Lamar Smith

Lamar S. Smith


  • Lamar Smith earned a a bachelor’s degree in 1969 at Yale University and a law degree in 1975 at Southern Methodist University School of Law. [1]


Representative Lamar S. Smith is a U.S. Republican Representative for Texas’s 21st congressional district and Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. Smith announced he would be retiring from the House after his term ends at the Science, Space and Technology Committee. [2], [59][60]

After leaving Yale University with a law degree, Smith worked as a business writer for the Christian Science Monitor. He was first elected chairman of the Bexar County Republican Party in 1978. He was elected to the Texas House in 1981. He was elected a Bexar County commissioner in 1982 and was re-elected in 1984. Smith was first elected to the U.S. House in 1986. Smith is known for introducing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2011. The bill received opposition from internet freedom advocacy groups and web companies, and was cancelled in 2012. [1], [3]

As chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Lamar Smith has repeatedly fought against inquiries into what ExxonMobil knew about climate change (#ExxonKnew). Smith has sent letters to several environmental groups and U.S. attorneys general demanding communications regarding their investigations. [4]

Before his appointment to chair the House Science Committee in 2012, Smith had a history of climate change denial. In 2009, after the “Climategate” hacking of climate scientists’ emails from a server at the University of East Anglia, Smith took to the House floor to attack scientists and journalists “determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming.” [5]

In addition to defending ExxonMobil, Lamar Smith has repeatedly attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and has also fought against the NOAA (National Atmospheric Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) over a study it published showing that climate change had not paused or slowed down, counter to what many climate change deniers have claimed. [6]

The Guardian describes Lamar Smith as a “climate scientist witch hunter.” Smith’s fellow Committee member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said that during the two years and ten months Smith had served as chair (as of November 2015), the Committee has issued more subpoenas than it had in its entire 54-year history prior.  She also noted that Smith had handed over public health data to a researcher with ties to “Big Tobacco” in the past, which says says is “representative of a disturbing pattern.” [7]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database, Rep. Smith has received $684,947 from the oil and gas industry since 1998 — making oil and gas his most generous industry contributor throughout his career.  [8]

Oil Change International’s Dirty Energy Money database shows that Smith has taken $24,770 campaign contributions from Exxon since 1999.  [9][4]

Stance on Climate Change

March 29, 2017

Speaking at a house committee hearing which he chaired, titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” Smith began: [46]

I believe that climate is changing and humans play a role. However, I also believe significant questions remain as to the extent.” [46]

April 2015

“Both the president and Mr. Kerry cited rapidly warming global temperatures and ever-more-severe storms caused by climate change as reasons for urgent action.

Given that for the past decade and a half global-temperature increases have been negligible, and that the worsening-storms scenario has been widely debunked, the pronouncements from the Obama administration sound more like scare tactics than fact-based declarations.

[…] Climate alarmists have failed to explain the lack of global warming over the past 15 years. They simply keep adjusting their malfunctioning climate models to push the supposedly looming disaster further into the future.” [10]

December 2012

I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don’t know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing.” [11]

Key Quotes

November 30, 2017

Smith made a number of claims while speaking at  “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF): [70]

Smith describes his view of “vigorously reviewed, legitimate science,” as that of the prominent climate change deniers featured on the conference agenda, while he claims that “climate alarmists” violate the scientific method:  [70]

Climate alarmists […] reject critiques and say science is settled. They predict climate disasters without any hard evidence. And they ignore or cherry pick data to get their desired results. These violations of the scientific method are found repeatedly in the alarmist arguments. 

“For instance, temperature predictions have consistently been contradicted by the actual record. What we see is a continuation of alarmist warming predictions with little hard evidence to substantiate them.

Likewise, extreme weather events are often falsely linked to increased carbon emissions. Historical data, using the scientific method, demonstrate no discernable connections.”  [70]

On the Clean Power Plan, Smith said:

“The Clean Power Plan was a politically motivated rule that only served to satisfy the fringe environmental left.”  [70]

On the Paris Agreement, Smith said:

President Trump also pulled America out of the hopelessly ineffective Paris Climate Agreement. Even as other countries in the world cling to the Paris Agreement’s false hopes, the United States under the leadership of President Trump has called it for what it is: a bad deal.”

Even when fully implemented, the Paris Agreement would have no significant impact on the environment. An analysis by Bjorn Lomborg found that the collective efforts of the world would only reduce global temperatures by one sixth of a degree Celsius and could cost trillions of dollars.”  [70]

December 8, 2016

“Make no mistake, while President Obama may soon leave the Oval Office, the environmental extremists who fight against American energy are here to stay. They are determined to stop Americans from using reliable and affordable power. They would rather see America keep our natural resources, as they say, in the ground.” [45]

The science is clear and overwhelming but not in the way the president says. For example, statements by President Obama and others continually attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change. These claims are, of course, unfounded. […] The fact is there is little evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.” [45]

I look forward to working with the new president, president-elect Trump to restore transparency and reshape the EPA into an accountable science-focused agency dedicated to a core mission of protecting our environment.” [45]

July, 2016

“It is regrettable that two state attorneys general and several organizations continue to threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change. The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and invalid regarding climate change. Attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists’ rights to free speech.” [12]

February, 2016

 “The president’s Paris pledge will increase electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth. Congress has repeatedly rejected the president’s extreme climate agenda. The president’s climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the American people and would produce no substantive environmental benefits.” [13]

Speaking about the proposed NASA budget, which would increase spending for Earth Sciences (including climate change research): [42]

”[…]this proposal shrinks space exploration priorities within NASA’s budget, it disproportionately increases Earth Science accounts to more than $2 billion – a seventy percent increase since 2007. This imbalanced proposal continues to tie our astronauts’ feet to the ground and makes a Mars mission all but impossible. This is not the proposal of an administration that is serious about maintaining America’s leadership in space.”

