More organizations speak out against Congressman’s NOAA investigation

Letter from seven scientific groups expresses “grave concern.”

Read the whole story

 

[Arctorus]

The Greenhouse web extension (which highlights his name in this story) shows Lamar Smith gets most of his outside funding from "Oil & Gas." Hmmmm.

 

[Stories]

Boom.

 

[Nowicki]

Hey congress when everyone thinks your lazy, politically manipulated, and out of touch with reality, people dont believe you. It doesnt matter if you dont believe them

 

[VictorVenema]

As a climate scientists from Germany, I am so happy that we have the freedom of science and research in our constitution. The harassment campaign of Lamar Smith would be completely illegal here. The Americans wrote freedom of science into our constitution after having seen what government meddling in science results in since 1933.

Maybe that in this case a part of the population is so much against mitigation that they are willing to punish the messenger and agree with Smith. Next time, however, it will be other scientists. Maybe we can all agree on the general principle, an amendment to the US constitution, that the government should not be in the business of picking scientific winners and losers. Not in this case, but also not in any other case.

 

[Tiernoc]

“Science cannot thrive when policymakers—regardless of party affiliation—use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence.”

You would think that this would be a problem for Lamar Smith, except he and his ilk have no problems with science *NOT* thriving, in fact it would appear to be the goal of his fellows entirely.

 

[Zak]

Someone finally called it what it is: harassment. Arrogant and ignorant politician is harassing scientists because their science doesn't fit his and his pals political agenda.

Tiernoc[/url]":3sgtyh4s]

“Science cannot thrive when policymakers—regardless of party affiliation—use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence.”

You would think that this would be a problem for Lamar Smith, except he and his ilk have no problems with science *NOT* thriving, in fact it would appear to be the goal of his fellows entirely.

A political system that put this asshat in his position is utterly broken.

 

[DarthSlack]

Lamar is gonna double-down, isn't he. Gotta be sure he shows the rest of the Republican party how much spine he's got. Because never backing down is all that matters.

 

[SixDegrees]

The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the check.

 

[Gary Patterson]

SixDegrees[/url]":3kguph3s]The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the check.

No, the party Lamar Smith follows ensures he cannot change his mind on this. He won't flip, even if huge bags of cash are hurled in his direction.

 

[graylshaped]

To illustrate how a single word can serve as both noun and adjective:

Bully for Sullivan!
That Lamar sure is a bully!

 

[graylshaped]

Tiernoc[/url]":2xjsz0ua]

“Science cannot thrive when policymakers—regardless of party affiliation—use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence.”

You would think that this would be a problem for Lamar Smith, except he and his ilk have no problems with science *NOT* thriving, in fact it would appear to be the goal of his fellows entirely.

An ignorant populace serves the interests of the entrenched status quo. At least until that populace becomes too ignorant to meet the evolving demands of the workplace.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Sullivan—a geologist and former astronaut—also responds to Rep. Smith’s accusations of collusion with the Obama Administration, writing, “I proudly serve President Obama, as I proudly served President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush before him. I am a life-long public servant profoundly dedicated to using science to inform decision-making in the best interests of the nation. I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me.”

Fucking owned.

Curly4[/url]":1u4045da]Just remember the climate scientist also have economic interest in there being more positive evidence than negative.

No they don't.

Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

That's not how funding works.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

AAAS Whoopin'

Hehe.

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1lcboaxs]

Sullivan—a geologist and former astronaut—also responds to Rep. Smith’s accusations of collusion with the Obama Administration, writing, “I proudly serve President Obama, as I proudly served President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush before him. I am a life-long public servant profoundly dedicated to using science to inform decision-making in the best interests of the nation. I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me.”

Fucking owned.

Curly4[/url]":1lcboaxs]Just remember the climate scientist also have economic interest in there being more positive evidence than negative.

No they don't.

Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

That's not how funding works.

To clarify, the scientists at NOAA would be getting their funding regardless of whether AGW existed. Their job is to do climate science, not prove global warming exists.

