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

Scientifically driven politics

[Tony Isaac]

This gives me an idea...

Let's hold a hearing on scientifically driven politics, and don't invite the politicians!

Better still, let's just leave out the politicians altogether. Only problem is, then suddenly scientists would become politicians.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[Opportunist]

You mean sanity and logic in politics? Laws that make sense and are rooted in reality instead of panic?

No, we can't have that! That could be sensible, and we can't have that in our legislative.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[minstrelmike]

You mean sanity and logic in politics? Laws that make sense and are rooted in reality instead of panic?

No, we can't have that! That could be sensible, and we can't have that in our legislative.

Not in a democracy, that's for damn sure. And I'm not being sarcastic.

We like choosing our government policy the same way we choose Top 40 hits or internet memes--purely by the popularity of personal preference. It's my right to vote for people who say good government can be done for free.

It's the same reason our American government prefers to support dictators. You can rely on them better than you can rely on the fickle desires of the general population. Governing is difficult because these are not bullshit issues. It seems to be part of the essential biology of human civilization.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[captnjohnny1618]

Actually, it makes sense.

If you were to hold a hearing on Police Abuse and its effect on the minority community, which you feel compelled to invite the Police to speak?

... Yes? Of course? Why in the hell would you not? Does an accused criminal not have the chance to defend themselves? Do you not want to fully understand the situation? (These days scientists are practically treated as criminals by some politicians).

Also invited to your party would the the minority community, experts in the field (sociologists, public health officials, other people who study this type of phenomenon) and anyone who would help provide a complete and thorough picture of the situation. Of course, I highly doubt that many of our politicians are intelligent enough to really hear all of these different facts and opinions, ignore their own biases, and make an informed decision for the good of the population, but that's a different issue.

If I've misunderstood what you were saying, what were you going for?

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[captnjohnny1618]

I honestly think scientists as politicians wouldn't be so bad.

Almost all of us would be so sick of the bullshit after a term or two would wouldn't try to get reelected. We'd actually like to return to a field where you can get something done and make forward progress.

It's all the assholes who spend 90% of the time in office pandering to their voter base and just trying to undo what the other guys did that are causing half of our problems.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[meglon]

Because you do not understand how bad the legislation that "would mandate that public policy be based on publicly available Science" is does not make this ironic... it simply makes you ignorant.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[AdamThor]

So the politician is worried that the scientists are so politically motivated that they can't do good science?

Here, an apt quote from the Bible:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[CrimsonAvenger]

The lack of scientists at this hearing would be of interest if the last time the House had a meeting about drug laws they had invited drug dealers. Or drug users.

Note, by the by, that the real reason no scientists were invited is that scientists don't contribute meaningful amounts to reelection campaigns....

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[HornWumpus]

Campus politics is the dirtiest and most underhanded. Because if you lose you have no cushy job to land on.

If you fail at campus politics you land at a Jr college, or worse high school.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[Rockoon]

"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." - President Dwight D Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961

Everyone remembers his points about the military industrial complex, but amazingly they forget his points about what he called the scientific-technological elite that he made in the very same speech.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[reve_etrange]

I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data.

This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[MightyMartian]

Yes, politicians and voters imagine themselves to be Canute, without understanding the moral of the story.

The real moral, of course, is that the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Congress, democracy, the GOP, the Democrats or the economy. It obeys specific laws that humans can harness and manipulate, but not change. Blaming scientists because some of their theories make people uncomfortable or because they challenge ideological, economic or political models is a pointless, futile exercise. The laws of physics owe humanity no favors.

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[aynoknman]

Yes, politicians and voters imagine themselves to be Canute, without understanding the moral of the story.

Canute has received an undeserved bad reputation.

He went to the seaside and ordered the tide to stop coming in. It didn't stop. However, he wasn't illustrating foolish hubris. He was tired of people in his court coming and asking him to make proclamations that weren't going to work. He really was saying "Look I'm only human and my decrees can't accomplish the impossible."

Re:Scientifically driven politics

[golodh]

@Sycodon

It's ironic that Slashdot is objecting to these hearings yet at the same time seemingly against legislation that would mandate that public policy be based on publicly available Science.