December, 2015

“This week, President Obama is in Paris trying to negotiate climate change regulations. His pledge to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 28 percent in the next 10 years is an attempt to bypass Congress and the American people. But worse, his plan to get us there, the EPA’s Power Plan, will do a world of harm to Americans while doing almost nothing to impact climate change.” [14]

September, 2014

Lamar Smith made statements at a hearing on the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan and proposed EPA regulations on power plants:

America cannot afford to drive its economy over a cliff with the hopes that the rest of the world will make the same mistake.  The only economy the EPA’s plan will help is that of our competitors.” [15]


Speaking after the “Climategate” hacking of climate scientists’ emails from a server at the University of East Anglia:

We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data. But for two weeks, none of the networks gave the scandal any coverage on their evening news programs. And when they finally did cover it, their reporting was largely slanted in favor of global warming alarmists. The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change. During a six-month period, four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming, according to a Business and Media Institute study. The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.” [5]

Key Deeds

April 24, 2018

Lamar Smith’s staff reportedly coordinated with Scott Pruitt on a “secret science” initiative that Pruitt announced on April 24 at the EPA HQE&E News reported. [73], [74]

The science that we use is going to be transparent, reproducible and able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace,” Pruitt said. “This is the right approach. Today is a red letter today. It’s a banner day. It’s an agency taking responsibility for how we do our work and respect the process to make sure we can enhance confidence in our decision making.”  [73]

Critics have noted that the rule would prevent the EPA from using all available data, with examples including data from patients that needs to be kept private and data subject to industry confidentiality.  [73]

 “Administrator Pruitt is very clearly trying to exclude and ignore longstanding pollution and medical science that is peer-reviewed, embraced by the National Academy of Sciences among others, and also based on health data that people were promised would be kept confidential,” John Walke, the clean air director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Washington Examiner. [73]

Smith had long sought to champion a version of the “secret science” through legislation, however had previously failed. [74]

March 12, 2018

In a Fox News Op-Ed, Lamar Smith claimed that “Climate alarmists seek to silence those whose research raises doubts” and that “Instead of claiming that ‘the science is settled,’ alarmists should welcome new research that furthers the science of climate change.” [72]

Smith contended that there is no link between recent hurricanes and climate change, saying “the historical record disproves them.” (Contrary to research suggesting that global warming has led to more intense storms.)

“The way to address climate change is not by increasing regulations and taxes. The future lies with research and development. Forget the alarmists’ hysteria and look to technology and innovation to solve climate change challenges,” Smith wrote in conclusion. [72]

November 30, 2017

Lamar Smith spoke at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). [70]

During his talk, Smith described the Obama administration as “an obstacle in the path leading to energy independence” that  “repeatedly capitulated to its extreme environmental allies who don’t want to see American energy succeed.”  [70]

Smith praised Donald Trump’s actions to “help achieve energy independence for America” including repealing the Clean Power Plan:

“The Clean Power Plan was a politically motivated rule that only served to satisfy the fringe environmental left,” Smith declared.  [70]

He also described the Paris Agreement as “hopelessly ineffective”:   [70]

“Even when fully implemented, the Paris Agreement would have no significant impact on the environment. An analysis by Bjorn Lomborg found that the collective efforts of the world would only reduce global temperatures by one sixth of a degree Celsius and could cost trillions of dollars.”

Note that the analysis Smith refers to by Bjorn Lomborg has also been examined by, who described this figure as “not the whole story.” [71]

Smith claims that “alarmists” have violated the principles of the scientific method, citing frequently debunked climate change denier arguments (see corresponding links to SkepticalScience):  [70]

For instance, temperature predictions have consistently been contradicted by the actual record. What we see is a continuation of alarmist warming predictions with little hard evidence to substantiate them,” Smith said, adding, “Likewise, extreme weather events are often falsely linked to increased carbon emissions. Historical data, using the scientific method, demonstrate no discernable connections.” — See SkepticalScience Myth #6, #9, and #18 as just a few examples. 

According to Smith, the private sector should be left to come up with its own solutions, claiming that “We should unleash the determination and creativity of the private sector, sometimes in conjunction with the federal government, which as always solved our country’s challenges.”  [70]

The United States will continue to make these technological breakthroughs, including In the area of climate change, which will prove more productive than government mandates and more taxes.”

It is this groundbreaking technology, not government regulations or more taxes, that will protect the environment, lower energy costs for consumers, and ensure that America remains a world leader in both.”

Smith concludes that the lineup of prominent climate change deniers on the conference program are examples of those conducting “vigorously reviewed, legitimate science” and that “Allowing meaningful debate on issues like climate change is how we should make policy decisions.”  [70]

November 9, 2017

Lamar Smith addressed the Heartland Institute‘s “America First Energy Conference” at the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas in a pre-recorded video message: [61]

The event description read as follows: [62]

At the America First Energy Conference, we plan to examine—one year and one day after Trump’s shocking Election Day victory—the following:

Where does Trump’s America First Energy Plan stand?

How much progress has been made in implementing it, and what remains to be done?

What scientific and economic evidence is there that the plan is putting the nation on the right path for economic growth, environmental protection, or both?”[36]

In a fundraising letter obtained by DeSmog, Fred Palmer had promoted the event as having the goal to “review the scientific and economic evidence that exposes the fraud inherent in the Obama-era regulation regime” while discussing “the overwhelming benefits of fossil fuels to us all.” [63]

Many of the other speakers have regularly spoken at the Heartland Institute’s past ICCCs. Notable speakers listed so far Joe BastFred PalmerRoger BezdekH. Sterling BurnettHal Doiron, Paul DriessenJohn Dale DunnMyron Ebell, Heartland’s new President Tim HuelskampCraig IdsoDavid LegatesJay LehrAnthony LupoRoss McKitrickSteve MilloyTodd MyersJohn Nothdurt, David Schnare, and numerous others. [64]

As reported at the Houston Chronicle, speakers notably included two Trump Administration officials: Richard W. Westerdale II of the State Department and Vincent DeVito of the Department of Interior. David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, was also formerly listed as a Heartland conference speaker, but apparently withdrew. [65]

The Climate Investigations Center put up a parody of the America First Energy conference website, complete with profiles on the individual speakers and highlighting their corporate funding and ties to groups such as the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC)[102]

November 8, 2017

Smith held a rare joint subcommittee hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to discuss geo-engineering as a solution to climate change. It was the second ever congressional hearing of its kind on the topic, DeSmog reported. [66], [67]

As the climate continues to change, geoengineering could become a tool to curb resulting impacts,” said Smith, according to his statement. “Instead of forcing unworkable and costly government mandates on the American people, we should look to technology and innovation to lead the way to address climate change.” [68]

As DeSmog’s Steve Horn reported, on the same day as the hearing,  24 researchers delivered a letter expressing concern about the premise of the congressional hearing and what could arise from it moving forward: [69]

Geoengineering is not a silver bullet, and treating it as one could greatly increase already severe climate change risks,” they wrote to the committee. “While further research could help address questions about the proposed technologies’ efficacy, risks, and cost-effectiveness, we already know that geoengineering, including solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal approaches, can at best be a supplement to reducing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and increasing our ability to cope with the effects of climate change.”

