Slashdot Mirror
Lamar Smith, Future Chairman For the House Committee On Science, Space, and Tech
An anonymous reader writes "Lamar Smith, a global warming skeptic, will become the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
Please vote them in to office.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
Hall's opposition was even more pronounced. One could even say that by appointing Lamar Smith, who only attacked "one sided coverage" (vs the 88 year old Hall's direct attack on the science), that Texas may be slowly warming up to the idea... http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html
Gently reply
If he were merely a skeptic, that's ok; a skeptic is a person who's willing to look at the data and see what they say.
However, far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all, but global-warming deniers: they don't care what the data is, and aren't really interested in learning. They're not really skeptical, because they already have their conclusion, and are only interested in arguments that support it.
To quote S. Fred Singer, "The deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.
People like this are the reason that scientists need to be very careful to present their data in an unbiased fashion. The temptation to show "simple" or "clear" data that supports something they are sure is true needs to be resisted. Any evidence that the scientists are in any way biasing their data can be used politically to discredit the entire field.
Define "vast majority of scientists"
If you want someone who understands science better, then someone like Roscoe Bartlett should not have been voted out of office, given the fact that he holds a PhD is physiology and is a former NASA engineer. Stop voting for politicians, vote for people with real world experience and technical knowledge. Get rid of the lawyers and elect doctors and scientists.
sudo make me a sandwich
To all of Slashdot's out-of-US readers: On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for this event. I do not live in Smith's Congressional district; nor would I have dare voted that anti-freedom, anti-technology SOPA author and professional monster to Congress (let alone this apparently influential committee position) if I did.
Smith has left great bruises on the certainty of a free internet and will now leave a great and lasting scar on Science and the Useful Arts. He will not endanger the science of "climate change" or "global warming", he will endanger knowledge itself.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
When more scientists step up and become congresscritters of course. Until then....
It looks like the GOP doesn't think they have done a thorough enough job of convincing us that they have all either sold out or lost their freaking minds. Or both.
The real reason for pushback against the global warmist 'consensus' is that it is frankly both scientific and political. It starts with observations of global climate, and ends up with the undeniable and unquestionable conclusion that First-World governments must do whatever it takes to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in their countries. The entire chain of reasoning from observation to required government policy has been so sanctified that any one who questions or doubts even the tiniest aspect of it is labeled a "denier", implying that they are just as bad or worse than those who deny the Holucaust.
It's very puzzling that scientist's predictions of how an imperfectly-understood chaotic system will behave in the future, and recommendations for one particular policy approach to dealing with it, have achieved the inerrant status of Holy Writ, so that those who question any aspect of it must be burned at the stake.
He's a politician. He'll sabotage whatever he's paid most to sabotage. It's not unique to Lamar (who is a jackoff in his own right)... it's how politicians work. Make no bones about it, even if he was a proponent of sending all the Oil companies into space and using nothing but solar power, he'll STILL go to the highest bidder.
In other words.. this is MOTS... regardless of party... Anyone who's been awake for the last 4 years can realize now that there isn't a two party system anymore in the US.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
No, the Mexican government would have prevented this. In Mexico the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, elects 3/5th of its members by district and 2/5th by proportional representation. Proportional representation puts a wrench in the gerrymandering machine. By contrast, in the US we would have to have a 5% greater Democratic vote than Republican vote just to get parity in the House due to a phenomenal level of gerrymandering (which the Supreme Court says is perfectly legal even outside of the census as long as there is no obvious attempt to define districts to disenfranchise people based on race). Unfortunately, the people only voted for Democrats by 0.5% more than Republicans, resulting in the Republicans having 33 more seats than the Democrats.
Yeah, Mesopotamian creation myths showed a flat Earth. So what? They were operating with a very different belief system than modern empiricism, or even post Pythagorean logic. Is that what you want to make decisions with? Divine inspiration from Enki?
That's the only way you are going to get to the idea of a flat Earth.
FACT: Anyone who can do basic geometry can prove the Earth is not flat. Pythagoras knew it 2500 years ago.
Likewise with global warming. It's a FACT that the Earth is getting warmer. Sea levels all over the world are going up. There is no possible explanation for it other than the average temperature is increasing unless you believe some magic sky daddy is creating water to trick us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png
Now the data for anthropogenic global warming is slightly less compelling, but none the less it is compelling. If you don't want to accept it, fine. But I betcha that you are going to look like a complete boob some time in the future.