 

[divisionbyzero]

Curly4[/url]":13mu15rs]I have no proof one way or another on global warming/cooling. However I do believe it something is true then it will withstand very close scrutiny. There is a report out now that there has been pressure on the military and others involved in the battle against to make the reports appear that the US and allies are more successful than it is. If this is also the case in climate change then that pressure needs to be reviled. If there is not collaboration behind the scenes to make the evidence more positive or more negative that needs to be known. Just remember the climate scientist also have economic interest in there being more positive evidence than negative. Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

You don't understand science. If a scientist found real, incontrovertible evidence that global warming was not happening he or she would publish it everywhere. They would yell it from the roof tops. They would call a giant press conference. Why? Because that's the point of science and that's why scientists hold such a high bar for truth because if they didn't their work would be meaningless. It's terribly disappointing to see how the supposedly "conservative" party has abandoned reason and principles over the last 30 years and replaced it with relativism and "realpolitik".

 

[SirBedwyr]

SixDegrees[/url]":2rq5eonr]The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the check.

Unfortunately it wouldn't work. Presuming pure bribery is something I keep seeing pop up on Ars opinions and I have to say I remain disappointed in the misdiagnosis of the election/money problem. I've said this before, but it's worth continually repeating until it takes. Elected lawmakers, especially Congress critters, are simply not mercenaries who are bought, paid for, and owned. The money they get isn't to bribe them, it's to help them get in and stay in their position by supporters who already agree with their positions.

This is statesmanship where the candidate is already highly opinionated and has already subsumed some of those opinions to form a coalition with their party. That's simply the natural system at work. So giving enough money with your opinions attached is hardly going to get Lamar's sympathy. It'll more likely get his campaign managers to refund your check because you don't believe in the same causes he and his supporters do. He's principled that way. Again, not a mercenary. What you want to do is organize to get a reasonable opponent, either primary or the other party, who agrees with your on your particular issue but could conceivably get elected in Lamar's district and try to beat him that way. Warning: money will not win you an election. It has an effect, but it's not the deciding effect you might assume it is. Often grassroots work to get out your own person's vote is just as effective.

 

[divisionbyzero]

Onyx Spartan II[/url]":1ncou8i7]

AAAS Whoopin'

Hehe.

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1ncou8i7]

Sullivan—a geologist and former astronaut—also responds to Rep. Smith’s accusations of collusion with the Obama Administration, writing, “I proudly serve President Obama, as I proudly served President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush before him. I am a life-long public servant profoundly dedicated to using science to inform decision-making in the best interests of the nation. I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me.”

Fucking owned.

Curly4[/url]":1ncou8i7]Just remember the climate scientist also have economic interest in there being more positive evidence than negative.

No they don't.

Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

That's not how funding works.

To clarify, the scientists at NOAA would be getting their funding regardless of whether AGW existed. Their job is to do climate science, not prove global warming exists.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Al Gore conspiracy theorist have never applied for a grant in their lives. You don't scrawl across the top of it: I'll prove global warming, just give me the cash. You have to lay out a program. You need to provide a proposed course of research and at least provide high-level descriptions of how you are going to test your theories. The tests have to be rigorous and at least have a good chance of producing objective results or you don't get funding. And in the end the results have to be peer-reviewed. Is the process perfect? No. But, it's a hell of a lot better than politicians handing out money to "prove" their ideological biases.

 

[WxDano]

I'm just not sure he's going to back down. He went to all that trouble to get that power, why not use it?

I am glad, however, that the science community is not going to kowtow to this jackboot wearer.

Best,

D

 

[ChickenHawk]

Curly4[/url]":3dpghhuy] Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

Nope.

Funnily enough, even if AGW isn't real, we'd still be doing lots of climate science.

The information it yields is useful to us in so many different ways. Climate knowledge helps the farmer decide what to plant, when to plant, how to care for the plants along the way and when to harvest. Climate knowledge helps us prepare for and predict storms. Climate knowledge helps us manage our water supplies, determining where we should collect, how much we should keep in reserve, and when we might want to consider rationing - Being able to predict all of that helps us manage the land better too, as well as secure our future power supplies by helping us determine where to build wind and solar plants.

If you want to "Follow the money", looking at the climate scientist is the wrong way to follow it. Instead follow it to the big guys with a lot to lose if it turns out an economy reliant on burning carbon is a bad idea.

 

[divisionbyzero]

SirBedwyr[/url]":115ox6kz]

SixDegrees[/url]":115ox6kz]The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the check.