I don't think so. Mandating public policy to be based on publicly available science would for example end all and any teachings of "creationism" in schools.

It would also end faith-based politics like "trickle-down tax exemptions", facilities that allow companies to use overseas subsidiaries as tax shelters, H-1B visa (there's no evidence that these jobs can't be adequately filled by natives), spurious copyright extensions (like the one enacted to save mickey mouse from entering the public domain), viewing corporations as "persons" in a number of ways, allowing employers to curtail medical expenses (like abortions) based on "faith-based considerations", and all attempts to loosen or reverse a complete separation between church and state, and it would prevent e.g. the US military from preparing for effects conflicts that (demonstrably and indisputably) have their roots in global climate change.

In other words ... it would run into widespread and ferocious opposition from corporations, religionists, and conservatives as soon as those good people realised what it actually entailed.

Of course I understand that. What those congregationists actually *meant* is that people going on about environmental damage due to conventional drilling, fracking, unrestricted logging, GMO's, bans on insane amounts of antibiotics being used in hog-farming and chicken farming, and other man-made catastrophes should be held to much much higher levels of proof than are needed for scientific consensus.

They should instead be held to the level of proof that you'd get from exhaustive 50-year contrast studies to deal with all industry-sponsored "studies" casting doubt on anything from basic statistics, data-collection, modeling, personal motivation of the personnel involved, representativity, and explanation of any number of far-fetched and shady counter-examples to the general conclusions being reached. By which time the issues have become moot anyway, and profits from irresponsible behaviour have been safely pocketed and are protected by they occurred before there was any law against whatever abuse they were derived from.

Since Slashdot is at least somewhat representative of the US population, consequences like this are going to find few takers. So there's your answer: it isn't ironic, it's a fact of life.

Politically Driven Mansplanation

[Austerity Empowers]

Let me tell y'all how this works, see. What goes up? It must come down. If factries sending it up? It comes down out in the ocean. Oceans make up 75% of the earth, right? Factries can't be doin nothin bad to all that, see? If so factries would need 75% of the earth's stuff to compete with all that water!

Now these here pencil necks keep talkin like they got sumpin ta say, confusing everyone and upsetting them over greenhouses and what not. But this has got to stop, my lil girl won't quit cryin over dead polar bears! I keeps sayin' "Polar bears ain't dyin, we got some in the zoo", but she won't stop cryin' and I can't take it anymore.

it's all politics

[turkeydance]

but it's not all science.

Not the point

[Nidi62]

Why would they invite scientists to this panel? That's not what these are for. THe whole point of panels/investigations/committees is for those sitting on them to make public statements about whatever the issue is. If they even bring people in the Senators/Reps hardly ever ask questions, they use their floor time to read prepared statements or make comments. When they say "Senate Panel on X", it doesn't mean they are going to be asking experts about X. It just means you can expect soundbites about X from the politicians to be played back or reported on in their home districts.

Is anyone really surprised?

[plopez]

These next 2 years are going to be a nightmare of politically driven witch hunts against Science. They are also working to cut the NASA climate research budget; and I expect cuts in similar research done through DoD, USDA, National Science Foundation and others.

I can also see them killing off alternative energy programs, even research by the military so they can get more money from the Koch brothers and friends. Even though the military and intelligence communities have flagged climate change as a major security threat to the US, and the military would like to get away from oil based fuels as they were a major vulnerability in Afghanistan. Fuel convoys kept getting attacked.

They will do anything to line their pockets and torment those who do not conform to their dead of the norm.

Re:Is anyone really surprised?

[ClickOnThis]

NASA is about flight/space, not about earth science

NASA's mission-statement used to include earth science (in the context of aeronautical and space platforms.) That changed in February 2006, during the Bush administration.

Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[rockmuelle]

Growing up in the 80s, all I heard was how liberal the media was and how we had to fight against it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point that they repeated ad infinitum until people stopped questioning it and just assumed it was true.

The same thing is happening now with claiming scientists are politically or monetarily motivated (the conservative machine hasn't settled on which script to stick with).