November 2, 2017

First reported by The Texas Tribune, Smith announced he would be retiring from the House after his term ends at the Science, Space and Technology Committee. [60][59]

At the end of this Congress, I will have completed my six-year term as chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee,” he wrote in an email. “I have one new grandchild and a second arriving soon! And I hope to find other ways to stay involved in politics.” [59]

Over a year still remains in Smith’s term, in which he says “there is still much to do.” [59]

February 5, 2017

As reported at HuffPost, Lamar Smith accused NOAA officials of “playing fast and loose with the data” and the Obama administration for pushing “their costly climate agenda.” [53], [54]

Smith’s accusations echoed those of a recent article by David Rose in The Mail on Sunday, which had made similar accusations of NOAA, pointing to “high-level whistleblower” John Bates. The article, titled “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data,” was found to contain “significantly misleading statements” by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). [55]

Smith also wrote about Rose’s article on Twitter, claiming that the NOAA was hiding something:

The IPSO ruling is now published above the original article at the Mail on Sunday’s website. IPSO said that “the newspaper’s claims that Dr Bates’ testimony had provided ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the paper had been based on ‘misleading, ‘unverified’ data’’, leading – as the headline claimed – to world leaders being ‘duped’ over global warming, and ‘convinced’ to invest billions in climate change, went much further than the concerns which Dr Bates had detailed in his blog or in the interview.” [56]

In another hearing, “Making EPA Great Again,” Smith said the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) “should redact” the NOAA study. AAAS Chief Executive Rush Holt disagreed with Smith, noting that Rose’s piece was “not the making of a big scandal.” He said, “This is an internal dispute between two factions within an agency. There’s nothing in the paper, the Karl paper, that at our current analysis suggests retraction.” [57]

Smith replied, “I encourage you to talk to Dr. Bates, because everything I have read that he’s said about the Karl report suggest to me that NOAA cheated and got caught.” Bates himself clarified his account, which appears to be different than David Rose’s portrayal. Speaking with E&E News, as reported by The New York Times: [58]

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” Bates said. [58]

July 24, 2017

Smith wrote an article at The Daily Signal titled “Don’t Believe the Hysteria over Carbon Dioxide.” According to Smith, “The benefits of a changing climate are often ignored and under-researched.” [51]

He went on to promote the myth that increased CO2 would have more benefits than the negative consequences of climate change. [52]

“The American people should be made aware of both the negative and positive impacts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Without the whole story, how can we expect an objective evaluation of the issues involving climate change?” Smith asked. He added, “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth.” [51]

Smith also wrote that “The use of fossil fuels and the byproducts of carbon enrichment play a large role in advancing the quality of human life by increasing food production to feed our growing population, stimulating the economy, and alleviating poverty.” [51]

March 29, 2017

Lamar Smith chaired a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” featuring testimony from Judith Curry, John Christy, Michael Mann, and Roger Pielke, Jr. DeSmog reported that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings “have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial,” noting that Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change. [46], [47]

Officially, the hearing was organized to “examine the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and “focus on the underlying science that helps inform policy decisions.” [47]

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, noted from the outset that “The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists.” For an accurate representation of the science, she said to “Visualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus. […] For a balanced panel we’d need 96 more Dr. Manns.” [46]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) published the written testimonies by Curry, Christy, Mann, and Pielke online. [48]

In his opening statements, Lamar Smith criticized so-called “alarmists,” and highlighted what he believes is the uncertainty surrounding climate science:

“Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses,” Smith began. “The ability to predict far into the future is impossible. Anyone stating that they know what the climate will be in 500 years, or even at the end of this century, is not credible.” He concluded his opening statements, claiming that “Much of climate science today appears to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions than on the scientific method.” [46]

Later in the hearing, Michael Mann noted that Smith recently attended the Heartland Institute‘s International Conference on Climate Change and quoted a Science magazine article on the subject: 

“I’m quoting from them [Science],” Mann said.  “he [Smith] sees his role on this committee as a tool to advance his political agenda rather than a forum to examine important issues facing the U.S. research community. As a scientist I find that deeply disturbing.” [46]

Before going on to discredit Science magazine, Smith cuts Michael Mann off in defense of the Heartland Institute’s conference: [46]

Michael Mann: “Chairman Smith was on record at the Heartland Institute, this is a climate-change-denying, Koch brothers funded outlet that has a climate change denier conference every year. And Chairman Smith spoke at that conference.” [1:27:28]

Smith: (Interjects) “Dr. Mann, don’t mischaracterize that conference.” 

Mann: “Let me finish—”

Smith: “No. They do not say they are deniers, and you should not say that they are either.”

Mann: “Well, we can have that discussion. I’d be happy to. Let me finish my statement—”

Smith: (Interjects again). “Well, be accurate in your description. That’s all I’m asking.” 

Shortly after this interchange, Smith also claimed that Science is not a credible source: “That is not known as an objective writer or magazine,” Smith claimed[46]

Smith later entered into the record “three articles on the so-called 97% consensus, which shows that there was no consensus.” Smith adds, “the 97% was derived from a small sample of a small sample.” [46]

At another point, Smith referenced a Wall Street Journal article, “Keeping Cool about Hot Temperatures,” claiming that this provides evidence that 2016 was not the hottest year on record. [46]

Michael Mann pointed out in his testimony that Lamar Smith had misrepresented the research of Tom Karl: [46]

This committee’s chairman, Chairman Smith, attacked Karl, aided by contrarian bloggers and the tabloid press. Smith even misrepresented an article I was co-author on, claiming it supported his attacks on Karl and NOAA,” Mann said[46]

Mann added that the Science paper and the paper by Karl’s team did not disagree over the basic idea of human-caused global warming, contrary to suggestions made by Smith and the contrarian press: [46]

While we disagreed over some details, precisely the sort of healthy debate that many in this room would like to pretend doesn’t exist in the scientific community, both papers agree that human-caused global warming continues unabated, while natural variations continue as well.” [46]

March 23, 2017

Lamar Smith was a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12), giving a lunch keynote back-to-back with Patrick Michaels. [49]

During his presentation, Smith criticized the Obama administration, saying “ They never let science get in the way of their assertions” suggesting they were incorrect to claim that extreme weather, hurricanes, and severe storms were getting worse due to human-caused climate change.