Unfortunately it wouldn't work. Presuming pure bribery is something I keep seeing pop up on Ars opinions and I have to say I remain disappointed in the misdiagnosis of the election/money problem. I've said this before, but it's worth continually repeating until it takes. Elected lawmakers, especially Congress critters, are simply not mercenaries who are bought, paid for, and owned. The money they get isn't to bribe them, it's to help them get in and stay in their position by supporters who already agree with their positions.

This is statesmanship where the candidate is already highly opinionated and has already subsumed some of those opinions to form a coalition with their party. That's simply the natural system at work. So giving enough money with your opinions attached is hardly going to get Lamar's sympathy. It'll more likely get his campaign managers to refund your check because you don't believe in the same causes he and his supporters do. He's principled that way. Again, not a mercenary. What you want to do is organize to get a reasonable opponent, either primary or the other party, who agrees with your on your particular issue but could conceivably get elected in Lamar's district and try to beat him that way. Warning: money will not win you an election. It has an effect, but it's not the deciding effect you might assume it is. Often grassroots work to get out your own person's vote is just as effective.

I agree that it is more complicated than straight-up bribery. But, come on, do you really think he came to these opinions on his own? Independently of the lobbyists for Oil and Gas? It's more likely he went around to the various constituents in his district and said, "What is important to you and why?" And then he knew his marching orders. In a sense he is doing what he is supposed to do, represent his constituents, but he is doing it by lying and intimidation which makes him a thug.

 

[BtS]

I have no proof one way or another on global warming/cooling.... There is a report out now that there has been pressure on the military and others

There has been tons of proof posted in the previous stories and threads on this topic on this site over the last few days, they're easy to search for. And post the report you're talking about. When I search for it all I'm getting are various links to stuff from infowars and conspiracy theories on freep or breitbart.

 

[dlux]

SixDegrees[/url]":2dd3kyiu]The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

I know (assume?) you're being facetious, but no, this only makes the problem worse.

What it would do is elevate Smith to the position of king-maker, playing one side against the other to up the "contributions". Guess who makes money no matter which side he chooses?

The solution to corrupt lobbying is not to add more corrupt lobbying. It's to vote out (or impeach) these greedy, gutless assholes. Yes, much easier said than done, but our great-great grandchildren will be facing these exact same problems unless our political system is changed. Never lose sight of the ultimate goal.

 

[rmaine]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":sm4kp5y1]

Sullivan—a geologist and former astronaut—also responds to Rep. Smith’s accusations of collusion with the Obama Administration, writing, “I proudly serve President Obama, as I proudly served President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush before him. I am a life-long public servant profoundly dedicated to using science to inform decision-making in the best interests of the nation. I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me.”

Fucking owned.

Curly4[/url]":sm4kp5y1]Just remember the climate scientist also have economic interest in there being more positive evidence than negative.

No they don't.

Most of these studies are funded directly or indirectly by the government. If there is no evidence to support climate change then the funding of their career and therefore no salary.

That's not how funding works.

Curly4 must never have even seen a scientist from a distance if he thinks climate scientists have an economic interest like that. As a hint, there is pretty much no money or fame in just saying "yep, I agree with everyone else." On the other hand, if you could actually show that the overwhelming current scientific understanding was wrong, you'd be showered in both fame and money. The scientists who end up in the history books are the ones who turned thinking around - not ones who just went along with the crowd.

 

[Fatesrider]

Tiernoc[/url]":36jqt0d4]

“Science cannot thrive when policymakers—regardless of party affiliation—use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence.”

You would think that this would be a problem for Lamar Smith, except he and his ilk have no problems with science *NOT* thriving, in fact it would appear to be the goal of his fellows entirely.

Assuming for the moment that Smith isn't simply a pawn of big oil and the fossil fuel industry (which is a humongous assumption), he's also a highly religious man.

One has to remember for a scientist, they investigate the data and then draw a conclusion based on the data. For a religious person, they do exactly the opposite: They obtain a conclusion and then cherry-pick data to fit it and ignore the other data that doesn't.

The PROBLEM isn't this, however. It's the innate assumption on the part of the religious that the scientists get their conclusions by doing the same things the religious folks do to support their conclusions. Time and again, this is exactly the logic they use.

To assume there is some conspiracy, and demand private communications to "prove" it (which we've seen happen in the past) requires a leap of reason that no rational human being would bother making.

