More organizations speak out against Congressman’s NOAA investigation

Letter from seven scientific groups expresses “grave concern.”

Read the whole story

 

[brentrad]

graylshaped[/url]":2t0sugi0]

tbatesab[/url]":2t0sugi0]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.

I need to re-read the Constitution I guess. I somehow missed the part where it stated that taxpayers owned government-employed scientists' emails.

 

[Gary Patterson]

UberBlock - the paper is in line with many others. For a retraction to matter, it would have to be of pretty much all Climate Science in the past few decades, as so many papers all point the same way.

The issue is that the data for establishing bias is already out there, available for you or I to download and go to town with. The emails aren't even relevant to bias in the output, as we already have the input and output and can find that without reading a single email.

The issue is that those claiming bias are doing absolutely nothing to look for it in the only place that matters - the data.

The emails are utterly irrelevant. We all know this.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

UberBock[/url]":1bkefu6b]so why is it that people are all up in arms about the government ...a lot of word-salad... Shouldn't you be a bit more angry about that?

wtf?

Between the gibberish from this guy and Curly4 I am stuck wondering if the science-denial lobby is off-shoring its Astroturfing operation to "Mike from tech support" or it's just Chronic night for slacker fiverrs...




Edit: I left out the keyboard massacre of tbatesab; it really, really needed calling out. That post made my brain hurt.

 

[AlexisR200X]

DarthSlack[/url]":2za4cozh]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.

Seems their motto lately is: "To boldly go where common sense and reason would dissuade smarter men not to."

 

[brentrad]

UberBock[/url]":3luevgno]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.

I'm sorry, but what the hell kind of argument is that? Paraphrasing: "Why are people up in arms about Congress asking to look at the scientists' emails, when NSA/CIA also looks at people's emails without warrant?"

It's a non-sequitor. People are up in arms about both things. And yes, some people say "if you have nothing to hide then it's ok for the NSA to look at your emails" but that's very few of the posters at Ars Technica at least - that's always been a lame argument.

I'm a generally honest and law-abiding person, but I sure don't want my private emails exposed in public. There's plenty in there that might be embarassing or could be taken very differently by the public at large than by the limited friends I was speaking directly to.

As Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

Even so, I just don't understand the comparison, or the rest of your post. Sounds like the Chewbacca defense to me.

 

[Malth]

UberBock[/url]":2u7wt689]Gary- It does happen. And I wasn't saying that the climate thing was to be retracted but that at times papers come out that are not quite right that are part of a larger set of data that supports a widely accepted theory.

By rare what do you mean? 1 in 1000 1 in 100000

The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2014 in google is in interesting read

How is looking at emails tar a large number of scientist?

You also did not address the issue. The government looks at a lot of peoples email/texts/phone records without consent or cause. Are those people being tarred as well? Why react to this with outrage when other parts of the government do it frequently.

Because it's a fishing expedition to take parts of private correspondence out of context to try and "prove" there's a conspiracy or some other nonsense. Remember Climategate? A bunch of emails leaked, all supposed "proof" of fraud and whatnot even though none was found. But the overall truth doesn't matter, because people will believe the soundbite lies. All this does is undermine communications and trust between scientists.

If you have actual evidence of fraud, then fine. BUT THERE IS NONE. Lamar Smith is being lazy and misleading, because everything he needs to work out whether or not their work is bullshit is *already publicly available*. Again, requesting private correspondence in this case is nothing more than an attempt to personally discredit the scientists because he doesn't like the results of the science.

 

[shadedmagus]

HeadlessRoland[/url]":1oyczlm8]

UberBock[/url]":1oyczlm8]so why is it that people are all up in arms about the government ...a lot of word-salad... Shouldn't you be a bit more angry about that?

wtf?

Between the gibberish from this guy and Curly4 I am stuck wondering if the science-denial lobby is off-shoring its Astroturfing operation to "Mike from tech support" or it's just Chronic night for slacker fiverrs...

Wow, that's a buzzkill thought...neoconservative stoners.

"Duuuude, let's go rile up those lamer environmentalists! The War on Drugs'll never touch us! I'm so wasted!"

 

[theotherjim]

UberBock[/url]":2bsr5lhd]Gary- It does happen. And I wasn't saying that the climate thing was to be retracted but that at times papers come out that are not quite right that are part of a larger set of data that supports a widely accepted theory.

By rare what do you mean? 1 in 1000 1 in 100000

The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2014 in google is in interesting read

How is looking at emails tar a large number of scientist?

