House Panel Holds Hearing On "Politically Driven Science" - Without Scientists

sciencehabit writes: Representative Louie Gohmert (R–TX) is worried that scientists employed by the U.S. government have been running roughshod over the rights of Americans in pursuit of their personal political goals. So this week Gohmert, the chair of the oversight and investigations subpanel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing to explore "the consequences of politically driven science." Notably absent, however, were any scientists, including those alleged to have gone astray.

Comments

I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Needs2BeSaid]

As a Republican voter, I am dismayed at those who represent the only Conservative party. They have lost their way. Although I don't think "carbon credits" will help anyone but Al Gore, I do see the need to stop polluting our water, air and land.

This whole thing reminds me of the entire "Lead in Gasoline" fight back in the 60's.

I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality. It's fairly easy to prove that we are poisoning everything.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Spy Handler]

See, this is why climate change is still such a contentious topic. You sound exactly like a religious fanatic. Anyone who does not agree with you is stupid (you said it four times in your two-sentence post). They are denialists. What you really mean is, they are heretics.

People like you living in an echo chamber might not hear this, but there are reasonable, non-Republican, not paid by Big Oil, non-stupid people out there who harbor some level of skepticism for various reasons. Not the least of which is the religious fervor with which Climate Change (nee Global Warming) believers attack their opponents.

For me personally, it was the history revision, deleting of hundreds of mentions of Medieval Warm period off of Wikipedia by climate crusaders. And the attempts to dismiss other historical records as garbage ramblings of primitive people. The Romans and the medieval monks and the Renaissance people were all stupid, right, because they didn't live in the enlightened age of computer models?

Re:sigh

[jeffmflanagan]

No, it's the insane conservatives who are so easily duped by absurd Republican propaganda. Republicans at the local level aren't any less insane than the ones in the federal government.

Purity Test

[SuperKendall]

You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego.

It's amazing how all of these pure Beings of Science can exist without any sources of funding, or motivation deriving thereof...

Oh wait.

Science if hard work for little pay

Little > 0

$500k is also > 0

I'll let you have the last response. Just thought someone should, in the name of scientific accuracy, throw actual truth into the froth.

Oh, one last truth...

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point

Only 7% of reporters are Republicans.

I would say to draw your own conclusions from that glaring fact but you already have, and you got them wrong.

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[Archangel Michael]

It is easy to say science isn't political, however it is political if you want government funding.

I want research that says X, I get my buddies in the Y party to create a funding bill for research that says X. I can create science that says X, and get more funding, therefore I say X. If I say not X, I don't get any more funding, and have to find a new job flipping hamburgers at McD's.

Science isn't political ... noooooo

Re:government science = more money gravy train

[sexconker]

So you admit that the "scientists" you know were desperately "hustling" for grant money, and were "not doing the work they were trained to do".
Your anecdote supports the AC's assertion.

One thing you guys left out

[cirby]

Most of the "politically driven science" isn't actually driven by scientists. It's driven by politicians and bureaucrats.

The scientists? Hell, they're third or fourth on the list at best.

For a quick example: DDT. Banned because of the science, right? Well... no.

The actual EPA scientists of the time pretty much said "no, DDT isn't that bad, and all of the stuff you read in that Rachel Carson book was made up from scratch." They refused to sign off on banning the stuff.

So the politically-driven "science bureaucrat" heading the EPA at the time banned it. And since it was from the EPA, it became "official science."

THAT is "politically driven science."