Former NOAA researcher comments on whistleblower allegations

He says the study wasn't rushed. Journal <i>Science</i> confirms peer-review wasn’t either.

Read the whole story

 

[Totally Radical Liberal]

SixDegrees[/url]":23hp613s]

andrewb610[/url]":23hp613s]

SixDegrees[/url]":23hp613s]

sondjata[/url]":23hp613s][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

Don't bother. As someone with retired republican parents in Florida, the favorite republican argument technique appears to be to misunderstand the opposition, presume they mean something entirely wrong, then argue against the easy straw man whenever someone brings up an argument against their own position, diverting the conversation back to straw men whenever their own views are challenged.

I assume it's so popular because everything republicans do believe in is wrong.

(I would love to be a republican because I don't believe in any form of social welfare and prefer minimal government and taxation, but unfortunately republicans no longer stand for either of those things but some insane beliefs from the religious right and entrenched old industry.)

 

[Fatesrider]

As usual, those who don't have the brains to understand the science, and who take pride in that ignorance, hear one thing and completely misapply it to a situation about which they have a huge agenda.

Those who aren't able to understand the science shouldn't be allowed to chair science committees.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

sondjata[/url]":wnoevvqo]

SixDegrees[/url]":wnoevvqo]

andrewb610[/url]":wnoevvqo]

SixDegrees[/url]":wnoevvqo]

sondjata[/url]":wnoevvqo][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

And yet we've never had an Ethiopian blow himself up in [insert country here] or kill civilians in [insert country here] or Haitians blowing themselves up in {insert country here] or killing innocent civilians [insert country here] Have we?

So much for THAT theory.

Sounds suspiciously like a logical fallacy there. Perhaps this one or this one. Anyone have a more appropriate fallacy?

ETA: I'm reminded of a the relevancy of a certain snowball argument in a certain chamber.

 

[THavoc]

andrewb610[/url]":l21w657f]

SixDegrees[/url]":l21w657f]

andrewb610[/url]":l21w657f]

SixDegrees[/url]":l21w657f]

sondjata[/url]":l21w657f][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

Man I need to have my reading skills checked apparently.

COFFEE!! Stat!

 

[andrewb610]

Fatesrider[/url]":302kdeqy]As usual, those who don't have the brains to understand the science, and who take pride in that ignorance, hear one thing and completely misapply it to a situation about which they have a huge agenda.

Those who aren't able to understand the science shouldn't be allowed to chair science committees.

Once again, I must include this again. So true. It makes you wonder, does anyone here that doesn't study these things for a living actually understand the studies too, or do they just rely on the media telling them that the existing studies prove X?

 

[jdale]

sondjata[/url]":1ejiiif8][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

By that, you mean you are posting with the primary intention of riling people up? In other words, you are trolling?

That certainly fits posting outrageous claims with a link that substantiates none of them.

 

[potato44819]

Baron von Robber[/url]":3us334cw]

As funny as this pic is, I'm glad that they took the whistle-blowing accusation seriously enough to investigate it.

EDIT: 11 downvotes? For applauding the scientists for investigating alleged issues with data?

FFS people.

 

[NetworkElf]

Science is hard for stupid religious fanatics.

 

[Drizzt321]

If nobody has pointed it out yet, need a space in there

Pulling no punches regarding Rep. Smith’s public accusations of politicallymotivated data manipulation, Rep. Johnson continued.

 

[puppies]

This just in, Rep. Lamar Smith writes a press release in response to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, questioning her "commitment to oversight"

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-questions-ranking-member-s-commitment-oversight


edit: Here's the link to email the Committee on Science, Space, & Technology. I'd encourage all motivated parties to write something in respond to this press release.

https://science.house.gov/contact/email-us

 

[THavoc]

puppies[/url]":1986ul4a]This just in, Rep. Lamar Smith writes a press release in response to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, questioning her "commitment to oversight"

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-questions-ranking-member-s-commitment-oversight

*looks for sarcasm tag in response*

Error! Sarcasm not found!