“Americans are tired of scare tactics and misleading information,” Smith said, adding that “”The Heartland Institute provided a fact-filled and evidence-based perspective that benefits the public and informs scientific debate.”

Pointing to the EPA and NOAA, Smith said “These two agencies have been complicit in furthering a one-sided partisan agenda focused on climate change,” adding that “Regulations should be based on sound science, not science fiction.”

“The most burdensome Obama-era regulation is the Clean Power Plan” Smith said.  “The EPA‘s sweeping climate change regulations burden the entire U.S. economy, targeted our energy development, and threatened to abolish affordable electricity for all Americans. […] it was all pain and no gain.”

Smith suggests that new technologies, as opposed to regulation, should be relied upon to reduce emissions. Mentioning hydraulic fracturing (fracking), Smith argues.”These are the types of technological innovations we should encourage, not discourage.”

Science magazine also reported on Smith’s presentation, and how he had presented the upcoming hearing the the Heartland audience: [50]

Next week we’re going to have a hearing on our favorite subject of climate change and also on the scientific method, which has been repeatedly ignored by the so-called self-professed climate scientists,” Smith told the audience. [50]

The audience applauded as Smith named the witnesses: Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, and John Christy. [50]

“Before you applaud, let me read the name,” Smith said before introducing Michael Mann, who would be the sole witness testifying on behalf of the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Boos quickly filled the room at the mention of Mann’s name. [50]

That’s why this hearing is going to be so much fun,” Smith said, grinning. [50]

December 8, 2016

Smith was a speaker at the “At the Crossroads III Energy and Climate Summit,” an event co-hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). The event was billed as “the premier energy-and-climate policy event in America,” and attracted a range of prominent climate change deniers as well as a range of names connected to Donald Trump and his transition team. The full video is now listed as “private”
on YouTube. Choice quotes below.[43]

“Make no mistake, while President Obama may soon leave the Oval Office, the environmental extremists who fight against American energy are here to stay. They are determined to stop Americans from using reliable and affordable power. They would rather see America keep our natural resources, as they say, in the ground.” [11:20]

Time and again, EPA officials have dismissed America’s right to know and have advanced expensive regulations without releasing the data they used to justify these burdensome regulations.” [13:07]

This power plan will cost billions of dollars, cause financial hardship for American families and diminish the competitiveness of American industry around the world with no significant benefit. In other words, it’s all all pain no gain.” [13:45]

“[H]eavy-handed regulations and arbitrary emission targets will do lasting damage to our economy and even the Obama administration admits that the rule will have little or no impact on global temperature.” [13:59]

Regulations should be based on sound science, not science fiction.” [14:19]

If all hundred and ninety-one, whatever it is, 87, 90, countries completely implemented the agreement that they submitted and these agreements were in effect the next 85 years it would only prevent a temperature rise of 1/6th of one degree Celsius.” [15:02]

Regulatory mandates and picking winners and losers in the energy marketplace only benefit this administration and extreme environmental activists. It is time to put an end to regulations that hurt the American people.” [15:52]

The science is clear and overwhelming but not in the way the president says. For example, statements by President Obama and others continually attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change. These claims are, of course, unfounded.” [16:12]

The fact is there is little evidence that climate change causes extreme weather events.” [16:28]

The EPA ignore the facts and advance climate regulations, and put limits on the use of innovative technologies like hydraulic fracturing that could help us safely develop our natural resources.” [17:11]

And I look forward to working with the new president, president-elect Trump to restore transparency and reshape the EPA into an accountable science-focused agency dedicated to a core mission of protecting our environment.”  [18:57]

Doug Domenech, director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s “Fueling Freedom” project, wrote about the proceedings at The HillDomenech outlined the common climate change denial message shared among the speakers: “Is climate change real? Yes, it has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Is man making an impact on the climate? Perhaps but in very small ways. But the overarching consensus remains the climate change we are experiencing is by no means catastrophic.” [44]

Speakers included:

October 17, 2016

The San Antonio Express-News editorial board announced that it would revoke its support for Lamar Smith’s re-election, despite having supported him in years prior. They cite one of their primary reasons as Smith’s “bullying” on the climate change issue: [41]

“We’ve argued that Smith’s undeniably conservative credentials have been a good fit for the 21st Congressional District. However, Smith’s actions have developed more transparently this last term into an issue that goes beyond the boundaries of his district.

A particular issue is his abuse of his position as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Specifically, it is his bullying on the issue of climate change that should concern all Americans. […]

Technically, Smith acknowledges human impact on climate change, but he consistently diminishes its role and essentially says dire climate predictions are exaggerated.” [41]

The paper notes that “In fact, there is broad and deep consensus in the climate science community that man’s role in global warming is substantive and that left unaddressed, this portends disastrous consequences.” [41]

September 29, 2016

Lamar Smith expanded his probe of environmental groups and attorneys general to include the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Smith sent a letter to SEC Chair Mary Jo White requesting information the SEC’s investigation into Exxon, including all internal SEC communications regarding the SEC‘s decision to investigate the oil company. [16], [17]

“The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (the Committee) is troubled by the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recently announced investigation of Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon)” the letter reads. “It appears from press accounts that the SEC‘s investigative actions, which date back to at least August of this year, are couched in concerns related to the science of climate change. […] the AG‘s efforts, characterized variously as a ‘witch hunt’ and ‘fool’s errand,’ an ‘abuse of powers,’ ‘pathetic,’ a ‘schtick,’ 7 and an ‘uphill battle,’ have failed to uncover any indicia of wrongdoing by Exxon. This raises questions as to why the SEC would assume the mantle of the New York AG‘s fruitless investigation.”

An ExxonMobil company spokesperson, Alan Jefferson, told CNBC:

The SEC is the appropriate entity to examine issues related to impairment, reserves, and other communications important to investors.

We are fully complying with the SEC request for information and are confident our financial reporting meets all legal and accounting requirements.” [18]

September 14, 2016

Attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts both refused to turn over information subpoenaed by Lamar Smith in July. This prompted Smith to announce a September 14 hearing to “affirm” that House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, which he chairs, had the legal authority to issue such subpoenas. The issue in question is whether a Congressional committee has subpoena power over state attorneys general and non-profit advocacy organizations. [19]

View the hearing below: [20]

The inciting subpoena was called “an unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement ‘investigations or potential prosecutions’” by Leslie Dubeck, an attorney in the Office of the New York State Attorney General. [21]

Desmog reports that two of the three lawyers that Lamar Smith called in for support had direct ties to same Exxon-funded groups that have been pushing against climate change action. [22]

In addition to the subpoenas sent to the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general, Rep. Smith issued subpoenas to eight non-profit advocacy organizations, foundations and a private law firm that have drawn attention to what Exxon knew about climate science and when the company knew it. [22]

The Union of Concerned Scientists, one organisation which received such a subpoena, offered to meet with the Committee but had refused to turn over internal records. Their meeting request was refused.

