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?"

12 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. Skeptic is ok... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Skeptic is ok... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm an agnostic. I don't know if or how much global warming is occurring; and given the hyper-partisan rhetoric, name-calling, and various logical fallacies coming from both sides I don't think I'll know for a very long time.

      So skip the partisans and see what qualified people have to say: scientists.

      The term you use, "denier", is a perfect example and is in fact a Godwin. The term was well known for Holocaust denier and once it became appropriately stained people started using it to label skeptics of their pet ideas when they didn't want to have to actually convince anyone.

      Bullshit. If someone denies a well established fact, they're a denier. The only common bond they have with people who deny other well established facts is that they reject facts established by mountains of evidence.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Skeptic is ok... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      " but in this case knowledgeable people are divided"
      NO! they are not. It's is a fake controversy manufactured for rating and the illusion of debate. Nothing more.
      The experts in the field have consensus.

      "So basically you're saying that what you believe to be true is a "well established fact" "
      no. AGW is a well established fact.

      As the poster stated: Anyone who opposed something that has a well established facts is a denier. The ONLY exception is if you bring forth a different testable idea. At which point you see if the data fits and have actual scientific debate.

      You may have never heard the term 'denier' before the holocaust denier issue, but it has been used for other things for at least 30 years that I personally know of.
      A denier is someone who denies facts. YOU are the one that tried to connect to the holocaust. There is a logical fallacy there, you might want to look it up.

      If you want real world examples look at China. AGW harm there growth more then anyone on the country, and they say it's real. Look at the predictions, there only fault is that they are turning out to be too conservative.

      But you don't understand the literature, so you refuse to believe the community they is experts in the field.
      That makes no sense. I'ts like not understanding set theory so you refuse to accept that Cartesian product is real, and the Georg cantor was on the doll of big Maths.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Skeptic is ok... by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People keep trying to isolate climate scientists, like there's this little fraternity of 20 guys all sitting at a pub in Scotland trying to figure out what they can pull over the worlds eyes. Here's the problem. The climate impacts things. Lots of things. Things all over the place. So when a scientist at NASA who's an expert on what keeps low earth satellites up in space tells you that there is less drag on satellites today, because the upper atmosphere is colder, the compliment to global warming in the lower atmosphere, he's being a climate scientist. And when the biologist tells you that temperatures in ocean water in the tropics is killing off coral around the world she's become a climate scientist. An when the agricultural botanist tells fruit farmers that they have to change up their fertilization straightedges because spring comes 4 weeks earlier than it did 20 years ago he's become a climate scientist. So when you say climate scientist today you in fact are talking about a body of scientists whose disciplines cover hundreds of difference scientific fields including meteorology, biology and botany, oceanography, paleontology, astrophysics, geology and chemistry. This doesn't even begin to talk about the huge subdivision of these sciences, and the tens of thousands of researchers involved. This issue has been investigated, validate and corroborated from so many different angles it is now one of the better understood processes on the planet today.

      Here's the crazy part. Remove the billions of dollars worth of FUD and noise being generated by the guys who just want to keep burning carbon, who pretty much own the world as we know it today, guys who really don't appreciate anyone telling them its time to change up, and you'll find a consensus among respected scientific sources that is pretty much comparable to the certainty reserved for evolution, a round earth and relativity. The only real controversy is that people want what people want when they want it, and this is damn inconvenient.

      If you want to know why the scientists are emphatic, and angry, and loud about this, imagine being in a passenger in a car being driven at high velocity towards a cliff while the driver is busy inspecting the condition of the visor. You might get a wee bit emphatic in suggesting he just drive instead. If he continued to ignore the approaching precipice you might even get a little testy. Our government is owned and operated on the behalf of men with power. Consider this in the same category as "9 or of 10 doctors smoke XXX Brand Cigarettes." anyone who thinks the entire scientific community is falsifying research to raise more research money must therefore assume all science it just made up, pulled out of some learned man's behind like to perverse magic trick to pay for puttering around laboratories. That would be lawyers and marketing men whispering in your ears. Stop listening to the lawyers and marketing men.

  2. Re:To Be Fair, He's Replacing Texan Ralph Hall by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lamar happens to be the dickbag that keeps trying to push things like SOPA... just keep that in mind.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  3. My apologies. by game+kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  4. Re:Just vote them in to office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the house, where an insignificant little nowhere can get a ton of free crap by just electing the same person for 40 years straight thereby giving him enough seniority to gain influence, chair important committees and bring a ton of pork back to his district.

    Vote him out? It's not in the best interests of the few constituents he has. All his negatives are externalities that his constituents don't have to pay.

  5. Re:You're confused about who he's representing. by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't disagree with facts. You can be ignorant of them, but you can't disagree as they are not matters of opinion. Sometimes there are not two sides, the earth is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, the earth is billions of years old.

    At least he is replacing the "lies from the pit of hell" moron.

  6. Re:To Be Fair, He's Replacing Texan Ralph Hall by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lamar Smith is a Christian Scientist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith#Personal_life

    Christian Scientists believe that sickness and disease are the result of fear, ignorance, or sin, and should be healed through prayer or introspection.
    Christian Science is opposed to science and uses the appearance of being a science to give itself extra legitimacy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  7. Re:You're confused about who he's representing. by medcalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to account, though, for the truth that not all things claimed to be facts, particularly in politicized subjects, are actually facts. For example, temperature measurements are facts, though their accuracy can be questioned. Global temperature, though, is not a fact: it is an extraction on facts (the temperature readings) filtered through assumptions and patches (like assuming that temperature changes smoothly and uniformly between places where temperatures are measured). On top of those extrapolations, people have layered conclusions, some of which are reasonable (which does not make them facts but inferences), some of which are not. But it's pretty clear that just arguing that AGW is a fact won't get you anywhere, because the totality of what is commonly meant by that term is not a fact or set of facts, though it does include some facts, even if it later turns out to have reached a correct conclusion. "Shut up" is rarely an effective argument.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  8. Re:Just vote them in to office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lamar Smith is the Representative of the 21st Congressional district of Texas which contains parts of the Austin and San Antonio metro areas. It's also gerrymandered to hell and back, specifically designed to break up the citizens of those two metro areas.

  9. Re:To Be Fair, He's Replacing Texan Ralph Hall by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the link parent provides, Hall responds to the "ScienceInsider" interviewer with the phrase "I'm still waiting for some believable science...". Which is telling. A person tells you that a penny doubled each day for a week is $0.64, And for 2 weeks is $ 81.92, and for a month is $10,737,418.24, and he calls you a bald faced liar because its not believable. After the Challenger disaster, there were two groups of scientists at NASA. One who simply couldn't believe that the foam insulating tiles could impart enough energy to damage the wing of the space shuttle. The logic was that after you hit a Styrofoam cooler lid on the highway it explodes in a shower of beads and your cars is too strong to be bothered. The other group, the "Sliderule Engineers" simply said do the math. At the velocity this ship is traveling, the foam will impart over a ton and a half of force. So they build a mockup, built a model space shuttle wing, and fired a foam block at it with reentry velocity. It nearly tore the wing in half. Science doesn't care what you believe in. God maybe cares. Physics not so much. This is the profound stupidity of putting people in key decision making positions about the future of science in this country who ignore facts that don't mix well with their beliefs or vested interests. Sadly, their ignorance is paid for by American and nonAmericans alike everywhere.