Look, I'm a scientist. I know scientists. I know scientists at NOAA, NCAR, NIST, the Labs, in academia, in industry, at biotechs, at agri-science companies, at space exploration companies, and at oil and gas companies. I know conservative scientists, liberal scientists, agnostic scientists, religious scientists, and hedonistic scientists.

You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego. If someone doesn't love science, there's no way they can cut it as a scientist. There are no political or monetary rewards available to scientists in the same way they're available to lawyers and lobbyists.

Science if hard work for little pay and possibly some recognition. Unfortunately, the conservative noise machine is slowly building a narrative that scientists are all politically and monetarily motivated. The public doesn't really know any better and will believe this to be true if they hear it enough.

This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.

-Chris

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[GerryGilmore]

It's even worse than that. It's one thing to demonize political groups for political gains - that's how the game is played, sadly. However, when you then take the same level of hypocrisy, bumper-sticker-thinking, and plain old crazy, paranoid delusion and apply it to science, then that's taking things jusy way too far. Of course, these boneheads have been repeating this stuff to each other for so long, they really do believe it! Now *that* is some scary shit!

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[Jason Levine]

There's also the "intellectual elite" term that's bandied about.

How dare those climatologists tell us what is going on with the Earth's climate! They think they're so smart because they studied climate systems for years, can make a model of the entire Earth's climate system, and can compare its predictions against past and current data points. Well, why should those "intellectual elite" climatologists get to say what's going on with the Earth's climate? I stepped outside the other day and it was chilly so that disproves all climate change. Also, my computer professional said not to reply to spam but clearly I know better that that intellectual elite so I'll be getting that Nigerian princes treasures after I wire them this money.

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[Anonymous Coward]

This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.

It's actually a welcome and necessary step towards outlawing all science and removing all scientists from society.
There simply can be no room for these secular infidels in a God fearing nation that values God.

Remember your Bible people: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live -- Exodus 22:18 KJV

And what is a "scientist" but a modern form of witch or sorcerer? Conjuring up "particles" from thin air?!? Creating magical "cures" that remove the afflictions God almighty places upon sinners? Pure Devilry!

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[argStyopa]

I'd only add one point further: as much as Ike's prescient warning about the military-industrial complex is quoted ad nauseum, what is much less-often quoted is his comments immediately following that bit...

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[riverat1]

Growing up in the 80s, all I heard was how liberal the media was and how we had to fight against it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point that they repeated ad infinitum until people stopped questioning it and just assumed it was true.

The same thing is happening now with claiming scientists are politically or monetarily motivated (the conservative machine hasn't settled on which script to stick with).

Look, I'm a scientist. I know scientists. I know scientists at NOAA, NCAR, NIST, the Labs, in academia, in industry, at biotechs, at agri-science companies, at space exploration companies, and at oil and gas companies. I know conservative scientists, liberal scientists, agnostic scientists, religious scientists, and hedonistic scientists.

You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego. If someone doesn't love science, there's no way they can cut it as a scientist. There are no political or monetary rewards available to scientists in the same way they're available to lawyers and lobbyists.

Science if hard work for little pay and possibly some recognition. Unfortunately, the conservative noise machine is slowly building a narrative that scientists are all politically and monetarily motivated. The public doesn't really know any better and will believe this to be true if they hear it enough.

This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.

-Chris

Victor Venema on his blog Variable Variability has a post on the House Science Committee's gutting of NASA's earth sciences programs. In it he wrote this (my emphasis):

Science is a free market of ideas. Like the free market uses distributed information on how to efficiently organize an economy, science is highly distributed and cannot be controlled from the top. Every researcher is a small entrepreneur, trying to search for problems that are interesting and solvable. Science is organized in small groups. If your group does not function, you'd better get out before your reputation and publication record suffer. Multiple such groups are at one university or research institute. In one country you will find many universities and institutes. All these groups in many countries are all competing and collaborating with each other. Competing for the best ideas, because it is fun and get more possibilities to do research. The currency is reputation.

Most scientists don't care that much about money. It is just a means to the end of doing more and better science. If they really cared about money that much they'd be working in finance or something like that. Assuming most scientists are in it for the money probably says more about your motivations being projected on them than anything else.

Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media"

[davydagger]

I fucking hate it when some doosh politician, lawyer, or communications major type keeps bringing up how profit motive makes everyone tick.

They've basicly projected their own greed and psychopathic tendencies on everyone else.

Re:sigh

[Needs2BeSaid]

... the giant, over funded, Federal Government.

Tit for tat

[tverbeek]

I encourage scientists* to follow up with studies of politically-driven politics. Without involving any politicians, of course.

*Social scientists, I suppose, but that's better than nothing ;)

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Needs2BeSaid]

Nice spin.... how about this: Since there are so many people who do deny it, why not take a different approach that would accomplish the same thing without making Al Gore even more wealthy?

The demonization of intelectuals

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Is an old, old, old page out of the tyranny handbook.

Re:The demonization of intelectuals

[ClickOnThis]

This.

The obvious examples from history are of course extreme, but worth noting: the excesses of Stalin, the purges of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the prosecution of scientists (and others) by the Inquisition, and so on.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Needs2BeSaid]

Easy, take them out to the Pacific ocean and show them the garbage continent that's been growing there for decades. Push "pollution control" instead of "climate change". You will accomplish the same thing.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[jeffmflanagan]

Because we can't pander to stupid people who have internalized Republican nonsense. Should we back down every time someone has a stupid belief just because Republicans cherish stupid beliefs?

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Jason Levine]

I think his point is that the Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of. Liberals say climate change is real and we've got to combat it? Well, obviously, it is false and we need to investigate anyone who says it is true. You've got to wonder if Obama released a statement that read "I like puppies. They're cute.", how quickly would Republicans line up to declare that puppies are evil spawns of Satan and real Americans own cats, not dogs.

The problem with stating that liberals should stop pushing fighting against climate change - targeting clean air/water instead - in the hopes that the Republicans would drop their objections and things would get done is that the Republicans in power have a lot invested in "things are good as-is." Plus, once liberals start decrying polluted air/water, the Republican leadership would reflexively declare all water/air to be 100% clean and would cut EPA funding to match their declaration.

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[Archangel Michael]

The IRS is politically motivated, which is why the likes of Lois Learner are the ones protected by the AG office from any sort of investigation.

1) I heard about it first on the news
2) I am angry and will get to the bottom of this!
3) Not a Smidgeon of evidence (no investigation either looking for said evidence)
4) Nothing but a Phony scandal
5) Old news.
6) ???
7) Profit!

My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it. Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt, and saying X side is more corrupt than Y, is oversimplification (and not true)

Re:sigh

[Archangel Michael]

Its not the X party, it is the Y party (where X and Y are the two major parties, and interchangeable)

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[danbob999]

What different approach? I don't care about Al Gore and fail to see why you even bring him to this thread. However I expect people investing in renewable resources/energy to make money as we fight climate change, and I don't see what's wrong with it.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[An Ominous Coward]

Liberals wanted hard limits on CO2 emissions, no exceptions. Credits were a conservative-proposed, market-based alternative. Liberals weren't that fond of the idea--allowing swaps makes it more difficult to pinpoint violations and takes longer to hit the desired total CO2 decreases--but it had bipartisan support so could actually be enacted, and would make a measurable improvement. So we agreed that it was an acceptable compromise. At which point conservative politicians and their owners and media outlets howled that CO2 credits were the worst socialist plot since Red October, and the goalpost shifted again.

Re:government science = more money gravy train

[Anonymous Meoward]

There's no nice way to put this: You are totally fucking stupid.

You have no idea how much dedicated scientists get paid (damn little, especially when you consider the education required to become one). Or how much actual work is involved (a huge amount, one that only someone truly dedicated to their field could ever possibly tolerate).

I know this because I came extremely close to heading back to grad school for a Ph.D., and I would have taken an 85% pay cut for the privilege (for a minimum of four years). And those I know who did take the plunge, got the three letters, endured the low-paying post-doc fellowship, and managed to latch onto an associate professorship.. got very tired very quickly. Tired of hustling for whatever precious grant money they could, and not doing the work they were trained to do, and left academia altogether.