Which kind of tells us how Rep. Smith's mind works.

 

[graylshaped]

tbatesab[/url]":3pzi4ms4]These seven organizations apparently have utter contempt for the taxpayers. Every email you send as a government employee on a government computer is owned by the taxpayers, the people of the United States. They have a right under both law and case law to look at those emails through the right of congress to provide oversight of government activity. That is how the republic stays a republic and does not become a clone of North Korea. i suggest these organizations read the Constitution of the United States.

Silly rabbit. You are a apparently a product of the culture of ignorance fostered by those like Smith. If you yourself have read the Constitution, then you have suffered a serious failure in comprehension.

 

[theotherjim]

tbatesab[/url]":femvlfka]Since this site prohibits links it is impossible to show the links to actual data on the climate. If I am wrong kindly let me know.

Pardon me new poster, but you are wrong.

Click on the "Help with post formatting and icons" and it will show you how to embed a link.

This will no doubt be useful in your next account as well.

 

[giovanni da procida]

tbatesab[/url]":x9f8ny3s]Since this site prohibits links it is impossible to show the links to actual data on the climate. If I am wrong kindly let me know. .

You are absolutely wrong- Ars allows links. For example, a paper from 1896 on CO2 as a greenhouse gas: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896 ... 173546.pdf (strike one)

tbatesab[/url]":x9f8ny3s]
Giss, Hadcrut and Best are the common data sets used to determine global warming or lack thereof. Hansen the inventor or at least principle author ran NOAA.

Hansen worked for NASA, not NOAA (strike two). Also, GISS started in 1961- Hansen didn't finish his PHD until 1967 (via wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Career - look! Another link!). Unless you meant GISSTEMP, which is the data set- GISS is part of NASA.

tbatesab[/url]":x9f8ny3s]
The RSS and UAH data have not been adjusted so there is a greater and greater variance between those measurements and the official Giss data set. That variance is simply ignored.

RSS and UAH date are not adjusted? Version 6.0 of UAH was released in April (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/ver ... 1-cdecade/ <- look! another link!) including the statement "All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data."
(Strike 3. You're out)

 

[Veritas super omens]

tbatesab[/url]":2ds0g09h]These seven organizations apparently have utter contempt for the taxpayers. Every email you send as a government employee on a government computer is owned by the taxpayers, the people of the United States. They have a right under both law and case law to look at those emails through the right of congress to provide oversight of government activity. That is how the republic stays a republic and does not become a clone of North Korea. i suggest these organizations read the Constitution of the United States.

The point here is the emails are irrelevent. The science is the science. Either its well done and it will pass peer review or it won't. (It passed peer review) The email question is purely a political ploy by LAmar to try and intimidate these scientists. Their is no other value in reviewing the emails. I highly doubt that you could get copies of every email Lamar sent, aren't you a taxpayer?

 

[theotherjim]

tbatesab[/url]":mpyr5sp5]These seven organizations apparently have utter contempt for the taxpayers. Every email you send as a government employee on a government computer is owned by the taxpayers, the people of the United States. They have a right under both law and case law to look at those emails through the right of congress to provide oversight of government activity. That is how the republic stays a republic and does not become a clone of North Korea. i suggest these organizations read the Constitution of the United States.

Your picture would no doubt be true if Congress comprised a joint dictatorship and there were neither executive nor judicial branches of government. Which you appear to see as desirable, for reasons that escape me. Indeed, that's a situation that does map to North Korea fairly well...

In reality, the constitutional division of powers makes a clear distinction between oversight and direct meddling/interference of one branch with another branch. Thus concepts like executive privilege, which in fact the internal deliberations of the executive branch (which the NOAA is part of) fall under, absent any credible whiff of illegality. Of which there is exactly zero here.

 

[eric123]

SirBedwyr[/url]":2gv0t876]

SixDegrees[/url]":2gv0t876]The simplest solution is to have these organizations pony up more contributions to Lamar than the oil companies he's currently shilling for. Problem solved.

Evidence doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the check.

Unfortunately it wouldn't work. Presuming pure bribery is something I keep seeing pop up on Ars opinions and I have to say I remain disappointed in the misdiagnosis of the election/money problem. I've said this before, but it's worth continually repeating until it takes. Elected lawmakers, especially Congress critters, are simply not mercenaries who are bought, paid for, and owned. The money they get isn't to bribe them, it's to help them get in and stay in their position by supporters who already agree with their positions.