*program aborts*

 

[Dilbert]

Demmrir[/url]":2vc5infd]

SixDegrees[/url]":2vc5infd]

andrewb610[/url]":2vc5infd]

SixDegrees[/url]":2vc5infd]

sondjata[/url]":2vc5infd][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

Don't bother. As someone with retired republican parents in Florida, the favorite republican argument technique appears to be to misunderstand the opposition, presume they mean something entirely wrong, then argue against the easy straw man whenever someone brings up an argument against their own position, diverting the conversation back to straw men whenever their own views are challenged.

I assume it's so popular because everything republicans do believe in is wrong.

(I would love to be a republican because I don't believe in any form of social welfare and prefer minimal government and taxation, but unfortunately republicans no longer stand for either of those things but some insane beliefs from the religious right and entrenched old industry.)

Yep there's no debate possible. Because there's nothing to debate. It's settled. And because a debate of any kind requires two valid but different viewpoints. Not one viewpoint, and one crazy. And because a debate should be based on logic, and not emotional responses programed in by years of lies.

 

[ajfink]

NOAA should drop a press release thanking Rep. Smith for his tireless support of NOAA, climate change research, and his unwavering support of the empirical sciences that drive forward this slice of learning. They should be as effusive as possible.

Entirely tongue-in-cheek, but also entirely great.

 

[rabish12]

andrewb610[/url]":13aknx0z]

Fatesrider[/url]":13aknx0z]As usual, those who don't have the brains to understand the science, and who take pride in that ignorance, hear one thing and completely misapply it to a situation about which they have a huge agenda.

Those who aren't able to understand the science shouldn't be allowed to chair science committees.

Once again, I must include this again. So true. It makes you wonder, does anyone here that doesn't study these things for a living actually understand the studies too, or do they just rely on the media telling them that the existing studies prove X?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a bit of both. Most of the data and methodologies used to study it is fairly simple (at least compared to most science), so I have looked a couple of them. After the first few, it's kind of hard to be bothered looking through new results that are pretty universally in line with the handful you've confirmed. I'd still be willing to look into anything that provides an alternative interpretation of the data, but every time I ask for one I'm given claims about why the models I've seen are invalid rather than a legitimate alternative that produces a different result.

 

[andrewb610]

rabish12[/url]":1n4ul7hy]

andrewb610[/url]":1n4ul7hy]

Fatesrider[/url]":1n4ul7hy]As usual, those who don't have the brains to understand the science, and who take pride in that ignorance, hear one thing and completely misapply it to a situation about which they have a huge agenda.

Those who aren't able to understand the science shouldn't be allowed to chair science committees.

Once again, I must include this again. So true. It makes you wonder, does anyone here that doesn't study these things for a living actually understand the studies too, or do they just rely on the media telling them that the existing studies prove X?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's a bit of both. Most of the data and methodologies used to study it is fairly simple (at least compared to most science), so I have looked a couple of them. After the first few, it's kind of hard to be bothered looking through new results that are pretty universally in line with the handful you've confirmed. I'd still be willing to look into anything that provides an alternative interpretation of the data, but every time I ask for one I'm given claims about why the models I've seen are invalid rather than a legitimate alternative that produces a different result.

But you're neither uninformed nor busy, according to Dogbert.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

puppies[/url]":2sl037xe]This just in, Rep. Lamar Smith writes a press release in response to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, questioning her "commitment to oversight"

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-questions-ranking-member-s-commitment-oversight

You could feed a herd of cattle for a year with the amount of straw in that letter. WTF?

 

[enilc]

Dilbert[/url]":3jd30hsf]

Demmrir[/url]":3jd30hsf]

SixDegrees[/url]":3jd30hsf]

andrewb610[/url]":3jd30hsf]

SixDegrees[/url]":3jd30hsf]

sondjata[/url]":3jd30hsf][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

Don't bother. As someone with retired republican parents in Florida, the favorite republican argument technique appears to be to misunderstand the opposition, presume they mean something entirely wrong, then argue against the easy straw man whenever someone brings up an argument against their own position, diverting the conversation back to straw men whenever their own views are challenged.