From the outset, Chairman Smith has overstepped his authority with this investigation,” said USC President Ken Kimmell. “He has consistently mischaracterized our work in repeated, convoluted attempts to justify his efforts. It is telling that after issuing broad, unilateral subpoenas, he is now holding a hearing to figure out if his actions are legitimate…We will continue to stand firm against this abuse of power and defend our First Amendment rights.”

However Chairman Smith stacks this hearing with friendly witnesses, it’s clear that he’s on shaky legal ground,” Kimmell continued. [22]

Lamar Smith’s witness include Ronald Rotunda, who has connections to both the Cato Institute (visiting legal scholar in 2000) and the Heartland Institute where he is a Policy Expert. His second witness is Elizabeth Foley who has ties to the Cato Institute, the James Madison Institute, and the Federalist Society. [22]

The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 directly from Exxon since 1998, including $140,000 in grants that were earmarked for climate change work. The Cato Institute was co-founded by oil and gas billionaire Charles Koch, and also receives funding from various Koch affiliated organizations, including the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation. The James Madison Institute is funded in part by the Donors Capital Fund, a supporting affiliate of Donors Trust for donors of more than $1 million. The Donors funds are advertised as a way for donors to remain hidden when “funding sensitive or controversial issues.”  [22]

The Federalist Society, an influential conservative group that has published numerous essays and articles claiming the lawsuits against ExxonMobil and related requests for records from other groups are a threat to free speech, a “chilling campaign to establish ‘consensus’ through intimidation,” a “witch hunt” and a “fishing expedition.”  [22]

July 13, 2016

Escalating his opposition to recent probes of Exxonmobil over what the company knew about climate change, Rep. Lamar Smith and several Republican colleagues issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general and nongovernmental advocacy groups, InsideClimate News reports. [12], [23]

“It is regrettable that two state attorneys general and several organizations continue to threaten legitimate scientific debate about climate change,” Smith said during a press conference on Capital Hill. “The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and invalid regarding climate change. Attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists’ rights to free speech.” [12]

Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists  among the groups named by Smith, called the subpoenas an abuse of power:

“By attempting to interfere with the attorneys general investigations, Chairman Smith directly undermines efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable for misrepresenting climate science,” Kimmell said. “It’s also just plain wrong to investigate a nonprofit for doing its job—in this case, providing public officials with science and evidence to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for deception on climate change.”

Exxon has been under investigation by a coalition of 17 attorneys general since earlier in 2016, following the publication of an investigative series by InsideClimate News which revealed Exxon had conducted its own research on climate change in the 1970s. (A following Desmog investigation found similar information from an Exxon subsidiary.) [24], [25][26]

Greenpeace and 350,org, among the groups targeted by Smith, responded to the subpoena threat with their own letter, reports The Hill: [27]

The requests served upon Greenpeace and simply cannot be squared with the Committee’s stated concerns regarding freedom of speech and scientific inquiry,” the groups wrote.

The Committee’s requests violate basic First Amendment protections, fall outside the proper jurisdiction of the Committee, and are impermissibly vague, overbroad, and burdensome. For these reasons, Greenpeace and respectfully refuse to comply with the Committee’s requests.” [27]

The add that they would be interested in the panel’s own interaction with Exxon, and question whether members may have met privately with representative sof the oil company and whether they may have accepted funding from them or related organizations:

We would like to know exactly how much money Exxon, other fossil fuel companies, and allied nonprofits and think tanks have given members of the House Science Committee,” Annie Leonard, Greenpeace’s executive director, said in a statement. “We would also love Rep. Smith to make public all communications between members of the Committee and those same groups.” [27]

February 22, 2016

As part of his ongoing fight to obtain documents from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Lamar Smith sent another letter demanding documents relating to the NOAA‘s analysis of global temperature data. This was after the NOAA already handed over 301 pages worth of emails regarding a study published in 2015 in the journal Science. “There apparently wasn’t anything juicy in those e-mails, however, because Rep. Smith is now asking for a great deal more,” Ars Technica reports. [28]

Rep. Smith cites a letter sent to him by “325 scientists, engineers, economists, and other scholars raising serious inquiries about the adherence of NOAA to [Office of Management and Budget] guidelines established under the Data Quality Act.” [28]

The ‘300 scientists’ letter (PDF) had been circulated in “climate ‘skeptic’ circles’ by the George C. Marshall Institute’s chairman William Happer and includes names of many well-document climate change deniers.

February 2, 2016

Lamar Smith’s Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to “examine the various scientific, economic and other policy issues” following the Paris Climate Agreement where President Obama pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions.” [13]

The president’s climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the American people and would produce no substantive environmental benefits,” Smith said. Video of Smith’s full statement below. [13]

Witnesses included noted climate change skeptic John Christy as well as Steve Eule of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Steven Groves of The Heritage Foundation. Notably, the Heritage Foundation has received at least $585,000 from ExxonMobil, while the Chamber of Commerce has received millions from large corporations like Dow Chemical and American Electric Power[13]

November 20, 2015

Lamar Smith was a speaker at the “At the Crossroads Energy & Climate Policy Summit” hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Smith’s speech was titled “Confronting EPA‘s Shredding of Science and the Constitution” (Video below). [29]

The event attracted a number of notable climate change deniers including:

October 13, 2015

Lamar Smith demanded documents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regarding a study it published showing that climate change had not paused or slowed down, counter to what many climate change deniers have claimed. [6]

The subpoenas ordered NOAA to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study. The Washington Post reports the NOAA told the committee that the study’s finding were publicly available and met with the panel’s staff to go over the results, but did not comply with the subpoenas. [30]

Your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms,” Smith wrote. [30]

The chief society of meteorologists replied to Lamar Smith, saying his demands “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research. [30]

Smith’s fellow Committee member, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), wrote a critical letter of Smith’s recent actions. She described his subpoena to the NOAA as “furthering a fishing expedition, rather than engaged in focused oversight with a legitimate goal in mind.” [31]

She notes that prior to Smith’s subpoena, the Committee had already made three written requests for information on a peer-reviewed study by Thomas Karl, NOAA“s Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information. NOAA had also responded twice to those requests, and through informal staff communications. They also engaged in a second briefing to Majority staff (Minority members were not invited) on October 19. A key excerpt from Johnson’s letter below (emphasis added): [31]

“It is important to note what is and what is not contained in this history of requests and responses. Your requests repeatedly asked for data and methodologies used in the study, and also requested that this information be made publically available. NOAA, through its two response letters, pointed the Committee to publically accessible locations where all of the underlying data and methodologies can be accessed. Moreover, NOAA attempted to explain certain aspects of the methodology about which the Majority was apparently confused.

