Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Seeks Scientists' Personal Data
jfengel writes "The Washington Post reports that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) has requested raw data and personal financial information on three scientists who published a paper which claimed that temperatures rose precipitously in the 20th century. Colleagues (including other Republicans) are calling the investigation 'misguided and illegitimate.' Barton has long been an opponent of government action on global warming."
Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger.
If it's good enough for Karl Rove, it should be good enough for you, too.
The Republicans didn't come to govern, they came to rule.
Is it really "harassment" to ask for the sources of funding for a research project?
Badass Resumes
Which is why most conclusions from these sciences are technically still theories. Ever heard the phrase "Law of Evolution"? Nope, it's still "Theory of Evolution". Geological Theory. Archaeological Theory. Big Bang Theory.
Theory = not reproduced enough to be called a Law or Fact.
A certain amount of confirmed observation is necessary to push a conclusion up to "theory" level, also. For example, I doubt anybody would say that, oh, the earth is round without a certain amount of data to back that up. (if the earth is flat, why do ships dissapear over the horizon?)
Senator Joe McCarthy may have been a loon, but there was a very serious problem with Communist infiltration of the federal government, and other governments in the West. Many leftists like to portray the whole thing as an unfounded witch hunt, with themselves as the innocent victims. The truth is more complex. See Joe McCarthy was Right.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
American global power is invested strongly in her Corporations. Republicans allow these corporations to grow stronger which makes America grow stronger. This is on the backs of American citizens, but nevertheless, still USA is stronger (internationally).
Disagree here. Without strong corporations, forget about cheap raw materials and energy from the 3rd world. Prepare to pay more for damn near everything.
Those poor fellas in the 3rd world are the ones who are getting the shaft.
No they're not. They're observations of fact. Seriously, though, "ad hominem" is not just fancy talk for "insult." An ad hominem is when you say something like "The flaw in Rush Limbaugh's argument against welfare is that he's a fat drug addict" instead of addressing the argument directly.
I've heard more venom against Bush then I ever heard against Clinton.
You must have been living in a cave through most of the 90s.
I quite agree with this, but just so that the debate is not one-sided, here's a counter-argument with which I agree just as much:
A research triumph is easier to achieve than it may seem, because the researchers who do the work also do most of the reporting.
--Nick Tredennick and Brion Shimamoto, "Mercy, Mercy, Merced," Microprocessor Report," v. 13, i. 12, Sept. 13, 1999.
While politicians (CEOs, actors, lawyers, judges,...) are scrutinized by journalists on every move they make, most researchers can get away with sub-standard work, or even white lies with a bunch of bad anonymous reviews, which often do not prevent their work from getting published.