You also did not address the issue. The government looks at a lot of peoples email/texts/phone records without consent or cause. Are those people being tarred as well? Why react to this with outrage when other parts of the government do it frequently.

I'm pretty sure we've hit the Do Not Feed the Trolls point with this particular zombie sockpuppet account. Though of course I'm having to pretty much gnaw off my own fingers to avoid the compulsio

 

[HeadlessRoland]

shadedmagus[/url]":398d9y2t]

HeadlessRoland[/url]":398d9y2t]

UberBock[/url]":398d9y2t]so why is it that people are all up in arms about the government ...a lot of word-salad... Shouldn't you be a bit more angry about that?

wtf?

Between the gibberish from this guy and Curly4 I am stuck wondering if the science-denial lobby is off-shoring its Astroturfing operation to "Mike from tech support" or it's just Chronic night for slacker fiverrs...

Wow, that's a buzzkill thought...neoconservative stoners.

"Duuuude, let's go rile up those lamer environmentalists! The War on Drugs'll never touch us! I'm so wasted!"

I know, right? but it's a real thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... er-jacket/

Definitely not a NeoCon, but lovin' some EODM...

 

[v3rlon]

UberBock[/url]":2z7t91yp]Gary- It does happen. And I wasn't saying that the climate thing was to be retracted but that at times papers come out that are not quite right that are part of a larger set of data that supports a widely accepted theory.

By rare what do you mean? 1 in 1000 1 in 100000

The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2014 in google is in interesting read

How is looking at emails tar a large number of scientist?

You also did not address the issue. The government looks at a lot of peoples email/texts/phone records without consent or cause. Are those people being tarred as well? Why react to this with outrage when other parts of the government do it frequently.

Because he doesn't want to look at the science. He wants to attack the scientists.
They provide the raw data
They provide the adjusted data
They provide the methods of adjusting the adjusted data
They provide the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the adjusted data.

The entire scientific process is right there in a peer-reviewed paper. If Lamar Smith spots a math error that throws the whole thing out of whack, good for him. He has grounds. If he has a climate scientist that can legitimately show that the method for adjusting the data was somehow biased, he can discredit their work.

The trouble he has is that he cannot seem to do either of those things successfully. So now he wants their PERSONAL emails to attack/harass the scientists as people. This is not ok. It wasn't okay with the Inquisition did it to Galileo. It is not okay today.

By asking for their personal emails, he is already admitting he can't discredit the science. So next, we will get him looking all cheeky and saying "I'm not a scientist, but this email where you say 'ok, assume global warming isn't real...' seems to indicate you do not believe it either." or some stupid nonsense like that.

Heres a hint, Lamar Smith is not a climate scientist, but - the guys that work at NOAA are exactly climate scientists.

 

[kzin53]

SirBedwyr[/url]":3tfwwwmg]

SixDegrees[/url]":3tfwwwmg]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.

While you're description of how it 'is" is straight out my 7th and 8th grade civics classes (circa 1964) The situation since has devolved much as President Eisenhower warned us it would if we weren't careful. IMO we weren't careful, now we do have paid mercenaries on both sides of the aisle.

 

[traumadog]

Curly4[/url]":80awfzl1]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.

Funny, I recall a NASA study quoting an increase in Antarctic ice mass making the news lately. Why would they announce that and "threaten their funding"? Perhaps it's because they're scientists, not politicians?

 

[henrikmk]

traumadog[/url]":2cretffu]

Curly4[/url]":2cretffu]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.

Funny, I recall a NASA study quoting an increase in Antarctic ice mass making the news lately. Why would they announce that and "threaten their funding"? Perhaps it's because they're scientists, not politicians?

"Small" detail:

There is no gain in mass. There is gain in area.

Currently, the Antarctic is losing around 134 billion tons of ice per year, and the rate of change is increasing, so the total amount of ice is decreasing. Greenland is losing 287 billion tons per year, and that rate of change is also increasing.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

I guess this is one of the nuances that are lost, when communicating climate science in news articles, because I've seen a lot of people getting this wrong, pointing at pretty pictures of Antarctica with growing, but thin sheets of ice.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

tbatesab[/url]":g1iobkaw]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.
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. He believes that the world should be gridded into even areas and each area should have a temperature assigned to it. Since most of the world has no measuring stations in each grid, a computer program was designed to fill the holes with temperatures from actual stations up to thousands of miles away. He also believes and has written several papers that the arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world. He goes on to state the arctic stations all have a cold bias. To correct the cold bias he has his computer program find every station temperature lower than surrounding stations , throw it out and plugs in an average from the higher temperatures. This bias he calls a correction. He and his fellows have done this to thousands of measurements. 66 percent of all Giss data is an estimate, not the actual measured temperature. 92 percent of all US data in the Giss data set is an estimate. Barrow Alaska for example was raised 1.5 degrees higher than actual. This results in things like October of 2015 being the warmest month on record while in Barrow Alaska the mean temperature in 2015 was lower than the mean temperature in 1902 for that month. 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.