I assume it's so popular because everything republicans do believe in is wrong.

(I would love to be a republican because I don't believe in any form of social welfare and prefer minimal government and taxation, but unfortunately republicans no longer stand for either of those things but some insane beliefs from the religious right and entrenched old industry.)

Yep there's no debate possible. Because there's nothing to debate. It's settled. And because a debate of any kind requires two valid but different viewpoints. Not one viewpoint, and one crazy. And because a debate should be based on logic, and not emotional responses programed in by years of lies.

I am honestly not sure which side of this discussion you're on?

 

[matthewslyman]

One of my personal friends (at church) is a atmospheric scientist at Manchester University: he is currently in Antarctica with the British Antarctic Survey. He is careful and methodical, only says things that are strictly and demonstrably true, always keeps his word, and his integrity is absolute: I have worked with him for a while on church responsibilities, and I would never doubt his word on anything. This is perhaps instructive in respect of the character of his profession, because I have generally found that people take on something of the character of their professional work in their personal lives.

 

[rabish12]

sondjata[/url]":26bk0sk0]Because people can't read:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/prince-charl ... r-conflict

"And a day after the Paris attacks, Sanders, speaking at a Democratic debate in Iowa made much the same case: “Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” he argued."

See....Climate change is related to the growth of terrorism... No scientist has provided any such link. But we're to take this as fact.

Actually, it's a pretty consistent result that basically anything that causes hardship (and climate change certainly does) is going to contribute to the growth of terrorism.

"A day later on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sanders doubled down: “When people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaida and ISIS are using right now.”"

This is a LATER statement. The fact is he already said Climate change grows terrorism. An unsupported claim.

Except that it's supported specifically by that statement. Also, on both points, your initial claim was that he had said that "climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East". You can try to weasel out of admitting it all you want, but that claim is wrong.

"Back in July, O’Malley told Bloomberg television: “One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of Syria, the rise of ISIS, was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis.” "

No. The crisis in Syria was directly caused by the Arab Spring uprising allegedly prompted by outside governments (a whole other discussion). The reaction to what would be called a coup in any other country lead to the current civil war. It had nothing to do with a drought. Just as Libya was not caused by climate change or drought or anything whatsoever to do with "nature".

Nobody denied that O'Malley said it, but that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that Sanders specifically said that "climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East", and that claim was false.

Prince Charles:

"“Some of us were saying 20-something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move,”"

So he;s saying Climate change is responsible for ISIS because ISIS is a terrorist organization.
But as said earlier, SYRIA, ISIS, Al-Q has NOTHING to do with climate change but is a result of REGIME CHANGE and ATTEMPTED REGIME CHANGE.

Nobody bothered responding to your points on Prince Charles because he's basically a celebrity rather than an important political figure, but I'll go ahead and field this anyways.

What he's saying there is the same thing as Sanders is saying: that scarcity contributes to conflict. Not that it's responsible for ISIS specifically. Not that it's solely responsible for terrorism in general. Only that it directly contributes to conflicts by increasing scarcity, which is absolutely true.

EDIT: And to be clear, I'm done responding to you past this unless you're willing to at least admit that you were flatly wrong about what Sanders had said in your initial post. If you want to argue other points then that's fine, but I'm not going to indulge you if you aren't going to admit when things you claim are flatly proven wrong.

 

[Leachpunk]

.deleted

 

[Leachpunk]

matthewslyman[/url]":2xydn9c4]One of my personal friends (at church) is a atmospheric scientist at Manchester University: he is currently in Antarctica with the British Antarctic Survey. He is careful and methodical, only says things that are strictly and demonstrably true, always keeps his word, and his integrity is absolute: I have worked with him for a while on church responsibilities, and I would never doubt his word on anything. This is perhaps instructive in respect of the character of his profession, because I have generally found that people take on something of the character of their professional work in their personal lives.