However, obtaining all of the data and methods used in this study seemingly was not enough for the Majority. You also demanded internal communications by NOAA scientists regarding their scientific research. NOAA, rightfully, has been reluctant to waste their time and resources, not to mention break confidence with their superb research scientists by responding to this demand.

In your various demand letters you noted that the scientific study in question was of some consequence, and could potentially have an effect on policy decisions. However, it should be emphasized that the issue in question is a scientific research study, not a policy decision by a Federal agency. As such, this is not an area of delegated legislative authority by Congress to the Executive (unless you are proposing that Congress should somehow legislatively overrule peer-reviewed scientific findings). Moreover, in none of the letters do you allege any scientific misconduct, abuse of discretion, or fraud. In sum, NOAA has provided all the information necessary for the Committee to understand the scientific process at play. You have not articulated a legitimate need for anything beyond what NOAA has already provided.” [31]

September 9, 2015

Lamar Smith wrote an Op-Ed at The Hill titled “Climate change: Seven indisputable facts” where he claims that “there are more questions about climate change than there are answers.” [32]

Smith contends there has been a writes that “even the most advanced climate models all failed to predict the lack of warming the Earth has experienced over the last 18 years.  But the president and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to let facts get in the way of their determination to impose greater government control over the lives of the American people.” [32]

In his article, Smith lists seven so-called “Irrefutable facts about climate change that are ignored because they do not fit into the alarmists’ scare tactics.”  [32]

Skeptical Science lists refutations to many of Smith’s so-called “irrefutable facts” including his claims that global warming is merely part of a natural cycle, that there is no link between extreme weather and climate change, and that carbon dioxide is only a trace greenhouse gas.

August 13, 2014

Lamar Smith sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy, contending that the EPA has “hidden the truth from the American people.” [33]

Credible analysis is critical to a well-informed debate concerning climate change and energy policy choices now before American people,” the letter reads. “EPA’s incomplete modeling disregards a number of technical, regulatory, and economic realities. Americans deserve the bottom line: what does it cost and what will we get for the money?” [34]

June 23, 2014

Lamar Smith received a letter of support for H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act. According to the letter, signed by a number of prominent climate change deniers, the Act would push the EPA to be “open to public and scientific scrutiny.” [35]

Notable signatories included: [35]

September 2013

Desmog reports that Lamar Smith was “enraged” that the EPA was not complying with a subpoena that his committee issued requiring them to hand over all documents and studies relating to standards issued by the EPA. Smith wrote that the “EPA has failed to comply with its obligations under the subpoena” and “currently stands in default,” [36], [37]

According to Smith, this information is vital for the public, as the safety standards that it spurs cost the public “trillions of dollars,” as he wrote in a letter to the EPA. Desmog notes that Smith never specifies how he came up with that figure, and research shows that regulations put in place by the EPA actually save taxpayers much more money than they cost.  Smith’s letter has given the agency until September 16th to hand over the documents. [38]


According to Oil Change International’s Dirty Energy Money database Lamar Smith has received at least $554,295 from either the oil or coal industries between 1999 and 2016. Rep. Smith has taken $24,770 in campaign contributions from Exxon over his career, with $17,500 of that coming in the last five years. [9] puts Lamar Smith’s career total from the Oil and Gas Industry at $679,947. [8]

His top four contributors are Valero Energy, Koch Industries, Nustar Energy, and ExxonMobil. [9]

View the summary below, or view the attached spreadsheet for full details on Lamar Smith’s industry funding (.xlsx).

CompanyOil FundingCoal FundingTotal
Valero Energy$70,450$0$70,450
Koch Industries$46,250$0$46,250
Nustar Energy$41,500$0$41,500
Exxon Mobil$24,770$0$24,770
Tesoro Petroleum$24,000$0$24,000
Energy Future Holdings Corp$2,250$18,000$20,250
WB Osborn Oil$19,900$0$19,900
Petroleum Engineer$18,950$0$18,950
Marathon Petroleum$18,500$0$18,500
Pioneer Drilling$16,050$0$16,050
Energy Transfer Equity$14,800$0$14,800
Oil Co$14,000$0$14,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers$13,500$0$13,500
Concord Oil$9,025$0$9,025
Energy XXI$7,500$0$7,500
Kinder Morgan Inc$7,500$0$7,500
Barrett Brothers Oil & Gas$7,250$0$7,250
Lucas Petroleum Group$6,550$0$6,550
National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn$0$6,500$6,500
Halliburton Co$6,000$0$6,250
Chevron Corp$6,000$0$6,000
Oil & Gas$5,900$0$5,900
Delray Oil$5,600$0$5,600
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers$5,500$0$5,500
Chesapeake Energy$5,500$0$5,500
Phillips 66$5,500$0$5,500
Falcon Seaboard$5,400$0$5,400
Bengal Energy$4,900$0$4,900
Osborn Heirs Co$4,450$0$4,450
MJ Harvey Oil & Gas$4,000$0$4,000
Centerpoint Energy, Inc$0$4,000$4,000
Dan A Hughes Co$3,650$0$3,650
KBR Inc$0$0$3,500
American Petroleum Institute$3,500$0$3,500
Independent Petroleum Assn of America$3,000$0$3,000
Pinnacle West Capital$0$2,500$2,500
Hurd Enterprises$2,500$0$2,500
French Oil$2,250$0$2,250
Petroleum Landman$2,000$0$2,000
Wagner & Brown$2,000$0$2,000
Occidental Petroleum$2,000$0$2,000
Earle M Craig Jr Corp$2,000$0$2,000
Brigham Resources$2,000$0$2,000
American Electric Power$0$2,000$2,000
Oil Investor$2,000$0$2,000
Oil Producer$2,000$0$2,000
MJH Inc$2,000$0$2,000
JR Butler & Co$1,750$0$1,750
Venus Oil$1,750$0$1,750
Gas Station Operator$1,700$0$1,700
Independent Oil Producer$1,600$0$1,600
Bracken Enterprises$1,500$0$1,500
HollyFrontier Corp$1,500$0$1,500
Holliman Oil Corp$1,500$0$1,500
Anderson Oil & Gas$1,000$0$1,000
Pure Resources Inc$1,000$0$1,000
American Gas Assn$1,000$0$1,000
Oil & Gas Operations$1,000$0$1,000
Newfield Exploration Co$1,000$0$1,000
Oil & Gas Producer$1,000$0$1,000
National Ocean Industries Assn$1,000$0$1,000
King Ranch$1,000$0$1,000
Pitts Oil$1,000$0$1,000
Beecherl Companies$1,000$0$1,000
San Antonio Gas & Oil$1,000$0$1,000
Marathon Oil$1,000$0$1,000
Peabody Energy$0$1,000$1,000
Atmos Energy$1,000$0$1,000
Gtm Corp$1,000$0$1,000
Oil & Gas Investor$800$0$800
Discovery Operating$750$0$750
Mission Gas Co$600$0$600
Oil Business$600$0$600
Oil & Gas Investments$600$0$600
Three Span Oil & Gas$550$0$550
Oil & Gas Developer$500$0$500
Oil & Gas & Investments$500$0$500
National Fuel Gas$500$0$500
Caraway Operating$500$0$500
P2 Energy Solutions$500$0$500
Coates Energy$500$0$500
National Stripper Well Assn$500$0$500
Royal Dutch Shell$500$0$500
Enron Corp$500$0$500
Williams Oil$450$0$450
Cap Rock Energy$350$0$350
Mission Gas$300$0$300
Del Ray Oil Co$250$0$250
Tom Brown Inc$250$0$250
Dameron Petroleum$250$0$250
Richmond Drilling$250$0$250
Drilling Supervisor$250$0$250
Hanlet Petroleum$250$0$250
Rio Grande Inc$200$0$200
Boyd & McWilliams Energy$200$0$200
Panhandle Producing$200$0$200
Axeon LLC-$2,000$0-$2,000
Grand Total$516,545$34,000$554,295


