Discussion: Scientific Journal Rejects Climate Skeptic's Accusations About NOAA Study

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #243168

2

“Do you want people to shape their research around how it’s going to be perceived in a political setting, what the legal proceedings are going to be? I don’t think so,” Rosenberg told TPM. “You want the research to be the most creative, innovative, contribute the most to knowledge, not confirmed to a particular legal strategy or political agenda.”

I think that’s waht ya’ll call a big can O whupp-ass. You’re welcome.

22 Likes
3

And the lesson, as always, is that Lamar Smith is an idiot.

29 Likes
4

Typical of the Republican approach to governance. Appoint someone who is completely ignorant of science to chair the House Science Committee. Makes all kinds of sense . . . yeah.

33 Likes
5

And so the dumbing down of this country, by the republicans continues.

10 Likes
6

“Shut up”, Mrs. Sullivan explained. But the congressman kept demanding that she re-write the conclusions, and this time with lots of pictures instead of all those city words.

7 Likes
7

“Pinholster told the Post that the NOAA paper went through two rounds of peer review, and that the process was lengthier than it is for the average study published in the journal.”

Oh yeah? Smith knows peer review. His idea of peer review and “lengthier process” is three anonymous dipshits from the Internet, not just two.

13 Likes
8

Honest to God…these congresscritters really DO believe that God touched their little pinheads and gave them total knowledge, don’t t hey? No Lamar…you don’t get the research, you don’t get the resources…what? You’ll cut their funding? FK U you little twit!

5 Likes
9

And they have to be trusted sources…like a link from Breitbart or Rush’s site.

15 Likes
10

‘Skeptic’ is so much nicer than Dumbass.

18 Likes
11

The GOP is “baseless and without merit”.

9 Likes
12

I think you’re being pretty hard on idiots. Smith is simply using his position as a public servant to advance the interests of a constituent industry for money. He may be a bribed hooker, but he’s no idiot.

7 Likes
13

TPM:

“I think it’s unconscionable to use this kind of aggressive action for a single study and to go after the scientists and all their communications as a political tactic,” he said. “This has a chilling effect on science.”

Of course it does. That’s the point of it.

“Do you want people to shape their research around how it’s going to be perceived in a political setting, what the legal proceedings are going to be? I don’t think so,” Rosenberg told TPM. “You want the research to be the most creative, innovative, contribute the most to knowledge, not confirmed to a particular legal strategy or political agenda.”

Confirmed to a particular … political agenda and shaping their research around how it’s going to be perceived in a political setting is exactly what the GOP wants. This is what people mean when we call Republicans Anti-Science.

15 Likes
14

“Smith, climate skeptic and chairman of the House Science Committee, has been on a months-long mission to prove that the NOAA 's June climate study was politically motivated.”

But what if Smith is right?

What if we revolutionize our economy, transform civilization, and save the planet – based on flawed science?

We might create a better world for no reason!

36 Likes
15

No, he’s actually an idiot. He also carries water for the petrochemical industry, but he also happens to be painfully dumb.

11 Likes
16

ScienCE is HYPOtheses. HYPotheses are JUSt OPINIONs or GUESSes. We PRefER OUR Science TO LIBtard science which is MORe rIGHt because JEsus.

11 Likes
17

Of course if he gets taken seriously, and is wrong, as we all know he is, the only effect will be decimation of all living organisms on our planet. Fortunately that just means shorter wait times for the Saturday golf date.

2 Likes
18

“And how 'bout including some of them pop-up thingies,” Smith added.

1 Like
20

Smith is not a scientist. But he is a doofuss.

6 Likes
21

A veritable Texas!

6 Likes