I could have swore you were driving to a point, but then, you never reached one?

 

[llama-lime]

RaceBannon[/url]":2hf5v4nx]

sondjata[/url]":2hf5v4nx][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

update: And the reason climate change isn't at the root of Syria, et-al, is because this is not a battle over resources.

There is some science behind the assertion:

Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says

Oh wow, so not only is there some science behind it, but sonjdata linked to something that provided no evidence for their claim, guessing that nobody actually clicks on links? While simultaneously admitting that they knew they would get downvotes? That is clearly deceitful behavior along with knowledge of filing people up. Btw, the study is in PNAS, and it's only a single study, but it does sound interesting:

Abstract[/url]":2hf5v4nx]
Before the Syrian uprising that began in 2011, the greater Fertile Crescent experienced the most severe drought in the instrumental record. For Syria, a country marked by poor governance and unsustainable agricultural and environmental policies, the drought had a catalytic effect, contributing to political unrest. We show that the recent decrease in Syrian precipitation is a combination of natural variability and a long-term drying trend, and the unusual severity of the observed drought is here shown to be highly unlikely without this trend. Precipitation changes in Syria are linked to rising mean sea-level pressure in the Eastern Mediterranean, which also shows a long-term trend. There has been also a long-term warming trend in the Eastern Mediterranean, adding to the drawdown of soil moisture. No natural cause is apparent for these trends, whereas the observed drying and warming are consistent with model studies of the response to increases in greenhouse gases. Furthermore, model studies show an increasingly drier and hotter future mean climate for the Eastern Mediterranean. Analyses of observations and model simulations indicate that a drought of the severity and duration of the recent Syrian drought, which is implicated in the current conflict, has become more than twice as likely as a consequence of human interference in the climate system.

 

[Danrarbc]

sondjata[/url]":237kgg8b]

SixDegrees[/url]":237kgg8b]

andrewb610[/url]":237kgg8b]

SixDegrees[/url]":237kgg8b]

sondjata[/url]":237kgg8b][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

While I don't have a source on hand to copy here, I can confirm that I he said that.
Edit: There

Your belated link simply restates what I already posted. Sanders didn't say what you claim he did; he's quite clear in noting that climate change represents a serious national security threat, but doesn't tie it to the specifics you mention.

He does make a case that people in need - like those suffering drought and famine, for example - are much more prone to adopt terrorist ideologies than those who don't suffer from such want. But this is simply common knowledge.

And yet we've never had an Ethiopian blow himself up in [insert country here] or kill civilians in [insert country here] or Haitians blowing themselves up in {insert country here] or killing innocent civilians [insert country here] Have we?

So much for THAT theory.

Ethiopia and Haiti might not have been the best choices.

 

[Dputiger]

THavoc[/url]":156ro3gx]

SixDegrees[/url]":156ro3gx]

sondjata[/url]":156ro3gx][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

I don't recall reading about him making such a claim either.

Edit: I did find this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... -terrorism

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his claim that climate change will lead to terrorism by destabilizing regions affected by droughts, floods, and other natural disasters.

But he isn't saying that GW caused ISIS, just that it will cause additional terrorism in the future.

I'd just like to note that the impact of climate change on human civilization is well established. Droughts and floods cause profound social upheaval. Drought is believed to have played a part in the collapse of the Mayan empire, while years of bountiful rainfall may have made the Asian steppes green enough to allow the Mongols to expand west much farther than they otherwise would. Years of famine also correlate with increased uprisings and social pressure.

Heck, look at America and the Dust Bowl, which forced thousands to migrate and exacerbated already precarious economic situations.

Saying "Drought caused ISIS" would be stupid, but the idea that climate changes can exacerbate or tip over precarious systems is well-supported in the historical record.