Social Media

Sponsored Bills

Some notable bills that Lamar Smith has sponsored include the following (See a full list here): [40]

H.R. 3293: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Jul 29, 2015
Passed House: Feb 10, 2016

H.R. 1030: Secret Science Reform Act of 2015
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Feb 24, 2015
Passed House: Mar 18, 2015

H.R. 2850 (113th): EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Jul 30, 2013
Reported by Committee: Aug 1, 2013

H.R. 1772 (113th): Legal Workforce Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Apr 26, 2013
Reported by Committee: Jun 26, 2013

H.R. 3261 (112th): Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Oct 26, 2011
Referred to Committee: Oct 26, 2011

H.Res. 1607 (111th): Disapproving Judge Walker’s Proposition 8 Decision on Same-Sex Marriage.
Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Introduced: Aug 10, 2010
Referred to Committee: Aug 10, 2010


Some samples of Lamar Smith’s recent Op-Eds and other news articles are listed below:


  1. Lamar Smith (R),” The Wall Street Journal. Archived October 15, 2016. URL
  2. Biography,” Congressman Lamar Smith. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:
  3. H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act,” URL
  4. Steve Horn. “Exxon, Koch Ties May Help Explain Rep. Lamar Smith’s Probing Request of ‘Exxon Knew’ Environmental Groups,” Desmog, June 21, 2016.
  5. Stephen Lacey. “Rep. Lamar Smith, Who Criticized ‘The Idea Of Human-Made Global Warming,’ Set To Chair House Science Panel,” ThinkProgress, November 28, 2012. URL
  6. Farron Cousins. “GOP Representative Lamar Smith On A Foolish Crusade To Discredit Climate Scientists,” Desmog, November 26, 2015.
  7. John Abraham. “Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter,”The Guardian, November 11, 2015. URL
  8. Rep. Lamar Smith: Top Industries,” Accessed October 13, 2016. URL:
  9. Lamar Smith (R-TX21),” Oil Change International. Data retrieved October 14, 2016. URL
  10. Lamar Smith. “The Climate-Change Religion,” The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. URL:
  11. Will climate change change Lamar Smith?” My SA, December 6, 2012. URL
  12. State Attorneys General Subpoenaed by Rep. Lamar Smith for Exxon Fraud Probe,” InsideClimate News, July 13, 2016. URL:
  13. (Press Release). “Smith: Paris Climate Agreement a Bad Deal for Americans,” Congressman Lamar Smith, February 2, 2016. URL
  14. (Press Release). “Smith Statement on Bills to Block EPA Regs,” Congressman Lamar Smith, December 1, 2015. URL:
  15. (Press Release). “Smith Statement on Obama Climate Plan,” Congressman Lamar Smith, September 17, 2014. URL:
  16. (Press Release). “Committee Probes SEC’s Investigation of Exxon,” Committee on Science, Space & Technology, September 29, 2016. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:
  17. “Dear Chair White:” (PDF), Congress of the United Stated House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, September 29, 2016. Archive. pdf on file at Desmog.
  18. Christine Wang. “SEC investigating Exxon Mobil on climate change, accounting practices: Report,” CNBC, September 20, 2016. URL
  19. David Hasemyer. “Lamar Smith Seeks to Affirm Exxon Climate Subpoenas With Hearing,” Inside Climate News, August 31, 2016. URL
  20. Full Committee Hearing – Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas,” Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. Archived .mp4 on file at Desmog. URL:
  21. “Dear Chairman Smith:” (PDF), State of New York Office of the Attorney General, July 26, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  22. Ben Jervey. “Who Are the Expert Witnesses Hand Picked by Lamar Smith to Testify on #ExxonKnew Subpoenas?Desmog, September 12, 2016.
  23. “Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America to The Honorable Maura Tracy Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts” (PDF), Retrieved from Documentcloud. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  24. David Hasemyer and Sabrina Shankman. “Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon Draws Attention of 17 Attorneys General,” InsideClimate News. URL:
  25. Exxon: The Road Not Taken,” InsideClimate News. URL
  26. ‘There is no doubt’: Exxon Knew CO2 Pollution Was A Global Threat By Late 1970s,” Desmog, April 26, 2016.
  27. Timothy Cama. “Greens fire back at House GOP over Exxon climate probe,” The Hill, July 13, 2016. Archived October 15, 2016. URL
  28. Scott K. Johnson. “Congressman demands more NOAA e-mails about climate study,” Ars Technica, February 26, 2016. URL:
  29. “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Summit” (PDF), Texas Public Policy Foundation. Notes in red by Desmog.
  30. Lisa Rein. “Congressman demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’,” The Washington Post, November 6, 2016. URL:
  31. “Dear Chairman Smith” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives, October 23, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  32. Lamar Smith. “Climate change: Seven indisputable facts,” The Hill, September 8, 2016. URL:
  33. (Press Release). “Smith: EPA Hides Truth about Climate Regulations,” Congressman Lamar Smith, August 13, 2014. URL
  34. “Dear Administrator McCarthy” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, August 13, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  35. “Dear Chairman Smith,” (PDF), Retrieved from House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  36. Farron Cousins. “With Congress Back to Work, Republican Attacks On EPA Resume,” Desmog, September 4, 2013.
  37. “Dear Administrator McCarthy” (PDF), Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