So, Sparky, I would strongly recommend turning off Fox News, leaving your trailer, and enjoying some fresh air.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[mjm1231]

When greater than 95% of experts agree, trying to turn it into a liberal/conservative position is spin.

That said, defining the problem should not dictate the solution, any more than disagreeing with a proposed solution should be just cause for denying the problem.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[oh_my_080980980]

You do realize Republican oppose the Clean Water Act and oppose any regulation by the EPA.

Riding Rough Shot....

[oh_my_080980980]

Really? Remind me again who apologized to BP after the worst oil disaster in history.

Hey Louie!

[AndyKron]

Hey Louie, you mean like trying to get government to force biology teachers to teach creationism? Is that what you mean by politically driven science?

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[Archangel Michael]

Oh, one side always thinks the other side is worse. Actually, both sides think that way. And that is how you know you're on one side or the other side.

Here is my question, which is worse? Deleting 18.5 minutes of audio recordings or erasing an entire email server used by the Secretary of State for Official Purposes?

Both are equally wrong. For the same reasons. One guy had to resign in shame, the other is running for president and proud of her accomplishments. Which side is worse? Meh, I can't hardly tell them apart.

First Among Equals

[PopeRatzo]

In a deliberative body that's chock-full of dumb sonsabitches, Louis Gohmert stands head and shoulders above them all.

Here's my favorite Louis Gohmert quote.

On gays in the military:

"I’ve had people say, ‘Hey, you know, there’s nothing wrong with gays in the military. Look at the Greeks. Well, you know, they did have people come along who they loved that was the same sex and would give them massages before they went into battle. But you know what, it’s a different kind of fighting, it’s a different kind of war and if you’re sitting around getting massages all day ready to go into a big, planned battle, then you’re not going to last very long. It’s guerrilla fighting. You are going to be ultimately vulnerable to terrorism and if that’s what you start doing in the military like the Greeks did as people have said, ‘Louie, you have got to understand, you don’t even know your history.’ Oh yes I do. I know exactly. It’s not a good idea."

Want another?

Regarding caribou and the oil pipeline:

"So when caribou want to go on a date, they invite each other to head over to the pipeline. ... So my real concern now is if oil stops running through the pipeline ... do we need a study to see how adversely the caribou would be affected if that warm oil ever quit flowing?"

Re:First Among Equals

[Fire_Wraith]

Gohmert reminds me of a certain quote from GLaDOS:

"He's not just a regular moron. He's the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the dumbest moron who ever lived."

As they should...

[vanyel]

Politically driven "science" is what Republicans excel at, so investigating themselves is exactly what they *should* be doing.

Save the GOP; Save the Elephants

[wcrowe]

I'm still registered as a Republican and I agree with this. Many years ago, when my daughter was little, I remember her picking up a discarded coke can and placing it in a trash bin at the park. A young man standing nearby said, in the kind of patronizing voice that some people use with children, "Yes, people should learn to recycle." I responded, "I would settle for them just throwning away their trash properly." My point being, that teaching recycling while people are just tossing trash around is putting the cart before the horse. Twenty years down the road, and the situation is worse than ever. I have actually witnessed people just open their car window and toss out the McDonald's bag without even slowing down. How can you expect people to understand something as complex as global warming when you can't even get them to put their garbage in the trash can?

Maybe a good start is to show Republicans that their vaunted mascot for their party, the elephant, is going extinct. They might deny global warming, but it's pretty hard for them to deny the fact that elephants are disappearing from the planet, mainly due to people. Maybe we could get them to see the disappearance of the elephants as a harbinger of their own loss of popularity. Perhaps if we could get the GOP to save their pachyderms, they could learn something important in the process.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Yunzil]

It's fairly easy to prove that we are poisoning everything.

Except this doesn't matter. There are people who think that since Jesus is coming back any day now anyway, working to save the environment is pointless.

Yeah, sounds about right...

[sirwired]

"Notably absent, however, were any scientists"

Sounds like the GOP's ideal version of "science" these days... the climate, abortion, you name it, they'll substitute Moms, Businessmen, and the Clearly Insane for actual scientists in any science discussion.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[quantaman]

Nice spin.... how about this: Since there are so many people who do deny it, why not take a different approach that would accomplish the same thing without making Al Gore even more wealthy?