 

[THavoc]

Dputiger[/url]":2fx6lz8q]

THavoc[/url]":2fx6lz8q]

SixDegrees[/url]":2fx6lz8q]

sondjata[/url]":2fx6lz8q][Downvote provocation forthcoming]

I find it interesting that with the coverage given this fellow and the assertion about the science behind climate change, that there has been no reporting on those who have claimed that climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East. The latest two making this claim are Bernie Sanders and Prince Charles. Can we get an article that takes these two to task for making these completely unsupported claims?


The data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explainin ... vents-2014

Uh - what? Do you have a link to Sanders making such a claim? Because all I've found is a speech he made stating that climate change is a severe national security threat that threatens to outstrip the threats posed by ISIS and the Middle East conflicts. I don't see where he made any connection between those threats and climate change, though.

I don't recall reading about him making such a claim either.

Edit: I did find this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... -terrorism

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his claim that climate change will lead to terrorism by destabilizing regions affected by droughts, floods, and other natural disasters.

But he isn't saying that GW caused ISIS, just that it will cause additional terrorism in the future.

I'd just like to note that the impact of climate change on human civilization is well established. Droughts and floods cause profound social upheaval. Drought is believed to have played a part in the collapse of the Mayan empire, while years of bountiful rainfall may have made the Asian steppes green enough to allow the Mongols to expand west much farther than they otherwise would. Years of famine also correlate with increased uprisings and social pressure.

Heck, look at America and the Dust Bowl, which forced thousands to migrate and exacerbated already precarious economic situations.

Saying "Drought caused ISIS" would be stupid, but the idea that climate changes can exacerbate or tip over precarious systems is well-supported in the historical record.

Agreed. Hopefully you didn't take my comments as just the opposite.

 

[puppies]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":21z1k807]

puppies[/url]":21z1k807]This just in, Rep. Lamar Smith writes a press release in response to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, questioning her "commitment to oversight"

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-questions-ranking-member-s-commitment-oversight

You could feed a herd of cattle for a year with the amount of straw in that letter. WTF?

That was what I thought of it as well.

He ends saying by giving her a reminder that congress exists "to act as a check on the actions of the Executive Branch", as if that justifies his bullshit crusade. To him, this is all about political football. The data and the scientific method doesn't factor into things. It's no wonder why he's not satisfied with all the data NOAA's already made public.

 

[dh87]

"The Constitution doesn’t provide you with a blank check to harass research scientists with whose results you disagree."

No, but the Westfall Act does.

 

[rabish12]

dh87[/url]":bmd9pf42]"The Constitution doesn’t provide you with a blank check to harass research scientists with whose results you disagree."

No, but the Westfall Act does.

Doesn't that only apply to statements he makes? Meaning that it doesn't indemnify him for abuses of power like the subpoena?

 

[THavoc]

sondjata[/url]":2glabil8]

"Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism"

Growth of terrorism isn't the same thing as "Reason for ISIS to form / exist"

 

[rabish12]

THavoc[/url]":1ekpfxfu]

sondjata[/url]":1ekpfxfu]

"Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism"

Growth of terrorism isn't the same thing as "Reason for ISIS to form / exist"

Thanks for making sure that I don't have to go back on my word.

With that dealt with, sondjata's proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he's not interested in honest debate here and his posts so far are all completely nonsequitur distractions from the actual subject of the article (most likely because the tactics he's used in other threads have consistently failed), so it's probably best if nobody else wastes time with him. It's just going to drown the issues the article's dealing with in noise, which seems to be what he's aiming for.

 

[Dputiger]

sondjata[/url]":2tl6kyrm]

rabish12[/url]":2tl6kyrm]

sondjata[/url]":2tl6kyrm]Because people can't read:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/prince-charl ... r-conflict

"And a day after the Paris attacks, Sanders, speaking at a Democratic debate in Iowa made much the same case: “Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” he argued."

See....Climate change is related to the growth of terrorism... No scientist has provided any such link. But we're to take this as fact.

Actually, it's a pretty consistent result that basically anything that causes hardship (and climate change certainly does) is going to contribute to the growth of terrorism.

