high...The more normal process is for an administration to make sure that major reports exactly correspond to its policy and technical views before publishing it. This is a far better approach in my view. Then there is no confusion as to whether the report really represents the Administration’s views and cannot be used against it. And it does not later have to disown it, as they have already started to do. It clearly would have been worth the extra effort in this case. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Trump Administration blew it."