Discussion for article #243883
Sad to see NOAA do this. As a general rule, giving candy to infants who are kicking, crying and screaming, only encourages them.
6 Likes
They really should go full professor on these ass hats. Bring in boxes of data, many powerpoint presentations and a whole lots of intelli-speak. The Gooperâs eyes would glaze over and theyâd be asleep on their desks just like when they were in high school science.
2 Likes
NOAAâs had difficulty reproducing the documents in Crayon for the ChairmanâŚ
3 Likes
Smith temporarily lowered his expectations, asking for internal communications just from non-scientist officials.
Gotta dumb it down for the GWDâs (GlobalWarmingDeniers).
1 Like
I thought that Kindergarden didnât leave out till closer to Christmas or maybe Lamar escaped, Did they change his diaper before school let him loose!!!
2 Likes
NOAA won when Smith said they could âprioritizeâ communications from non-scientific officials. This is the face-saving compromise where he doesnât get what he wanted but gets to claim what he didnât want was what he wanted all along.
2 Likes
That would be dangerous. Partly because, as is the case with skeptics in general, they do not know how to look at or analyze data correctly. And anything they provide will be taken the way they want it to mean as opposed to what it really means.
Think the whole email thing. In reality there was nothing in them of particular note when you consider the talk was among scientists that all knew what was being discussed. It was just science mixed with jargen. But in the wrong hands it demonstrated a conspiracy.
It would be funny because it would largely be meaningless to them, the data, but still.
This is largely NOAA letting him keep some pride as they gave him nothing he asked for in terms of communications. He can say that it is a lawful request but it is a witch hunt more than anything. They put out a study that had results indicating stuff he did not agree with and he screamed conspiracy.
In reality, the guy is not really going to be sure of what he is seeing either way and at best is looking to dismiss everything because conspiracy being run by Obama. I would go on a limb and say that most people outside of climate science do not know how to read this stuff anyway, even scientists from other fields.
The problem that there are at least a handful of studies that indicate the same result on a somewhat smaller scale did not draw ire right away but this one did. Largely this is them being mad that the hiatus or pause was always a myth. Based on some data it was a âslow downâ at best as warming continued. Based on the NOAA data and a few others the results indicate that the measurements were biased to make the warming seem slower than it actually was.
It is not controversial. Deniers make similar claims, but do nothing to actually analyze the differences and determine if there is a real concern and what needs to be changed going forward.
1 Like
âI STILL say the earth is flatâ
--King Ferdinand--
2 Likes
200 +/- countries recognize thereâs a problem with our environmentâŚthat humans caused it and we hafta fix it. 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is human caused in large part. Yet here we have members of Congress hoping against all apparent evidence that all those countries and scientists are wrong.
Shame is way too soft a word. Itâs time for some serious ridicule:
<img src="/uploads/default/6183/3f466723d074033b.jpeg" width=â457â height=â342â
:
3 Likes
In general, I think administrative documents like this are things that Congress can subpoena, and usually thatâs a good thing if Congress is doing oversight of the executive branch like itâs supposed to. Itâs not good when itâs a witch hunt like Smith is pursuing, but thatâs the price we pay when we elect assholes to Congress.
What Smith is really after is communications between the scientists, where he can do what was done with the leaked emails the last time: misinterpret a completely benign statement between scientists as an indication of a conspiracy to lie to the public. Itâs the only option they have, the Earth is not cooperating in their push to show climate change isnât happening so they have to make the data, and the scientists, untrustworthy to win the political argument. Itâs unfortunately easy to do thisâŚwhen scientists talk about what we do, we use common words in ways that are different from how they are used by everyone else. So, an offhand comment about âcalibrating the dataâ becomes an evil conspiracy to , when in reality itâs just a necessary step in data analysis (uncalibrated data are worthless). NOAA knows this is Smithâs goal, and they will fight to keep the scientific communications privateâŚat least as long as we have a Democratic administration to back them up.
2 Likes
Title of this article should at the very least say âClimate Denialistâ rather than âHouse GOPerâ. The former is more descriptive and the latter is inferred by âclimate denialistâ.
1 Like
You know, of course, that to do this is insane in the human sense and totally rational for _______________.
I thought so at first, but Smithâs comments suggest that, having gotten some emails, he wants more. No where in his comments does he indicate that he has given up on his original goal of obtaining the scientists emails.
I find that worrisome.
An interesting note â this article came up next to the one about the Sandy Hook Truther. I like the term âtrutherâ as way to describe someone who fervently believes in a false âtruth.â I wish it had caught on for climate change.
Smith is a Climate Truther. He denies objective reality and hurts individual in the process of uncovering his âtruth.â Of course the harm to the individual scientists cannot be compared to the suffering a parent tormented after a great personal loss, but it is only a difference of degree. Scientists who are professional and work hard do not deserve to be dragged through the mud â their research is fair game, not their personal lives.
It would be far better to put more Dems in the House.
Thatâs the reason I never give money to politicians.
And the pop-up charts and graphs have been particularly challenging. Thankfully, NOAA has many extremely smart, talented people with the skills to construct them. Moreover, they will be able to translate (most of) them into IQ-appropriate presentations with the IQ-appropriate safety measures built-in.
Expect a massive influx of donated materials to the George W. Bush Presidential Library in the very near future.
Funny you posted this, I was imagining finger paints for the charts and graphs. Also, hard to transpose scientific text into a rebusâŚ