"A day later on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sanders doubled down: “When people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaida and ISIS are using right now.”"

This is a LATER statement. The fact is he already said Climate change grows terrorism. An unsupported claim.

Except that it's supported specifically by that statement. Also, on both points, your initial claim was that he had said that "climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East". You can try to weasel out of admitting it all you want, but that claim is wrong.

"Back in July, O’Malley told Bloomberg television: “One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of Syria, the rise of ISIS, was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis.” "

No. The crisis in Syria was directly caused by the Arab Spring uprising allegedly prompted by outside governments (a whole other discussion). The reaction to what would be called a coup in any other country lead to the current civil war. It had nothing to do with a drought. Just as Libya was not caused by climate change or drought or anything whatsoever to do with "nature".

Nobody denied that O'Malley said it, but that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that Sanders specifically said that "climate change is the reason for ISIS and conflict in the Middle East", and that claim was false.

Prince Charles:

"“Some of us were saying 20-something years ago that if we didn’t tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move,”"

So he;s saying Climate change is responsible for ISIS because ISIS is a terrorist organization.
But as said earlier, SYRIA, ISIS, Al-Q has NOTHING to do with climate change but is a result of REGIME CHANGE and ATTEMPTED REGIME CHANGE.

Nobody bothered responding to your points on Prince Charles because he's basically a celebrity rather than an important political figure, but I'll go ahead and field this anyways.

-- The Prince of Whales is not important. Sure. OK.

What he's saying there is the same thing as Sanders is saying: that scarcity contributes to conflict. Not that it's responsible for ISIS specifically. Not that it's solely responsible for terrorism in general. Only that it directly contributes to conflicts by increasing scarcity, which is absolutely true.

- Apparently you are unable to read as well.

"“Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,”"

Not "conflict" but "terrorism". Here's a clue: not all conflicts are acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a specific TYPE of conflict and the ones referenced by the quoted parties are not the result of climate change.

EDIT: And to be clear, I'm done responding to you past this unless you're willing to at least admit that you were flatly wrong about what Sanders had said in your initial post. If you want to argue other points then that's fine, but I'm not going to indulge you if you aren't going to admit when things you claim are flatly proven wrong.

And NO I was not wrong on Sanders quote as I have provided the direct quote and will repeat it below for you and the others who apparently cannot read:

"“Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,”"

And he's right. Climate change contributes to and is related to growth in war, strife, and yes, terrorism. 200 years ago, you raised an army and took your neighbor's food and water. Today these issues are more likely to forment internal revolution.

Sanders could have been more precise, but saying "Growth of A is directly related to Growth of B" is not the same as: "A caused B."

 

[Gary Patterson]

I'd add sondjata to my ignore list, but there's no point. His or her inane posts are quickly downvoted to oblivion, but half the thread is spent by the intelligent posters rebutting that tripe.

 

[qasimq]

Thoughtful[/url]":34m24hc0]Smith will face no negative consequence for his action.

And that is the real shame here. I think we should reflect on this as a nation. This boob job is the "House Science Committee Chair ".
How is it that a person with such asinine claims can remain in this position ?
Benjamin Franklin would be rolling in his grave right about now.

 

[THavoc]

qasimq[/url]"ha0tux8]

Thoughtful[/url]"ha0tux8]Smith will face no negative consequence for his action.

And that is the real shame here. I think we should reflect on this as a nation. This boob job is the "House Science Committee Chair ".
How is it that a person with such asinine claims can remain in this position ?
Benjamin Franklin would be rolling in his grave right about now.

Damn it man!

Why did you have to relate a pleasant thought like "boob job" with such a tool as Lamar Smith?

<sigh>

What a way to tarnish a perfectly good thought.

 

[Dilbert]

Is it okay if we read "Damn it man!" in Dr McCoy's voice?

 

[THavoc]

Dilbert[/url]":mtzhx92i]Is it okay if we read "Damn it man!" in Dr McCoy's voice?

Yes.

Yes it is.