Congressman claims NOAA whistleblowers told him climate study was rushed

NOAA denies the study was hurried for political reasons.

Read the whole story

 

[Maury Markowitz]

I guess he didn't like the species he caught the first time, and had to throw it back.

 

[DarthSlack]

Oh, gee, look. His lips are moving.

 

[Panick]

The fact that someone like Lamar Smith can end up on the House Science Committee shows how flawed the political system in the U.S. is.

"Know nothing about science other than what you were told in Sunday school? Don't know your ass from a hole in the ground? You too could chair the House Science Committee and berate actual scientists!"

 

[Antron Argaiv]

Rep Lamar Smith is an embarrassment. Also, he's not doing much to help the GOP to shed their "party of stupid" tag.

 

[Adam Starkey]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Lamar. How about you just turn over all of your emails so we can be sure these claims are not politically motivated?

 

[dmsilev]

And just for context, a 6 month acceptance to publication timeline is longer than usual for a journal like Science. 3-4 months is more the norm, and occasionally faster.

 

[THavoc]

The letter states that “Dr. Karl rushed to publish the study before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies used in the foundational climate datasets were conducted.”

So, ummm, at best LS can request the emails from this alleged whistleblower, no?

Still doesn't give him every and all emails from NOAA.

 

[helel ben shachar]

Excuse my language, but just how much money is the coal and oil industry paying this fucking tool? This yokel's questioning is approaching McCarthy's 'Red Scare' level.

 

[sorrykb1]

Liar.

 

[2PetitsVerres]

An aide for the House Science Committee declined to disclose to Ars whether the whistleblowers were NOAA staff, or any other details about the nature of the information they have provided, citing a desire to protect their identity

Rep. Smith’s letter to the editor closes with a familiar argument: “If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the communications to support the agency’s claims?”

If the whistleblowers have nothing to hide, why not disclose their identities?

 

[Robot Dinosaur]

Rommel102[/url]":1zvzjkpj]Release the emails.

So if Lamar is lying or was misled by a "whistleblower", he is completely humiliated and disgraced and can be properly marginalized or voted out of office.

If he is telling the truth...

Not a terrible idea, but his constituents probably don't care enough about his misguided anti-NOAA crusade to vote him out just for that. And he can just deflect it by saying that they're still hiding the REAL emails and are just drip-feeding him something to shut him up. Which is the big problem (well, there's a lot of big problems, but this is one of them) - he's basically demanding NOAA prove a negative, that they AREN'T frauds, and can set arbitrarily higher standards of proof that no agency could ever meet.

 

[DarthSlack]

Rommel102[/url]":10p6r5fu]Release the emails.

So if Lamar is lying or was misled by a "whistleblower", he is completely humiliated and disgraced and can be properly marginalized or voted out of office.

If he is telling the truth...

Sorry, wrong approach. Given enough emails, Smith and his allies can certainly manufacture enough controversy to appease his howling paymasters. Regular voters have no place in this, nor will they be allowed to express their true will at the ballot box. Unlimited campaign cash will see to that.

 

[recursivecrow777]

The rest of the sane world claims his judgment was rushed for political reasons and is also a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[AITIronbird]

If Lamar is so skeptical, nothing is stopping him from doing some environmental data collection himself as long as he uses the scientific method.

 

[CaptainTightpants]

Rommel102[/url]":1gvp2zxi]Release the emails.

So if Lamar is lying or was misled by a "whistleblower", he is completely humiliated and disgraced and can be properly marginalized or voted out of office.

If he is telling the truth...

The only shame left in politics is in failure to twist the truth to fit one's preferred narrative. As in past instances, Lamar will find some completely unrelated/innocuous "issue" in those emails and blow it all out of proportion without any regard for context or logic. They don't want to turn over the emails because it'd just give him more crap to use to delay talking about what really matters.

 

[recursivecrow777]

AITIronbird[/url]":10xkyd4f]If Lamar is so skeptical, nothing is stopping him from doing some environmental data collection himself as long as he uses the scientific method.