  38. Ruth Greenspan Bell. “For EPA Regulations, Cost Predictions Are Overstated,” World Resources Institute, November 17, 2010. Archived October 15, 2016. URL:
  39. Representative Lamar S. Smith,” Independence Ave. Archived January 25, 2012. URL:
  40. Legislation Search for sponsor: Smith, Lamar (Rep.) [R-TX21], Accessed October 15, 2016.
  41. “Lamar Smith’s bully tactics cross the line,” San Antonio Express-News, October 18, 2016. Archived October 18, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. URL:
  42. Andrew Follett. “Obama’s NASA Budget Is All About Global Warming, Not Space,” The Daily Caller News Foundation, February 10, 2016. Archived October 18, 2016. URL:
  43. At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” Heritage Foundation, December 8, 2016. Archived December 22, 2016. URL
  44. Doug Domenech. “Climate change: Speaking truth to power,” The Hill, December 13, 2016. Archived December 21, 2016. URL
  45. Part 1 – At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit,” YouTube video (timestamp 11:20) uploaded by user The Heritage Foundation, December 9, 2016. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. 
  46. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, March 29, 2017. Archived March 31, 2017.  Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
  47. Ben Jervey. “House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann,” DeSmog, March 29, 2017.
  48. CLIMATE SCIENCE: Assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method” (PDF), Global Warming Policy Foundation (Report 24). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
  49. LAMAR SMITH,” Archived April 6, 2017. URL
  50. Jeffrey Mervis. “Lamar Smith, unbound, lays out political strategy at climate doubters’ conference,” Science, March 24, 2017. Archived April 7, 2017. URL
  51. Lamar Smith. “Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide,” The Daily Signal, July 24, 2017. Archived August 15, 2017. URL
  52. Positives and negatives of global warming,” SkepticalScience, accessed August 15, 2017.
  53. Chris D’Angelo. “Rep. Lamar Smith Tried To Make A Big Deal Out Of A Fake Climate Scandal,” HuffPost, February 7, 2017. Archived September 18, 2017. URL:
  54. (Press Release). “Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records,” Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. Archived September 18, 2017. URL
  55. Mat Hope. “Fake News: Mail on Sunday Forced to Correct ‘Significantly Misleading’ Article on Global Warming ‘Pause’,” DeSmog UK, September 18, 2017.
  56. Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data,” The Daily Mail, February 4, 2017. Archived September 18, 2017.
  57. “Full Committee Hearing: ‘Making EPA Great Again’” (PDF),  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, February 7, 2017.
  58. No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say,” New York Times, February 7, 2017. Archived September 18, 2017. URL:
  59. Marina Fang. “Texas GOP Rep. Lamar Smith Announces Retirement,” Huffpost, November 2, 2017. Archived November 2, 2017. URL:
  60. Abby Livingston. “Lamar Smith retiring from Congress,” The Texas Tribune, November 2, 2017. Archived November 2, 2017. URL:
  61. LAMAR SMITH,” America First Energy Conference. Archived November 20, 2017. URL:
  62. About,” America First Energy. Archived October 11, 2017. URL
  63. October 2017 Fundraising letter by Fred Palmer. On file at Desmog.
  64. SPEAKERS,” America First Energy. Archived October 10, 2017. URL
  65. James Osborne. “Trump officials to appear at Houston event hosted by climate skeptics,” Houston Chronicle, November 2, 2017. Archived November 20, 2017. URL
  66. Subcommittee on Environment and Subcommittee on Energy Hearing – Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology,” Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. Archived November 24, 2017. URL:
  67. Steve Horn. “Climate Denier Lamar Smith Holds Rare Congressional Hearing on Geoengineering,” DeSmog, November 9, 2017.
  68. “Statement from Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology (PDF), Committee on Science,Space, & Technology, November 8, 2017.
  69. “Dear Chairman Smith, Chairman Biggs and Chairman Weber” (PDF), November 8, 2017. Archived at DeSmog.
  70. At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit,” The Heritage Foundation, November 30, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog. URL:
  71. Vanessa Schipani. “Will Paris Have a ‘Tiny’ Effect on Warming?“, June 14, 2017. Archived December 5, 2017. URL:
  72. Lamar Smith. “Rep. Lamar Smith: Climate change and the scientific method – we should welcome new research, not resist it,” Fox News, March 12, 2018. Archived March 17, 2018. URL:
  73. Josh Siegel. “Scott Pruitt announces new EPA rule to combat ‘secret science’,” Washington Examiner, April 24, 2018. Archived April 24, 2018. URL
  74. Pruitt to unveil ‘secret science’ effort today — sources,” E&E News, April 24, 2018. Archived April 24, 2018. URL

Other Resources

Profile image of Lamar Smith speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12), screenshot via YouTube.

Related Profiles

APCO Worldwide Background APCO has been described as “one of the world's most powerful PR firms.”“Public Relations Firms Database: APCO Worldwide,” O'Dwyers. URL: https://arc...
Hugh W. Ellsaesser Credentials Ph.D., Meteorology.“Re: Global warming: It's happening,” Letter to NaturalSCIENCE, January 29, 1998. Archived July 28, 2011. URL: https://arch...
Alfred (Al) Pekarek Credentials Ph.D., University of Wyoming (1974). [1]B.A. University of Minnesota-Twin (1965). [1] Background Alfred (Al) Pekarek is a former ass...
Benny Josef Peiser Credentials Ph.D. , University of Frankfurt (1993). Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science. [1], [2] Background Benny Peiser is a sports ...