Professor Steven Hayward

Raúl Grijalva may not be a household name, but the Democratic Congressman from Arizona — who also sits as ranking member on the House Committee on Natural Resources in Washington, D.C. — is making waves all the way out here in Malibu.

Last week, Grijalva made national news by sending out letters to eight university presidents across the country, requesting information regarding conflicts of interest in climate research conducted by professors, including Pepperdine’s own Professor Steven Hayward at the School of Public Policy.

Grijalva’s letter, which was sent to Pepperdine President and CEO Andrew Benton on Feb. 24, cites a New York Times report that highlights “potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research.” 

The request names Hayward as being an outspoken denier of climate change, saying that on top of spending “years on the board of the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research,” he called a 2013 U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission report on Great Lakes climate impacts “some kind of cannabis-related entity that went into the wrong meeting room somewhere, and produced another silly climate report that has been falsified already. I suggest they all go out and get real jobs.”

Grijalva’s letter, sent on Congressional letterhead, requests Benton provide several pieces of information, including Pepperdine’s policy on employee financial disclosure, drafts of Hayward’s testimony before any governmental body or agency, information on Hayward’s sources of external funding, all financial disclosure forms in which Hayward lists Pepperdine as his affiliation and Hayward’s total annual compensation at Pepperdine.

In response to Grijalva’s letter, Hayward wrote a blog post for PowerLine Blog, for which he is a daily contributor. In it, Hayward says although there are no undisclosed financial supporters of his writing, it would not change the outcome of his research if there were.

In a Feb. 25 article entitled “Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been A Climate Skeptic?” Hayward wrote, “Let’s start by axing [sic] a simple question: If I say ‘two plus two equals four,’ does the truth of that proposition depend on whether I’ve received a grant from the Charles G. Koch Foundation?” 

“Apparently it does for Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources,” Hayward goes on to say.

In a Feb. 27 article by another PowerLine blogger, John Hinderaker, Hayward said, “I’m still just starting to lace up my boxing gloves on this one.”

Pepperdine’s website does state that the school has a policy regarding conflicts of interest in research funding.

“In accordance with Federal regulations, Pepperdine University has a responsibility to manage, reduce or eliminate any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may be presented by a financial interest of an investigator,” the statement, located on the Policies page of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Department website, says. “Thus, investigators must disclose any significant financial interest that may reasonably appear to be affected by sponsored projects. Investigators must fully disclose any significant financial interest before the proposal is submitted.”

It is still uncertain how or even if Pepperdine’s administration plans to respond to Grijalva’s request for information. 

Policy questions directed to the university’s Office of Research and Sponsored Programs were redirected to the university’s Public Affairs office, which, as of deadline, did not reply to multiple requests for more detailed information on university policies.

A representative for the school did provide a short statement.

“The University is carefully evaluating Rep. Grijalva’s request. We’re currently determining what information we may have that responds to his request,” said Tiffany Wright, University spokesperson, in an email to The Malibu Times.

(14) comments

AJ Badgley

I've known professor Hayward for quite a while now, and I absolutely agree with the investigation. I admit to not having any, or much knowledge on climate change, but given that his claims on the Affordable Care Act at Pepperdine University were easily proved false with simple research it makes one question Hayward's research. When you look at the character of his work, and unfortunately now him as a person, you have to be suspect of someone pulling the strings behind him. Having intimate ties to the Koch foundation is in fact a conflict of interest. Much of what he says in class is geared off of partisan feelings spurred by his relationship to Koch, and when he claims something is truthful he rarely puts any evidence with it. With this in mind regarding Mr. Hayward, I would not find his removal from Pepperdine University unreasonable.

Stuart Ebert

The Arctic Methane Emergency Group says we now have a few years until "end of the world" scenario starts. . ,
BUT - NASA satellite monitoring shows no arctic methane increase - yet.
MEANWHILE, the "100 geniuses" at DARPA are working overtime with their supercomputers to develop new engineering and coping schemes. . .
And finally, CIA operatives are lurking behind the scenes spreading disinformation on the internet.

Matthew Horns

Global climate is extremely complex and will never be understood completely. What is well-proven is that global climate has been generally warming for around the last 20,000 years as a result of natural processes associated with the close of the most recent glacial advance. Short-term periods of warming and cooling have made this general warming trend somewhat inconsistent.