Nah, too many steps for this congressman.
Step 1: Hypothesis
Step 2: Conclusion
is way more convenient. Who needs all the steps in the middle?

 

[peragrin]

2PetitsVerres[/url]":21jsxq3r]

An aide for the House Science Committee declined to disclose to Ars whether the whistleblowers were NOAA staff, or any other details about the nature of the information they have provided, citing a desire to protect their identity

Rep. Smith’s letter to the editor closes with a familiar argument: “If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the communications to support the agency’s claims?”

If the whistleblowers have nothing to hide, why not disclose their identities?

As much as I hate to defend LS, whistleblowers always need protection. no exceptions ever. Other wise you end up with good guys like Snowden hiding out in Russia.

Though I would have a neutral third party looking at the so called whistleblower's information.

 

[andrewb610]

Rommel102[/url]":ahaiyxhi]Release the emails.

So if Lamar is lying or was misled by a "whistleblower", he is completely humiliated and disgraced and can be properly marginalized or voted out of office.

If he is telling the truth...

I'm not ready for the country to have a mindset of having to defend against baseless accusations and to have to turn over emails on the whim of a congressman, regardless of what party tag they have.

 

[dmsilev]

There is something which NOAA could release that would add some useful information, which is the referee reports and the responses written by the authors. It wouldn't satisfy Congressman I've-made-my-mind-up, but it would show the process at work.

For those who don't live inside the world of peer-reviewed articles, the way they work is you send an article to a journal. A month or two later, a set of referee reports come back. Even if the referees are by and large happy with the paper, there are almost always a set of change requests and queries. "The authors didn't adequately explain the argument on page 4; more details are needed" or "The conclusions drawn from Figure 3 are not sufficiently supported by the data in the figure; more data should be presented". You can also get more in-depth critiques of whether a particular theory or model is suitable, why specific alternative explanations weren't considered, etc.

Once you have those reports, and assuming that the referee verdict is "revise and resubmit", you take the reports, edit the paper to either make the referees happy or rebut their objections, and also write a letter explaining all of the changes made and how they pertain to the referees concerns. You also can do things like say "the objection the referee made in paragraph 3 of their report is wrong; here's why, but it's a sufficiently low-level detail that we're not going to put it in the paper".

Depending on the journal, this process can go on for a few rounds before converging (some journals, like PNAS, are one-and-done; if you don't convince the referees that your first set of revisions are sufficient, the paper is rejected).

In any event, releasing that document chain would show how the paper evolved through a couple of rounds of external review. In a world where someone actually cared about the process, that's what we'd need. However, the Congressman is more interested in grandstanding and cherry-picking, so I guess not.

 

[andrewb610]

peragrin[/url]":d8syq6jk]

2PetitsVerres[/url]":d8syq6jk]

An aide for the House Science Committee declined to disclose to Ars whether the whistleblowers were NOAA staff, or any other details about the nature of the information they have provided, citing a desire to protect their identity

Rep. Smith’s letter to the editor closes with a familiar argument: “If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the communications to support the agency’s claims?”

If the whistleblowers have nothing to hide, why not disclose their identities?

As much as I hate to defend LS, whistleblowers always need protection. no exceptions ever. Other wise you end up with good guys like Snowden hiding out in Russia.

Though I would have a neutral third party looking at the so called whistleblower's information.

Good luck finding that "neutral third party" in our political system. Nonetheless, I agree with your view completely.

 

[krimhorn]

Rommel102[/url]":21qa9zrr]I would assume that a Federally funded agency like NOAA should be subjected to the same type of controls. I don't really see a reason why Congress shouldn't have the ability to see the emails of an Agency they fund.

No one has to turn anything over to Congress when it comes as a "pretty please give me something (that I can twist into a knife at your throat) with sugar on top". When he provides them with a Congressional subpoena demanding those ("whatevers" he wants to try and manufacture his "evidence") documents then they will only have three choices: turn them over, fight the subpoena in court or being Contempt of Congress.

Right now this is the bully asking for your lunch money. He's balling up his fists and threatening to punch but he hasn't swung yet.