Links are easy!

Links [url=https://www.google.com/]are easy[/url]!

Enjoy!

 

[traumadog]

henrikmk[/url]":1757vap0]

traumadog[/url]":1757vap0]

Curly4[/url]":1757vap0]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.

Funny, I recall a NASA study quoting an increase in Antarctic ice mass making the news lately. Why would they announce that and "threaten their funding"? Perhaps it's because they're scientists, not politicians?

"Small" detail:

There is no gain in mass. There is gain in area.

Currently, the Antarctic is losing around 134 billion tons of ice per year, and the rate of change is increasing, so the total amount of ice is decreasing. Greenland is losing 287 billion tons per year, and that rate of change is also increasing.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

I guess this is one of the nuances that are lost, when communicating climate science in news articles, because I've seen a lot of people getting this wrong, pointing at pretty pictures of Antarctica with growing, but thin sheets of ice.

FYI, the study in question stated that the ice gain was in areas already with ice (increased height of ice) rather than a gain in area.

“Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

 

[DarthSlack]

shadedmagus[/url]":299hdkw6]
Wow, that's a buzzkill thought...neoconservative stoners.

"Duuuude, let's go rile up those lamer environmentalists! The War on Drugs'll never touch us! I'm so wasted!"

Neoconservative stoners.


It isn't often that you run across a new theory that changes your worldview, but this one might.

 

[y*!|$7v0Qn]

Big0range[/url]":1pddnj6k]

brentrad[/url]":1pddnj6k]

graylshaped[/url]":1pddnj6k]

tbatesab[/url]":1pddnj6k]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.

I need to re-read the Constitution I guess. I somehow missed the part where it stated that taxpayers owned government-employed scientists' emails.

While the topic of email is obviously not in the Constitution, it is clear that these emails were funded by taxpayers, and as such, owned by taxpayers. Just as any business has the right to review emails sent and received by it's employees, these discussions belong to The People and should be available to The People and their elected representatives. Withholding this information serves the same purpose as Obama going to lengths to secure his college records from public disclosure - it only prompts the question "What are you afraid of anyone seeing?"

And that's why I'm allowed to see all of the good Congressman's private emails, right? As well as every other federal employee's. Hell, throw out the private emails, surely their government provided email addresses are public information, right? No?

Edit: Called him a senator, rather than a congressman. My bad.

 

[daarong]

graylshaped[/url]":2j1gu1pu]

Tiernoc[/url]":2j1gu1pu]

“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.

Except in the case of the USA, high tech and high education jobs don't need to be here for the "entrenched status quo" to be appeased. Outsourcing has done wonders for transforming our economy.

 

[Kommet]

Big0range[/url]":ncu17ggx]

brentrad[/url]":ncu17ggx]

graylshaped[/url]":ncu17ggx]

tbatesab[/url]":ncu17ggx]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.

I need to re-read the Constitution I guess. I somehow missed the part where it stated that taxpayers owned government-employed scientists' emails.

While the topic of email is obviously not in the Constitution, it is clear that these emails were funded by taxpayers, and as such, owned by taxpayers. Just as any business has the right to review emails sent and received by it's employees, these discussions belong to The People and should be available to The People and their elected representatives. Withholding this information serves the same purpose as Obama going to lengths to secure his college records from public disclosure - it only prompts the question "What are you afraid of anyone seeing?"

Do you people just create new accounts to say the same stupid, ignorant shit over and over so you can pretend it hasn't been discussed to death in every fucking thread on this topic, or are you actually new to Ars and just happen to be infected with the same bullshit as the rest?

If you are the latter, then in the (probably vain) hope that you can be reached:

Your entire premise is wrong. The private correspondence of scientists is, and has always been considered, private. Forcing people to have every fucking conversation with their peers in public and under scrutiny would have a massively chilling effect on research.