Sorry, but conspiracy theories are complete horseshit. It's EXACTLY the same logical fallacy that led Republicans to believe they were going to win the election (left wing media controls the polls and they are manipulating the results).
Let me guess. You thought Romney was going to win, didn't you?
You have a religious interpretation of a scientific issue. Science doesn't matter how he "feels" or what he "believes". They are orthogonal.
All that matters is what he plans to do. I think he's planning to do the right thing, with right thing defined as causing the least overall human suffering.
I really don't care which sky god told him to do it, or what jumbled up mystery bounces around inside his head. Just continue to do the right thing and I'm happy.
It would be "nice" if he was in the community of the rational, but I'll take "doin the right thing" over that any day as a pragmatic outlook.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Right.
This is why he was elected. Well that and gerrymandering, but this is the job his constituents (the republican party and Fox news) chose him to do. To oppose these 'false elitist scientists' or however you want to phrase it.
In 2010 'Merican voters handed gerrymandering majorities to Republicans, this is what they did with it. We're complaining because this is what he publicly stood for before coming into office. That's what he believes, that's what he was elected to do. For all of the many faults of republicans the Tea Party has made them actually stand for the things they say they stand for. They might be ignorant fools, but at least they aren't liars (or at least not lying about the policies they are going to vote for). I guess thats supposed to be an improvement.
"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it.".
Heresy is an interesting concept. Maybe I've not been around the right people, but the only people I've seen to cry heresy are the anti-global-warming folks. Most of the pro folks tend to quote facts and studies, while the anti folks say things like "I've seen that weather changes, so therefore, though I've never studied it I am pretty sure that all of the people who *have* studied it are wrong." Now to me that sounds an awful lot like Copernicus being accused of heresy because he tried to use evidence to convince people of something they knew nothing about but desperately wanted to be wrong.
You should question scientists. That is good. That is science. But if you walk up to someone who has spent their life studying something and accuse them of being wrong with no facts to back you up, you are not questioning. You are denying. And that's why nobody takes you seriously. It's not an question of heresy and orthodoxy, it's a question of making up your mind without going through that tedious fact-collecting step.
They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And you, sir, are no Einstein.
If you're too stupid to get that there can still be SIGNAL of anthropegenic global warming in the NOISE of random CLIMATE VARIATION, you don't belong on slashdot. Go argue on a reality TV show fan site or something. J@sus!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The ones writing scientific articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals.
You know, the ones who have spent 10 years post-secondary science education studying the details of the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans to the level of accepted PhD thesis, then gone on to do say 5-years post-doctoral research in a relevant specialty, then conducted accepted peer-reviewed research in these fields for years or decades.
Those ones. Especially the ones that have no funding associations with the fossil fuel industry.
If you seriously have no clue as to how to evaluate the credibility of sources of information, you're in a deep morass of ignorant hurt.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
To all of you, who say great, got a man in a position to ignore Global Warming, I have to ask you. Do you think that's all NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS do? Have you even the faintest, vaguest idea how important the work of these organizations are to our day to day life, not to mention the critical future of our nation competing with other nations on maintain some miniscule hint of technological leadership in the rest of this century. Have you any idea what kind of damage a Luddite at the helm of our scientific organization can do you our economic viability or the development of our youth as scientists and engineers in a future which is going to DEMAND technological aptitude.
And you BOZOs applaud? Apparently Nero fiddling while ROME burned wasn't such a bizarre thing after all.
I met this guy once in a real meeting with genuine conversation. He's actually very bright. He went to Yale for instance. I know that's no guarantee you haven't been infected with some ideology virus, but ask yourself: if you had been to Yale and wanted a lot of red meat eating, capital punishment cheering, cousin marrying Texans to send you to Congress, what sort of stuff would you have to say in public? I really think that thought is at the bottom of a lot of his stuff. I think that he'll be okay as long as the spotlight isn't too bright. We just won't see a lot of progressive science leadership from him.
Q: When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"
A: when hell freezes over
The US is a nation of dopes. We get the government we deserve, the one we are dumb enough to vote for.