I don't see what Al Gore has to do with it.

The problem with focusing on air and water quality is CO2 only becomes a major concern in the context of climate change. You could try talking about ocean acidification which is another side effect but I don't think ignoring the elephant smashing everything in the room that is climate change is the best strategy.

government science != more money gravy train

[superposed]

I am one of those scientists (well, engineer actually these days), and I can say that you've got this pretty far backwards. I am an assistant professor, which means I have 6 years to prove my worth to my university. Part of that proof is that I must raise grants and fund grad students through a Ph.D. program. In fact, grad student support is the bulk of what I request in my grant applications -- my own salary is paid by tuition and legislative appropriations (I do teach classes too after all). But raising grants is currently nearly impossible.

I work on concrete solutions to climate change (e.g., studying how much wind and solar power we can use without cheap storage, or designing home appliances and electric vehicle chargers that can synchronize their demand with the supply of renewable power). Even in these "hot" areas, the funding rate for grant proposals is about 3%. Each proposal takes about a month of intense thinking, writing and document-chasing. Everyone competing for these grants has a Ph.D. from a top school, and the external review process is incredibly rigorous. So I would not call this a gravy train. I do this work because I think that humanity is on a reckless and destructive path, digging up hundreds of millions of years worth of accumulated carbon and poofing it into the atmosphere in 100 years, and because I think we can do better. If I wanted the gravy train, I'd be at Google or Microsoft or Facebook, not writing NSF grant proposals.

Re:government science != more money gravy train

[superposed]

My point was that academia is no gravy train, and people who believe academics are feathering their nests by peddling climate fear are living in a fantasy world. It takes an incredible amount of intelligence and dedication to succeed in one of these fields, and the people studying climate all have easier, more lucrative options open to them elsewhere.They do this work because they believe in it, just as you do your work because you believe in it (I hope). Sometimes there can be academic pissing matches, but those are no different from the intellectual holy wars around operating systems, flavors of Marxism, etc. The remarkable thing is how much agreement there is about climate change.

In climate change research, as in other fields of science, you gain prestige (and grants) by formulating models that accurately explain the available data, and withstand the scrutiny of other researchers. You do not improve your chances by offering extra doom and gloom.

Further, no climate scientist has ever said we'll be dead in 5 years or anything remotely similar. In this case you're the one offering an extreme position to earn extra attention. Scientists generally say that climate change is a multi-decade process, with potentially dire consequences late in the century. The fact that you are not suffering yet does not refute the drumbeat of evidence that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise until we reduce emissions.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[drooling-dog]

Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of.

There's a lot of that going around, for sure, but the real issue is that science always has the potential of being disruptive to established economic interests. Whether it's Big Tobacco or fossil carbon, those interests are paying the GOP serious money for protection against these kinds of disruptions.

Re:BTW...

[ClickOnThis]

Your Mom and I forgive you. :-)

Just like Women's Health

[tekrat]

I believe the house once held a committee on Women's Health issues, particularly abortion. Notably absent were any women.

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[microbox]

My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it.

There is such a thing as a manufactured scandal. American politics is replete with them -- esp. conservative politics, which panders to a rather conspiratorial base.

Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt

There is also a long well documented history of plutocrats using libertarian talking points to push their cronyism. It's an imperfect world.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[blue9steel]

Personally, I think dogs are a pain in the ass and it annoys me how dogs are generally favored as pets

Every time you pet a cat the terrorists win, why do you hate America?

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[microbox]

I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality.

Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.

You may find this short video interesting.

Since Repubs cannot descredit 'climate change'

[atrimtab]

they now want to discredit the messenger: Science and Scientists. With 97% of scientists seeing climate change as real. It's really the only way to keep the current system going as is.

Why? Because with climate change deemed as "real" there will be a public demand that all externalities be paid for by the parties that created the harmful externalities. Global Free market capitalism cannot survive such a change as it never pays the true costs of the damage it creates. It's purpose is to socialize externalities costs while privatizing profit. So the reality of 'climate change' will be fought via virtually all means.

