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."
Based solely on the editorial, it looks like in this case it is more the latter than the former. But we don't know the whole picture. In fact that one-sided editorial is an excellent example of bias; nowhere does it even outline the Chairman's view.
It comes down to an interesting question. If personal and professional finances are off-limits, how else can politicians determine whether a complex statistical report has been "paid for" by an interested party?
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
Many scientists and some of Mr. Barton's Republican colleagues say they were stunned by the manner in which the committee, whose chairman rejects the existence of climate change, demanded personal and private information last month from researchers whose work supports a contrary conclusion.
I was lucky to recently attend Al Gore's presentation on Global Climate Change. While I don't care about Global Warming at all (I see it as an eventual end of society and part of the Earth's history) but I did find that Al Gore's excellent multimedia presentation to be full of the very evidence that proves Global Climate Change is occurring and increasing in speed.
Why are these leaders creating issues for scientists unless they are trying to strongarm them? Were they seriously thinking that this data was created from false research? Antarctica is losing large slabs of ice at an alarming rate but it has nothing to do w/temperatures rising?
Again, Global Warming is something that's going to happen and it's inevitable, but we don't need to be harassing science because our political survival depends on it.
I know, I know, the liberal scientists will probably talk about hot-air and inflammatory rhetoric causing electoral heating. Some say that if we don't curb emissions like this one, we may have an increase in heated opinions, leading to an increase in Republicans. Many blame the continued use of fossil fools for this problem.
But there's little evidence to show this. For one, Michael Crichton says these governments are purely cyclical. Over time, you get Republican Administrations, then Democrat Administrations, then Republican again. Apparently there's a wealth of historical evidence to show this fact.
Then there's the so-called scientists and how their theories change. According to many back in 2004, we were supposed to get a Democratic administration! Now they're saying we're having Republicans. Why should we believe them now?
Anyway, if Joe Barton can discredit the notion that human beings have anything to do with Republicanism, and he's doing a fine job right now let me tell you, I think this will be a great thing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
While we're at it, let's make ole Joe's real financial backings public. Nothing to hide, right?
"Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger."
Professional debatists and philosophers have a term for that: ad hominem attacks.
Indeed, due to the declining education standards in most of the Western world, many younger people are not aware of such a concept. That is why those politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, who resort to the use of such logical fallacies are not held responsible for their faulty debatery.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
For a different perspective on the same news:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=274#more-274/
The head of the Energy Committee is asking for the source code for the statistical calculations that "prove" we're experiencing global warming. Code that was developed with US Government money.
No more than an open source advocate would expect.
The source has now been released.
You don't understand the concept of "fair and balanced." It means that for every person who expresses an accepted and scientifically justifiable opinion, you give equal or greater weight to selected whackos who disagree.
Then, once it becomes accepted that there is "no consensus" you split the difference, and find some even more extreme whackos to skew the "middle ground" even further. Eventually those with well-considered opinion are completely marginalized.
An honest scientist cannot win in this environment, because he or she is not willing to take ever-more-extreme positions to maintain "balance".
So your theory is that there is some nefarious secret ultra rich organization that loves the earth so much that they are bribing scientists to alter their studies in favor of environmentalism.
That would be really great but I doubt it.
BTW scientists are trained to describe their studies in detail and ensure they are repeatable. The way to check a scientist's veracity is to repeat the study and see if you come up with the same results.
Of course he's got nothing to hide...
*cough,cough*
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Imagine my shock when I learned that a Congressman from Dallas, Texas would be trying to stifle information on global warming. I don't think Joe's Arlington district includes Irving, Texas but its right next door.
What's in Irving, why the headquarters of Exxon Mobile, one of the corporations most rabidly fighting any suggestion their products might be wrecking the climate. I doubt you are going to find many politicians from Texas, including the President, who are going to give global warming a fair hearing if they value there political careers and their power base in Texas.
Exxon is the one who hired Philip Cooney, Bush's chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality the day after he quit amid controversy. The irony of a former and now once again oil man heading anything on enviromental quality. He resigned when it was exposed that he had been repeatedly altering, or maybe doctoring is a better word, government reports on global warming to downplay it, to suppress data showing it might be happening and that burning fossil fuels might be contributing to it.
@de_machina
Top contributors
Any questions?
The paper was published in the Nature magazine. It doesnot matter who funded the studies, it has been peer reviewed and the results agreed upon by a majority of the author's peers who know the subject matter best.
Passing publication review is important. But it is not meant to be a judgement about the correctness of the paper's results -- instead, it is about whether the paper ought to be published or not.
In science, the only real test is reproducibility.
For example, the paper "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter" [1] passed peer review, as it should have. But its results could not be reproduced reliably, so as of this moment its authors' conclusions are considered to be (at best) flawed.
Or for another example, take pentaquarks. Some experiments claim to have unambiguous evidence of their creation in certain production channels. Other experiments claim to unambgiously show that they are not produced in similar -- often, nearly identical -- production channels.
The research on pentaquarks, from both sides, is quality work and certainly worthy of publication. But it is almost certain that someone's experimental methodology is flawed. So the status of pentaquarks remains controversial, as it should.
The ultimate scientific test is to continue trying to reproduce results with improved methods, and to see what nature tells us. This is the essence of peer review.
Publication review is an important part of this mechanism, but it is only one part of the entire cycle of peer review.
[1] S.E. Jones et al., "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (1989).
The scientists responses. They gave him all he wanted and then some. I don't think he was expecting the answer he got and probably wishes he hadn't asked it now.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Sorry, scientific journal articles are not written for your "fifth-grade" audience. You see, scientists are actually educated and communicate with each other in English using words that have precise meanings. Furthermore, the abstract is supposed to present an overview not elucidate the details. Read the actual article if you care, retard. But that would actually require that you absorb some complicated information and understand it before you rattle your jaw, which is anathema to most of you Republicans.
Furthermore, asking for computer codes is ABSOLUTELY NOT out of line. In fact, there is a small controversy regarding the stability of the SVD routine used to process the data in this paper. All of this has been published and is part of the scientific literature and ongoing research.
Amazing that you would think that this is the same thing. The congressman is not interested in just these 3 scientists. He has been shown to be after anybody who has said that we are in a global warming esp. if they state that it is caused by man.
Basically, we are looking at an inquisition. We have them every so often. The catholics (and most Christians) had theirs against science.
We had it during the 50's with the red scare. And yet, we do not learn our lessons. So, as was muttered "And yet, it moves"
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Some main points that don't seem to have come out so far in the Slashdot discussion so far are that
Anyway, follow the link and read what the main scientific institutions think of this episode before you come to your own conclusions please.
Also, if you don't mind signing in, see the recent editorial in the New York Times. It includes the following:
mt
You will see that what was requested was:
That is not personal financial information - that is information that bears directly on his disclosure responsibilities. NSF grants require disclosure of the resultant products (data and algorithms). Asking about funding serves to establish what disclosure obligations result.
looking at this and all the other similar articles i wonder if US can still be refferred to as the "land of the free"....
Not with a straight face.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
So what exactly do you put your faith in? Religion? I'll take science any day of the week. Scientists findings are peer reviewed, scrutinized, and sometimes even found flawed. That's ok though because that is how the process works. Science gives us the best possible picture of the world that we have at our disposal. Anything else is just guessing.
What makes no sense to me is that global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists in the world. Only a few crack pot scientists debate it, well, a few crack pot scientists and and few crack pot politicians.
Time makes more converts than reason