 

[THavoc]

dmsilev[/url]":3h41ax4m]There is something which NOAA could release that would add some useful information, which is the referee reports and the responses written by the authors. It wouldn't satisfy Congressman I've-made-my-mind-up, but it would show the process at work.

For those who don't live inside the world of peer-reviewed articles, the way they work is you send an article to a journal. A month or two later, a set of referee reports come back. Even if the referees are by and large happy with the paper, there are almost always a set of change requests and queries. "The authors didn't adequately explain the argument on page 4; more details are needed" or "The conclusions drawn from Figure 3 are not sufficiently supported by the data in the figure; more data should be presented". You can also get more in-depth critiques of whether a particular theory or model is suitable, why specific alternative explanations weren't considered, etc.

Once you have those reports, and assuming that the referee verdict is "revise and resubmit", you take the reports, edit the paper to either make the referees happy or rebut their objections, and also write a letter explaining all of the changes made and how they pertain to the referees concerns. You also can do things like say "the objection the referee made in paragraph 3 of their report is wrong; here's why, but it's a sufficiently low-level detail that we're not going to put it in the paper".

Depending on the journal, this process can go on for a few rounds before converging (some journals, like PNAS, are one-and-done; if you don't convince the referees that your first set of revisions are sufficient, the paper is rejected).

In any event, releasing that document chain would show how the paper evolved through a couple of rounds of external review. In a world where someone actually cared about the process, that's what we'd need. However, the Congressman is more interested in grandstanding and cherry-picking, so I guess not.

Not a bad idea I guess but I really don't think that'd satisfy LS very much as you concluded.

 

[kdemello1980]

Rommel102[/url]":1nm6k4h6]

Robot Dinosaur[/url]":1nm6k4h6]

Rommel102[/url]":1nm6k4h6]Release the emails.

So if Lamar is lying or was misled by a "whistleblower", he is completely humiliated and disgraced and can be properly marginalized or voted out of office.

If he is telling the truth...

Not a terrible idea, but his constituents probably don't care enough about his misguided anti-NOAA crusade to vote him out just for that. And he can just deflect it by saying that they're still hiding the REAL emails and are just drip-feeding him something to shut him up. Which is the big problem (well, there's a lot of big problems, but this is one of them) - he's basically demanding NOAA prove a negative, that they AREN'T frauds, and can set arbitrarily higher standards of proof that no agency could ever meet.

I guess I look at it differently. Having worked in the financial industry, the SEC can and will regularly collect ALL emails from a firm just to scan trough them for potential issues, even if they don't have cause. This frequently leads to a lot of low-level fines or actions and every so often finds something really worth investigating.

I would assume that a Federally funded agency like NOAA should be subjected to the same type of controls. I don't really see a reason why Congress shouldn't have the ability to see the emails of an Agency they fund.

I would think at the least that they are required to comply with such requests if made under the FOIA.

You look at it wrong. Scientists don't have any fiduciary responsibility, or any clients at all for that matter, so comparing them to the financial industry is just plain stupid.

Science is a more rigid process and the peer review is designed to weed out bad actors. It is transparent about how and why in ways that the financial industry isn't. There aren't any peer-reviewed journals for hedge fund management...

 

[2PetitsVerres]

peragrin[/url]":16fo2kes]

2PetitsVerres[/url]":16fo2kes]

An aide for the House Science Committee declined to disclose to Ars whether the whistleblowers were NOAA staff, or any other details about the nature of the information they have provided, citing a desire to protect their identity

Rep. Smith’s letter to the editor closes with a familiar argument: “If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the communications to support the agency’s claims?”

If the whistleblowers have nothing to hide, why not disclose their identities?

As much as I hate to defend LS, whistleblowers always need protection. no exceptions ever. Other wise you end up with good guys like Snowden hiding out in Russia.

Though I would have a neutral third party looking at the so called whistleblower's information.

I didn't want to attack whistleblowers in my post, I just wanted to point the inconsistency of Smith. And also the stupid argument "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide"

 

[David Forbes]

I hope NOAA scientists hold out for open and public hearings.Otherwise it will be the same old cherry-picked statements leaked in order to obscure, befuddle, and obfuscate.