The data (raw and adjusted), methodology and justifications for all adjustments, and models used to process the data are all publicly available. The methodology and findings withstood the scrutiny of expert peer review, and are in concordance with previous research on the topic. If there was malfeasance, it could be proven easily by another team of experts (which the Koch brothers would fund in a heartbeat). This is how "science" polices itself, and it works extremely fucking well.

Because the message is solid and consistent, the Koch's are pulling Lamar Smith's strings to hold a witch hunt to smear the messengers. This is what is called an ad hominem attack, and it is both a common logical fallacy and a despicably craven tool of political demagoguery. Google it.

Give me access to all of your private emails and I guarantee I could find enough to take out of context to make you look like a monster. Language is imprecise and context fucking matters. That is why we don't expose each others' correspondence to witch hunts like this one.

FYI, "If you have nothing to hide, why do you want privacy?" is a weak fucking argument and the sort of justification totalitarian states love to use. You're not going to find a lot of agreement here. We don't, by and large, like authoritarian bullshit on Ars.

 

[BtS]

Big0range[/url]":2n6mgwif] it is clear that these emails were funded by taxpayers, and as such, owned by taxpayers....Obama going to lengths to secure his college records from public disclosure - it only prompts the question "What are you afraid of anyone seeing?"

Do you also yell at the tellers at the DMV to hurry up because you're effectively their boss since you're a taxpayer and all? You nor Lamar have no right to their private emails, "only" their work and information, which has all been available for quite a while.

Obama wasn't a president or even a public servant when he was in college so its totally legit for him to not want to put that stuff out in public to be quote mined out of context. Bush, and many other previous presidents, did the same. Pretty much everything that was claimed to be sealed often was easily available to the public.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

In today's media anything can be mis-quoted or misresprented out of context with little to no consequences to those doing the dirty work. As has been mentioned many many times in these threads, Climategate is a well known example of such a thing happening.

Anyone else notice how these sockpuppet accounts are getting more blatant with their repub. anti Obama talking points being laced into their denier meme's? Letting the mask slip like that... really sloppy. I think we're starting to get to them!

 

[Antron Argaiv]

DarthSlack[/url]":29mykmnr]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.

[Yoda]
The stupid is strong in this one...

 

[chocoruacal]

Big0range[/url]"]Withholding this information serves the same purpose as Obama going to lengths to secure his college records from public disclosure - it only prompts the question "What are you afraid of anyone seeing?"

Post a photo of your driver's license next to your college transcripts so that we can take a look. Yeah...that's what I thought.

 

[BtS]

elizibar[/url]":12k2mh08] I always assumed

But assume makes an ass out of u and me.

That goes double for when you try to extrapolate your personal assumptions on to something that are well outside anything you might've experienced.

Even more importantly it goes triple for when the relevant information has been public for a while now and peer reviewed too.

Why don't you post something substantial about the study itself rather than trying to carry water for Lamar and other deniers hoping to replicate Climategate all over again?

 

[Kommet]

elizibar[/url]":17xf0aw7]When I worked at ORNL and UT-Knoxville, I always assumed that my e-mails were a) easily gotten by the government by subpoena b) subject to open records laws and discoverable by nothing more than a freedom of information act request.

You take the King's money, you dance the King's tune.

Did they teach you to read while you were at either of those jobs?

If so, then go read the rest of this fucking thread where your bullshit argument was already addressed.

Repeatedly.

For fuck's sake...

 

[BtS]

mannyvelo[/url]":emn0peez] They are government employees subject to oversight....all their communications should be accessible via an FOIA request. Why are they pushing back so hard?

Of course they're subject to oversight, which is why all their research is public. The courts already ruled that private communication like Lamar is fishing for isn't subject to FOIA's, happened with Mann years ago. And they're pushing back cuz' they know Lamar just wants to re-enact his own private Climategate which is trivial to do.

It should be noted too that other congressmen/women on the same board as Lamar have called BS on him and his actions concerning NOAA lately.

All this has been bought up multiple times BTW in either this or other stories on this subject. If you're not gonna read the thread learn to love being downvoted into oblivion.

 

[KGFish]

mannyvelo[/url]":33blpdy7]The ones who complain about "integrity" the loudest tend to be the ones who don't have any.

If the NOAA doesn't have anything to hide, why should they worry? They are government employees subject to oversight like all other government employees. They aren't special, and don't deserve more leeway than anyone else.

In fact, all their communications should be accessible via an FOIA request. Why are they pushing back so hard?

If that's the case, I'm sure Lamar's emails fall under that rule as well. What's that? It isn't that simple? Well golly gee - who would have thought that being tax payer funded doesn't mean that everyone has access to everything you've ever done in office.