Here is what monied capitalists most fear: If climate change is real, either free market capitalism dies or a sizable of chunk of humanity does.

With a 97% consensus of scientists global free market capitalism must be altered significantly so that 100 years from now the Earth is at least as livable as it is for us.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[ZombieDonut]

As a Republican voter, why aren't YOU focussing on the air and water quality? If it's easy, and you believe it's important, then step up and hold your party accountable. Why the hell would you suggest the opposing party do something you want when your party of choice isn't doing it? Are you that worried about being mistaken as for a dirty hippie that you want other people to champion your ideas for you!?

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[microbox]

This is because mainstream liberals adopted conservative policies like the ACA (aka Obamacare), and cap-and-trade. Following the Gingrich doctrine "24/7 campaign, always attack, never admit fault", they dug themselves into this hole. The USA has a center-right party and nationalist-conspiratorial-party.

Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble

[superposed]

The people doing this work are scientists. That means they work with probabilistic uncertainty bands, not vague measures like "within 80% of the predicted value". They also recognize that you can't make short-term predictions of a noisy system (the Earth's weather) with a narrow uncertainty band. So if anything they have erred on the side of making cautious forecasts -- i.e., things are turning out worse than the thresholds that scientists were willing to go public with (i.e., the lower edge of the 95% uncertainty band around anyone's forecast for a particular year's temperatures will be significantly cooler than their central estimate).

Because of this, no one would have been willing to predict (with high degree of certainty) that 13 of the warmest years since 1880 would occur in 2000-2014. But they have.

I challenge you to show me any global climate model that predicts that doubling CO2 concentrations won't warm the planet, or that shows that we would have had this century's steady increase in temperatures even if we hadn't increased CO2 concentrations. You can pretend there is no connection between CO2 and temperature, but you are the one burying your head in the sand.

Irony?

[mspohr]

Irony is dead.

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[Saanvik]

I'm so tired of people make this ridiculous comparison.

President Nixon's attorney's admitted there was no innocent reason for the missing content on those tapes. It was done to hide incriminating actions.

Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws. She then deleted personal emails. She did nothing remotely wrong unless you believe that private citizens give up their right to private correspondence once they become government employees.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Feral Nerd]

I think his point is that the Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of.

I know what you mean, there have been several times now that I've been sorely tempted to point out to them that liberals are very much in favour of breathing. Each timeI decided not to because I didn't think we could bury that many bodies quickly enough to prevent the spread of pandemics.

Double Standard?

[Tablizer]

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...

And politicians, corporations, and the wealthy have NOT?

Let's not have a double standard here. If we are going to hunt down bias, hunt down ALL bias.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[Saanvik]

I'd say that first the GOP swerved hard right, which pulled the Democrats from slightly left of center to slightly right of center. If the GOP moves back towards the center, that will push the Democrats further left.

Orwellian

[mbone]

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."

You have to understand that when he says things like "politically driven science" he is intending, not to communicate, but to bamboozle and deceive. This has been pointed out before:

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democ- racy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. "

(Politics and the English Language, 1946.)

Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble

[superposed]

You might also want to take a look at this post (just came across it with a quick search), which notes that a mainstream projection (in Science Magazine) in 1981 has come in very close to actual warming, but a little lower. Or you could look at this post or this post about projections made in 1990 and 1999 which are also coming out right.

More fundamentally, I'd ask you to take a look at the basics of atmospheric modeling, and point out where you think the mainstream models are wrong. You could start with the American Chemical Society's section on "Atmospheric Warming", particularly the Single-Layer Atmosphere Model and Multi-Layer Atmosphere Model. These are pretty easy to understand, and the underlying principles are at least as well established as the other areas of science we rely on for our high-tech lives. If you can't be bothered to understand the basic physical processes involved, you have no business debating climate science.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[WheezyJoe]

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.