 

[ChickenHawk]

I think there is ground for not disclosing the whistlenblower in this case.

If such a person exists, they would rightly be in fear of losing their job, or being the focal point of "the mob" for having an "unpopular opinion". Whether or not their opinion is right or wrong is beside the point.

It does however fall to the congressman to prove the person, and their claims, exist. Perhaps by disclosing the name, in confidence, to a neutral third party who can then examine whether or not the person exists, whether they made those claims, and whether or not they were in a position where they could reasonably make those claims. They can give a yay or nay result, and if its yay, we can move on to the merits of whats in the disclosure.

I don't believe such a person, or such claims exist of course, but it seems the only fair way.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

anurodhp[/url]":2yyoo3e1]Oh look some whistleblowers are indeed bad now.

WHAT whistleblowers? The ones that only exist in Smith's claims?

 

[Solidstate89]

If Lamar is so skeptical, nothing is stopping him from doing some environmental data collection himself as long as he uses the scientific method.

Lamar isn't a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who is unsure about the "certainty" of the generally accepted facts, but, can still be swayed if given more information, or does the necessary steps and/or research themselves to finally find the answers they're looking for.

Robert Muller is a good example of that. His BEST study was even funded by organizations like the Heritage Foundation (vomits) to finally once and for all disprove climate change. In fact, it did the opposite.

http://planetsave.com/2011/10/22/best-s ... whats-new/

Lamar is not a skeptic. He is a denier. No amount of research and facts will ever change his mind. He denies science and he denies reality. That is the proper term for Lamar and people like him; do not call them science skeptics, they are science deniers.

 

[THavoc]

David Forbes[/url]":ipu8h6k2]I hope NOAA scientists hold out for open and public hearings.Otherwise it will be the same old cherry-picked statements leaked in order to obscure, befuddle, and obfuscate.

I'd prefer it go to court where actual facts are to be used. I don't think public hearings will resolve this issue. It might quiet things down for a little while but it really won't settle the issue.

And it really needs to be settled so we can have Congress move past the false question of "Is mankind causing global warming?"

 

[citizencoyote]

I'm still absolutely shamed that this joker is not only from my state but also my damn Congressman, thanks to gerrymandering. He seems to be conflating "whistleblowing" with "rumor mongering" since most whistleblowers provide evidence of whatever nefarious doings they've uncovered. So Rep. Smith, I'll ask the same thing of you that you asked: where's your whistleblower's evidence of a rushed report?

 

[David Forbes]

THavoc[/url]":34dditju]

David Forbes[/url]":34dditju]I hope NOAA scientists hold out for open and public hearings.Otherwise it will be the same old cherry-picked statements leaked in order to obscure, befuddle, and obfuscate.

I'd prefer it go to court where actual facts are to be used. I don't think public hearings will resolve this issue. It might quiet things down for a little while but it really won't settle the issue.

And it really needs to be settled so we can have Congress move past the false question of "Is mankind causing global warming?"

I don't disagree at all, but since hearings are coming soon I'd prefer open to closed. Yes, court would be better, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

"I demand you be more transparent about the manner in which you came to your conclusions! I have anonymous sources who say you're not being honest!"

 

[THavoc]

David Forbes[/url]":30ejnv89]

THavoc[/url]":30ejnv89]

David Forbes[/url]":30ejnv89]I hope NOAA scientists hold out for open and public hearings.Otherwise it will be the same old cherry-picked statements leaked in order to obscure, befuddle, and obfuscate.

I'd prefer it go to court where actual facts are to be used. I don't think public hearings will resolve this issue. It might quiet things down for a little while but it really won't settle the issue.

And it really needs to be settled so we can have Congress move past the false question of "Is mankind causing global warming?"

I don't disagree at all, but since hearings are coming soon I'd prefer open to closed. Yes, court would be better, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, unfortunately.

Wouldn't NOAA agreeing to the hearings preclude them from going to court tho? If NOAA refuses, it would force LS to take the next step and I would think that would lead to a court battle.