This is statesmanship where the candidate is already highly opinionated and has already subsumed some of those opinions to form a coalition with their party. That's simply the natural system at work. So giving enough money with your opinions attached is hardly going to get Lamar's sympathy. It'll more likely get his campaign managers to refund your check because you don't believe in the same causes he and his supporters do. He's principled that way. Again, not a mercenary. What you want to do is organize to get a reasonable opponent, either primary or the other party, who agrees with your on your particular issue but could conceivably get elected in Lamar's district and try to beat him that way. Warning: money will not win you an election. It has an effect, but it's not the deciding effect you might assume it is. Often grassroots work to get out your own person's vote is just as effective.

thats one view, another view could be that a person takes an opinion for which they think will bring in the most contributions.

its the continual fight and volume of work that must be done in order to keep a position that bothers me, can lead to some ugly compromises.

when arguing politics the root of a view may not be the ideals but how many votes the person thinks they can win by taking a certain stance.

this may be running a little off topic.

 

[adamsc]

divisionbyzero[/url]":1ob2mpwy]
I agree that it is more complicated than straight-up bribery. But, come on, do you really think he came to these opinions on his own? Independently of the lobbyists for Oil and Gas? It's more likely he went around to the various constituents in his district and said, "What is important to you and why?" And then he knew his marching orders. In a sense he is doing what he is supposed to do, represent his constituents, but he is doing it by lying and intimidation which makes him a thug.

I suspect his opinions are genuine but the result of a selection process: he probably is completely serious on a major issue like this and likely has felt that way for a long time, but we only know his name because his position on this key issue already matched what the major donors wanted.

There are plenty of sane Republicans out there who recognize the threat of climate change but they don't get enough support to be heard even at the state level, much less nationally. The few I know tend to have become disillusioned and either gone inactive or started voting Democratic, which is understandable but means that there's even less pull for less extreme candidates.

 

[Gary Patterson]

UberBock[/url]":3vxi8mnc]
As for the whole 'When two different experiments give you the same....' um yea and if both experiments have the same systematic bias then they are both going to give you the same answer so are they really right.

You have the raw source data.

You have the adjusted data.

You have the method used to adjust the data.

You have the conclusions drawn from the adjusted data.

If you are unable to work out how to find bias in the above, then don't use your personal inability to tar a large number of scientists who can do so.

Also some articles in Science/Nature (top tier journals...peer reviewed by the best) have been retracted due to the inaccurate data or unsupported conclusions. So it does happen.

It's rare that a single paper is retracted. It's completely unheard of to retract several hundred papers over decades, all related to a single area of science. So no, it does not happen.

 

[Onyx Spartan II]

UberBock[/url]":sxdr5tgn]Can't it be said that if people say that if you have nothing to hid then its OK for the NSA/CIA etc to look at your emails/texts/metadata then its OK if the scientists have nothing to hid for Lamar to look at them too.

No it bloody fucking well can't be said. This argument is beyond beating a dead horse. It's complete and utter bullshit.

 

[puppies]

UberBock[/url]":23dzdyyv]so why is it that people are all up in arms about the government asking to look at the scientist's emails when the NSA/CIA etc... look at loads of peoples emails/metadata/use sting rays/texts all the time without a warrant or asking (aka see Snowden). Can't it be said that if people say that if you have nothing to hid then its OK for the NSA/CIA etc to look at your emails/texts/metadata then its OK if the scientists have nothing to hid for Lamar to look at them too.

As for the whole 'When two different experiments give you the same....' um yea and if both experiments have the same systematic bias then they are both going to give you the same answer so are they really right. Also some articles in Science/Nature (top tier journals...peer reviewed by the best) have been retracted due to the inaccurate data or unsupported conclusions. So it does happen.

For the Dems vs Reps...whatever... both parties have agendas and work to slant facts and opinions towards them. And for all those feeling that this attacks the whole climate thing...are you still driving your VW diesel? Shouldn't you be a bit more angry about that?

Huh? People weren't upset at NSA for their data gathering? People aren't angry about the VW diesel scandal? And you want to give a reputable source to back up the claim that this specific paper suffers from inaccurate data or unsupported conclusions?

How about not throwing up weird strawmen arguments?