What It's Like Being a Sane Person on the House Science Committee

Gizmodo ^ | 23 December 2016 | Dave Levitan

[Windflier]

Congressional Committee tweets don’t usually get much attention. But when the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent out a link to a Breitbart story claiming a “plunge” in global temperatures, people took notice. The takedowns flew in, from Slate and Bernie Sanders, from plenty of scientists, and most notably from the Weather Channel, which deemed Breitbart’s use of their meteorologist’s face worthy of a point-by-point debunking video.

There is nothing particularly noteworthy about Breitbart screwing up climate science, but the House Science Committee is among the most important scientific oversight bodies in the country. Since Texas Republican Lamar Smith took over its leadership in 2012, the Committee has spiraled down an increasingly anti-science rabbit hole: absurd hearings aimed at debunking consensus on global warming, outright witch hunts using the Committee’s subpoena power to intimidate scientists, and a Republican membership that includes some of the most anti-science lawmakers in the land.

[Windflier]

Heh... It is to laugh...

[Windflier]

From the article:

“The GOP’s shenanigans get the headlines, but what about the other side of the aisle? What is it like to be a member of Congress and sit on a science committee that doesn’t seem to understand science? What is it like to be an adult in a room full of toddlers? I asked some of the adults.

“I think it’s completely embarrassing,” said Mark Veasey, who represents Texas’s 33rd district, including parts of Dallas and Fort Worth. “You’re talking about something that 99.9 percent—if not 100 percent—of people in the legitimate science community says is a threat….To quote Breitbart over some of the most brilliant people in the world—and those are American scientists—and how they see climate change, I just think it’s a total embarrassment.”

[PROCON]

...anti-science rabbit hole

...absurd hearings aimed at debunking consensus on global warming

...outright witch hunts

...the most anti-science lawmakers in the land.

Hmm, it almost seems like the article's author has his own agenda.

Fake News^TM

[Flick Lives]

Anyone who uses the phrase “scientific consensus” doesn’t know the meaning of science. Scientific thories aren’t voted on, they’re proven or disproven.

[econjack]

Well, you gotta remember that you have clowns like this in Washington:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI

(It’s worth watching if you haven’t already seen it.)

[grey_whiskers]

If the (heh) 'science' were settled, the various models would agree with each other to within their respective error bars.

They don't.

Incidentally -- I think Minnesota used to be under a two-mile-thick glacier.

It melted.

Say hello to Lake Superior.

[Windflier]

If the (heh) 'science' were settled, the various models would agree with each other to within their respective error bars.

They don't.

DENIER!!

Heh...

[AndyJackson]

Yes, anti-science efforts like taking DOE to task for firing someone who answered the science committee's questions. House GOP accuses Energy Dept. of political intimidation [in the firing of Dr. Noelle Metting

[tbw2]

This is part of the liberals believing their own propaganda. Liberals are smart, rational, tolerant, educated, moral, good ... and everyone else is at best ignorant (with the assumption that all good people will convert when “educated”), otherwise stupid, crazy or evil.
This belief system is how liberals can demonize the founder of the weather channel and Bjorn Lomborg who discuss how warming if it exists won’t be bad if it happens, how CO2 isn’t causing this and that there are far better uses for a trillion dollars than trying to mitigate what isn’t a problem - like wipe out malnutrition, parasitic diseases, lack of sanitation and clean water.

[TChad]

Short on facts, long on virtue-signaling.

[angryoldfatman]

Exactly right. Also, real science doesn't try to hide data that disproves their conclusions:


—————————————————————————-
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

—————————————————————————-

[politicianslie]

Scientific theories aren’t voted on, they’re proven or disproved.

Hussein Obama, America's FIRST Muslim President, doesn't care what the right answer is. Hussein fanatically implements anything that hurts the US in any way.

Muslims are like that, they get to eventually rule by destroying everything they can.

[Revolutionary]

Another mentally unstable global cooling denier!!

They obviously got their degrees at U.Canbeanidiottoo.

[Paleo Pete]

Climate deniers! CLIMATE DENIERS!!

I’m surrounded by idiots who deny the SETTLED SCIENCE!!!

YIIIEEEEEE

I need a safe space...

Damn...I can’t even type it with a straight face...

[mrsmith]

The establishmient demands that the Science Committee accept science and concentrate on funding the important job of educating the superstitious peasants on the efficacy of blood letting.

More subsidies!