[Rep.] Barton's reasonable request [on global-warming research]

The Washington Times ^ | July 28, 2005 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

When talking science, especially global-warming science, civility is a word rarely used these days. Take, for instance, what happened to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton recently. In June, Mr. Barton requested research information from the authors of a controversial global-warming study, because "this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely."

Sounds reasonable, but to House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, this constituted "intimidation" of the scientific community. The New York Republican responded to Mr. Barton's inquiry with another letter, saying that it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation." The Washington Post and columnist David Ignatius quickly followed.

<snip>

Using historical climate data and computer models, the study claims that for the past thousand years the earth had experienced relative little change in temperature until the 20th century, when temperatures suddenly spiked -- a phenomenon called the "hockey stick." It was principally authored by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who was a co-author of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report. It isn't surprising, then, that that report claimed the 1990s was the warmest decade in a thousand years, citing Mr. Mann's research.

The problem is that the study is an outlier -- it dramatically overturns the accepted view of paleoclimatologists, who generally believe that the planet has experienced many warming and cooling trends in the past 1,000 years. Some scientists think that the 14th century, which came at the beginning of the Little Ice Age, was warmer than the 20th century. Other critics have found flaws in the study's use of certain data sets and methodology. But since the study fits perfectly with the argument of global-warming supporters, they don't want to see it robustly debated.

<snip>

[Semper Paratus]

this constituted "intimidation" of the scientific community

Considering any federal money to fight 'Global Warming' is an 'intimidation" of the taxpayer community.

[carl in alaska]

Is there a link that doesn't require a log-in? This looks like an interesting editorial.

[carl in alaska]

Judge Rogers = Judge Roberts

[Steely Tom]

Boehlert is a total RINO from the district immediately east of mine.

In fairness, he has to be a RINO, to some extent, given that this is, after all, New York State.

On the big things (Iraq, WOT for example) he's a reliable GOP-er.

(steely)

[untrained skeptic]

Was this "study" paid for with federal tax dollars?

If so they have to turn over their research data. If they don't, demand that they pay back the money they were paid for the study.

If they refuse to allow an investigation of why they were not given access to the research that the government paid for, cancel all their grants and don't give them any more research money.

If researchers aren't really researching things and are billing the government they need to be intimidated. That intimidation should be followed py criminal prosecution.

[xsysmgr]

Is there a link that doesn't require a log-in? This looks like an interesting editorial.

It's here

[xjcsa]

According to Michael Crichton's State of Fear (yes, it's a novel, but well-researched and fully documented), many climate computer models spit out a hockey-stick graph when fed completely random data; intentionally or not, they're biased.