 

[Kommet]

mannyvelo[/url]":12bgrabh]The ones who complain about "integrity" the loudest tend to be the ones who don't have any.

If the NOAA doesn't have anything to hide, why should they worry? They are government employees subject to oversight like all other government employees. They aren't special, and don't deserve more leeway than anyone else.

In fact, all their communications should be accessible via an FOIA request. Why are they pushing back so hard?

You have the temerity to say "If the NOAA doesn't have anything to hide, why should they worry?" as if that exact argument hasn't been repeatedly called out as utter bullshit? That is some deep-down commitment to willful ignorance you've got there, troll.

Fine, then, let's play.

Give me all of your emails. Now. Right fucking now. Do it.

If you have nothing to hide, then why should you worry about what I'm going to do with them?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

elizibar[/url]":1kboc725]When I worked at ORNL and UT-Knoxville, I always assumed that my e-mails were a) easily gotten by the government by subpoena b) subject to open records laws and discoverable by nothing more than a freedom of information act request.

You take the King's money, you dance the King's tune.

Wow, Oak Ridge and UT? I have heard that they have really smart people there! You know what else I heard that they have? Janitors.

Naked false authority fallacy is naked.

While I admit that this day-shift crew is not nearly as disjointed as last night's Dazed and Confused rejects, Priebus and friends really need to step up their game in the sock-puppet hiring

 

[SirBedwyr]

kzin53[/url]":3vobgqy7]

SirBedwyr[/url]":3vobgqy7]

SixDegrees[/url]":3vobgqy7]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.

While you're description of how it 'is" is straight out my 7th and 8th grade civics classes (circa 1964) The situation since has devolved much as President Eisenhower warned us it would if we weren't careful. IMO we weren't careful, now we do have paid mercenaries on both sides of the aisle.

I'm certainly happy to be corrected (although I'll admit I'm a bit put out by the "1964" jibe), but I'd like to see good solid evidence first. How do you see true bribed mercenaries vs. politicians who were already ideologically aligned? Are there history or sociological studies showing evidence of this?

I would also demand something that counters possible alternative explanations like a) similar ideological alignment but allowing for slow shifts in viewpoint as politicians listen to already valued opinions they were already inclined to listen to with or without money or b) as was pointed out to me politicians realigning opinions according to their constituency which is entirely within the realm of representative democratic systems (we just don't like it) or c) manipulating constituencies (gerrymandering) because this is a separate corruptive issue from mercenary bribery.

 

[graylshaped]

daarong[/url]":3aswrd58]

graylshaped[/url]":3aswrd58]

Tiernoc[/url]":3aswrd58]

“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.

Except in the case of the USA, high tech and high education jobs don't need to be here for the "entrenched status quo" to be appeased. Outsourcing has done wonders for transforming our economy.

To a point. Since we've already seen many jobs return that need the type of creativity and non-linear thinking that (arguably) the US still does pretty well, it suggests there are limits to what can be effectively off-shored (a different thing from outsourcing, btw).

EDIT: missed a word

 

[graylshaped]

BtS[/url]":2ds8gsnn]

mannyvelo[/url]":2ds8gsnn] They are government employees subject to oversight....all their communications should be accessible via an FOIA request. Why are they pushing back so hard?

Of course they're subject to oversight, which is why all their research is public. The courts already ruled that private communication like Lamar is fishing for isn't subject to FOIA's, happened with Mann years ago. And they're pushing back cuz' they know Lamar just wants to re-enact his own private Climategate which is trivial to do.

It should be noted too that other congressmen/women on the same board as Lamar have called BS on him and his actions concerning NOAA lately.

All this has been bought up multiple times BTW in either this or other stories on this subject. If you're not gonna read the thread learn to love being downvoted into oblivion.

As a reinforcement of this, it should be noted that not only the word "email" isn't in the Constitution, neither is "Congressional Oversight " an enumerated power. It is accepted as an implied one, however. Knowing that astroturfers here haven't even read the wiki on that issue, though, I'll just leave the following link here for those of us actually wishing to better understand the issue:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... rsight.pdf

 

[Tiernoc]

I wonder how hard it would be for the Ars staff to do a write-up on sockpuppet accounts, and their (increasing?) prevalence on any hot-button issue of the day?

 

[rabish12]

Tiernoc[/url]":zeu61x3f]I wonder how hard it would be for the Ars staff to do a write-up on sockpuppet accounts, and their (increasing?) prevalence on any hot-button issue of the day?