Why do "liberals" have to "abandon the climate change mantra" to do something about air and water quality? Can't "conservatives" do something about air and water for their own reasons? Howabout a clean air and water bill, bi-partisan, the "conservatives" support it because we are "poisoning everything" and "liberals" support it because of "climate change". There. Bill passed, clean air and water, and Richard Nixon smiles in his grave. Everybody wins.

Except, THAT WOULD SUCK, because if Republicans vote with Democrats, Republicans might jeopardize their precious "brand" of being against all things liberal, and then voters might get confused, not give as much of a shit at the next election from one party to the other, and those safe majorities might not be so safe anymore. Furthermore, the ultra-libertarians in the Tea Party wing will attack the incumbents in the Primaries, claiming that the new regulation for protecting clean air and water is evil, liberal, communist, twinkle-toed Kenyan-Muslim interference on one's God-given right to pour shit all over your own land if you damn-well want to. And, of course, who's going to PAY for your clean air and water? Regulators, agents, inspectors, prosecutors, none of them work for free! Our Lord Grover Norquist will not permit any new taxes for yet more wasteful government spending!

Nope, too risky. New election cycle coming up. Gotta keep up the pressure, and cooperation doesn't do any good for anybody.
On the other hand, making friends with big industrial polluters yields nice election contributions, which pays for TV, radio, and print ads to whip up rage and FUD against the other Party, at least until election day.

Clean air and water? Not this year. Not next year either. In fact, never so long as it might validate those foul godless liberals and that *spit* asshat Al Gore with his "climate change" bullshit.
But thanks for your vote.

Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative.

[superposed]

Which is ironic, since both the Clean Water Act and the EPA were established by Richard Nixon. There's really no reason economic conservatives should also be socially conservative and anti-environment, and yet...

It used to be

[turkeyfish]

It used to be that at one time, republicans believed in the importance of science to inform them and make for a better world and ensure America's preeminence in the world. Now, republicans hate science as it is the bearer of bad news, namely that republicans are bad for the environment, the long term technological security of the country, and for social progress.

It used to be that the accused were entitled to stand before their accusers to rebut their accusations. In modern republican America this right is being taken away because republicans find it politically convenient.

Sadly, it looks as if this trend will continue until global warming gets so bad that no one will be able to live in Victoria, Texas and consequently, won't be able to vote for Louis Gohmert, who seems intent on killing the messenger of the bad news rather than addressing the problem.

Re:One thing you guys left out

[ZombieDonut]

This isn't entirely accurate. DDT is not as dangerous to humans because we don't easily absorb it and it kills many things we don't like, such as rodents. However, a big point of the anti-DDT crowd was that DDT was killing Bald Eagles, hawks, pelicans, etc. because it ruined the eggshells so less young were viable. As the anti-DDT crowd predicted, when we stopped using it the birds bounced back. Your "isn't bad" may be more or less true for humans, but other animals... not so much. It wasn't just a political stunt like you're trying to swing it.

Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble

[cbeaudry]

I have to admit, you seem to have put allot of thought into that one.

However, it doesn't really change anything.

If CO2 was the main driver of temperature, as it steadily increases, there is no way there would be no effect for almost 18 years.

Now before you go calling me names (maybe your not that type, and I apologies in advance), I don't deny that CO2 does contribute to rising temperatures. However, we seem to have all lost our marbles and completely forgotten natural variations, as if they do not exists.

If you look at the data, it doesn't really show a tale worth being scared like chicken little's for.

The slight increase is only felt in daily lows, not daily highs (as a first), also increases are most noticed in colder months than in warmer ones. This barely increases global averages (which is honestly a very ridiculous yard stick). The amounts claimed as warmest years are so far below instrumental precision, on a global scale its quit ludicrous.

I honestly think main stream media and politics have hi-jacked climate research and spun it into something that is much more dire than it actually is.

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[phantomfive]

Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws.

No she didn't. You believe her for some reason, but there have been time periods found missing from the archives, and there is no way to verify what she deleted.

There are some people who are so blindly partisan that they will support Clinton in everything. Everyone else realizes that what she did was wrong.

Re:It's all politics, all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like there are some people so blinded by partisan hatred they are convinced she did something wrong even though there is no evidence she did, nor was any law that actually prohibited her actions?

Kinda like....you?