The recent global warming trend is almost certainly caused by a combination of natural processes and human activities. There is no scientific doubt or debate about the reality of global warming. What is debatable is how much natural vs. human impacts are causing it. This debate will continue until well into the next Ice Age.

Meanwhile, the fact that much of the increased human-derived atmospheric CO2 is being absorbed by ocean water, reducing it's pH and threatening to tip the oceans from alkali to acidic conditions, is absolutely proven by valid scientific studies. Reduced ocean water pH levels are almost 100% caused by humans, with varying influences here and there from volcanic activity, melting marine methane deposits on the ocean bottom, and other "natural" sources. An acidic ocean would be far most devaststing to life on Earth than warming temperatures.

I advocate that we end the no-win climate debate and seriously reduce CO2 emissions to avoid the very real threat of human-caused ocean acidification.


A climate denier at Pepperdine? Shocking!! Ties to the Koch brothers? Even more shocking!!!

Sam Levinson

this is pure eco-fascism. Opposing viewpoints must be shut down.

Andy Choka

If you read Climate and the Affairs on Man by Iben Browning ( published more that 50 years ago) you will see that the climate debate has been going on for a long time. One thing is sure, you cannot determine a climate trend with 50 or 100 years of data. The cycles are much longer and statistical proof takes many more data points. it sure made Al gore rich man however.

Paul Grisanti

Congressman Raul Grijalva is hoping to be remembered as our generation's McCarthy.

Gary Carr

Congressman Grijalia,
is way out of line. This is another witch hunt suppression of free speech and ideas by The Obama Administration. As usual any criticism or different ideas opposing our delusional president are met with sneers and disgust. Another waste of our tax payers money on an Administration that has failed on all levels.
Thank you
Gary Carr

Rebecca Mann

Truth tellers are always "deniers" first.

Shame on this witch hunt after someone trying to stop this harmful GW agenda.

Suppression is the best way to squelch your opponents voice.

Opposition is a "denier", "racist", "bigot", "biased", "wrong", "aggravated", "hostile", "angry", "insert adjective here".

Nothing like the "god given right" to remain "omniscient".

Feudalism is alive and well.

Stuart Ebert

Visit It is the best reference site covering weather engineering operations. Like I said, ONLY after you learn about the REAL SCIENCE of weather engineering will the "wild weather" stories begin to make sense.
Good luck.

Aspen Traveler

Mr. Ebert, with respect. It is the AGW crowd who shames the Denier with "science" time and time again and yet it is the anecdotal that is cited as the convincing factor. As you say, "someone is messing with the weather" and that realization is not science. I entirely agree that the weather seems off the rails sometimes, until you look at the actual raw statistics. You then begin to realize that the weather is not getting worse as our eyes and the adjusted weather data suggests. In other words, you cannot legitimately dismiss the denier with "science" while also citing your eyes.

Stuart Ebert

There is certainly room for skepticism on both sides of the AGW issue. When we look at California's drought situation we see a 70-80% reduction in precip now with only a few percent increase in GHGs. How is that a real cause/effect?
Climate change deniers look to the radical and extreme low temps and snowfall over the eastern half of N America and ask "What warming?"
There are a growing number of citizens out there (like me) who believe "Someone's messing with the weather lately" When you make that realization, THEN AND ONLY THEN you will begin to see the truth. But the question remains - What are the Geoengineer's MOTIVES.

Aspen Traveler

Even the White House is calling for us to "call out the deniers" and publicly shame them.

This insipid congressman believes that money from Koch or any other commercial interest will change the outcome of the research. However, if the money comes from the government, well then, the results can't be tainted because, well, just because.

The truth is that the Climate Science community is completely bought and paid for and their research and public statements will always point toward their next grant, their next research project. "No bias here, this is government money..." And if you believe that then you're hopelessly naive, extremely biased and a government tool.

According to IPCC, and high level UN Officials, AGW is a long term campaign to end free market capitalism and replace it with an elitist central form of socialism.

Christiana Figures, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recently said this:

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history."

In her recent book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate" Naomi Klein, a climate activist for many years argues that either we embrace the change away from capitalism or we risk being overwhelmed by the catastrophic consequences of AGW.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.