Unsurprisingly, they tend to appear en masse pretty much immediately after particularly persistent individual accounts either become too notable or get banned.

 

[kzin53]

SirBedwyr[/url]":1vbgitib]

kzin53[/url]":1vbgitib]

SirBedwyr[/url]":1vbgitib]

SixDegrees[/url]":1vbgitib]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.

While you're description of how it 'is" is straight out my 7th and 8th grade civics classes (circa 1964) The situation since has devolved much as President Eisenhower warned us it would if we weren't careful. IMO we weren't careful, now we do have paid mercenaries on both sides of the aisle.

I'm certainly happy to be corrected (although I'll admit I'm a bit put out by the "1964" jibe), but I'd like to see good solid evidence first. How do you see true bribed mercenaries vs. politicians who were already ideologically aligned? Are there history or sociological studies showing evidence of this?

I would also demand something that counters possible alternative explanations like a) similar ideological alignment but allowing for slow shifts in viewpoint as politicians listen to already valued opinions they were already inclined to listen to with or without money or b) as was pointed out to me politicians realigning opinions according to their constituency which is entirely within the realm of representative democratic systems (we just don't like it) or c) manipulating constituencies (gerrymandering) because this is a separate corruptive issue from mercenary bribery.

the 1964 reference, if anything, was a jibe at me. That's around the time I was in 7th and 8th grade. In other words, I have nearly attained geezer status. Since those civics days the MIC Ike warned us about has 'bought;" pretty much everything it wanted, for example, unlimited campaign money (unthinkable in my youth by any party) gerrymandering (I was taught there were laws against it -- more bullshit obviously but there you go) and, of course, Corporations are people (so is Soylent Green by the way). I know these are not citations from empirical research but it's 6 am thanksgiving day and I've worked all night and become a lazy SOB. So I'm trying to impart some version of institutional memory. Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Mal Adapted]

rmaine[/url]":2i6rzxi0]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2i6rzxi0]

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]":2i6rzxi0]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.

From personal experience, I can tell Curly4 that no one chooses a research career in the Natural Sciences hoping to get rich. There are much easier ways to make a decent living.

And any climate scientist who was only in it for the gold would be pitching grant proposals to the fossil-fuel billionaires. You'd think that'd be obvious, even to the likes of Curly4.

 

[Mal Adapted]

henrikmk[/url]":xbezi7kz]

traumadog[/url]":xbezi7kz]

Curly4[/url]":xbezi7kz]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.

Funny, I recall a NASA study quoting an increase in Antarctic ice mass making the news lately. Why would they announce that and "threaten their funding"? Perhaps it's because they're scientists, not politicians?

"Small" detail:

There is no gain in mass. There is gain in area.

Currently, the Antarctic is losing around 134 billion tons of ice per year, and the rate of change is increasing, so the total amount of ice is decreasing. Greenland is losing 287 billion tons per year, and that rate of change is also increasing.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

I guess this is one of the nuances that are lost, when communicating climate science in news articles, because I've seen a lot of people getting this wrong, pointing at pretty pictures of Antarctica with growing, but thin sheets of ice.

Actually, the paper by NASA's Jay Zwally and others concluded that Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheets exceed losses. That contradicts previous studies though (thus demonstrating, as traumadog points out, that there's no enforced orthodoxy), and the article is being criticized by other Antarctic specialists. There's a good post by one of them on RealClimate.

Scott wrote about it himself: Study concludes Antarctica is gaining ice, rather than losing it.

 

[Aedile990]

After reading the thread it appears that some people still don't understand what the Congressman is up to and why the internal discussion generally doesn't matter. So I'm going to try to provide an example.

Let's say that during the research the following discussion occurs about adding a data set of (2,1,3).
Scientist A, B, and C say we should calculate the answer like this: 1+2+3=6
Scientist D and E say no 3+2+1=6 makes more sense
Scientist F and G like 2+1+3=6 better
Scientist H likes 3+1+2=6 best

In the end 1+2+3=6 is used since it was the most supported method. Peer review approved it because they correctly performed addition.

However, the Congressman wants to read this discussion and announce to the public that the study is flawed because the majority of the scientists involved disagreed with the chosen method. Does it matter they all got the same answer? Not even a little bit. The entire point is to cast doubt based upon half truths he knows will survive because either the emails won't be generally released so everyone can verify what was discussed or people don't have the time/inclination to look it up themselves.