Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You do realize the only documents being withheld are internal communications between scientists. If Smith believes Karl's study is flawed, why doesn't he just deal with Karl's study? Is it not falsifiable? Does it not identify all of its sources and references? Why does Smith think he needs to overhear the conversations of the scientists involved? Is that how science is done in this country? Is that how American justice works? Does he have evidence of some sort of conspiracy? If this were an issue with the police and private citizens, law enforcement would have to convince a judge that they had damn good reason to believe there were culpable material in those communications before they would be allowed to subpoena them. Who is doing the check and balance on the Head Dick, Smith?
You do realize the only documents being withheld are internal communications between scientists. If Smith believes Karl's study is flawed, why doesn't he just deal with Karl's study? Is it not falsifiable? Does it not identify all of its sources and references? Why does Smith think he needs to overhear the conversations of the scientists involved? Is that how science is done in this country? Is that how American justice works? Does he have evidence of some sort of conspiracy? If this were an issue with the police and private citizens, law enforcement would have to convince a judge that they had damn good reason to believe there were culpable material in those communications before they would be allowed to subpoena them. Who is doing the check and balance on the Head Dick, Smith?
Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.
You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.
As expected, the deniers here are all competing to see who can push their scientific Stalinism the most enthusiastically.
None of 'em can explain why looking at the data and methods is insufficient. All of that has been released, despite deniers all lying big and claiming otherwise. And we all know why they won't look at the science. It's because all the science contradicts them. Instead, they're reduced to attempting endless fishing expeditions so they can find more email snippets to lie about. It's the only tactic they have left.
The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee
---
The science committee's modus operandi is similar to the Benghazi committee's — sweeping, catchall investigations, with no specific allegations of wrongdoing or clear rationale, searching through private documents for out-of-context bits and pieces to leak to the press, hoping to gain short-term political advantage — but it stands to do more lasting long-term damage.
In both cases, the investigations have continued long after all questions have been answered. (There were half a dozen probes into Benghazi before this one.) In both cases, the chair has drifted from inquiry to inquisition. But with Benghazi, the only threat is to the reputation of Hillary Clinton, who has the resources to defend herself. With the science committee, it is working scientists being intimidated, who often do not have the resources to defend themselves, and the threat is to the integrity of the scientific process in the US. It won't take much for scientists to get the message that research into politically contested topics is more hassle than it's worth.
---
Denialism is a modern incarnation of Stalinism, thus every loyal American is morally bound to oppose it.
Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.
You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.
As expected, the deniers here are all competing to see who can push their scientific Stalinism the most enthusiastically.
None of 'em can explain why looking at the data and methods is insufficient. All of that has been released, despite deniers all lying big and claiming otherwise. And we all know why they won't look at the science. It's because all the science contradicts them. Instead, they're reduced to attempting endless fishing expeditions so they can find more email snippets to lie about. It's the only tactic they have left.
The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee
---
The science committee's modus operandi is similar to the Benghazi committee's — sweeping, catchall investigations, with no specific allegations of wrongdoing or clear rationale, searching through private documents for out-of-context bits and pieces to leak to the press, hoping to gain short-term political advantage — but it stands to do more lasting long-term damage.
In both cases, the investigations have continued long after all questions have been answered. (There were half a dozen probes into Benghazi before this one.) In both cases, the chair has drifted from inquiry to inquisition. But with Benghazi, the only threat is to the reputation of Hillary Clinton, who has the resources to defend herself. With the science committee, it is working scientists being intimidated, who often do not have the resources to defend themselves, and the threat is to the integrity of the scientific process in the US. It won't take much for scientists to get the message that research into politically contested topics is more hassle than it's worth.
---
Denialism is a modern incarnation of Stalinism, thus every loyal American is morally bound to oppose it.
Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.
You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.
You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
What scandal? The one where they don't want to release data that the public paid for?
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
What scandal? The one where they don't want to release data that the public paid for?
They aren't asking for data, or methods,or conclusions.They are asking for personal conversations.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
whooooa there buddy. The oil companies are not funded to provide reports like the climate folks. The climate folks are funded to give results. Well we want to see their work. hmmmmmmmm anything to keep a secret eh?Remember when Congress wanted the discussion between Dick Cheney and oil company executives that led to the Bush Administration energy policy? YOUR president explained that it was required that those sorts of internal discussions had a required presumption of privacy.
You have no reason to believe that anyone is hiding anything. You DO have reason to believe that Smith's demands are unreasonable on several levels and, if he has a problem with Karl's paper, he needs to try to take on Karl's paper. Doing what he's doing simply tells all of us that he cannot. Asshole.
