Making EPA Great Again

[pauldun170]

Lamar Smith - > Idiot


Smith - “Everything that I have read about what [Bates] has said about the Karl report suggests to me that NOAA cheated and got caught, and they did falsify data to exaggerate global warming.”

Garbage in, garbage out. When you consume nonsense off the internet you can expect to expel an equal amount of nonsense. Unfortunately, Texans keep voting for this jerk off.

With a title like "Making EPA Great Again," there should be little surprise that a lot of Tuesday's House Science Committee hearing was focused on criticism of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has been a favorite target of the committee's chairman, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). But the EPA ended up sharing the spotlight with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A recent news story combined with Smith's lingering displeasure over a 2015 NOAA climate study meant that it became two hearings for the price of one.
...

In his opening statement for Tuesday’s hearing, Rep. Smith said that NOAA “deceived the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda,” called on Science to retract the peer-reviewed 2015 study, and promised to continue pressuring NOAA to turn over scientists’ e-mails.

Awkwardly, Smith did not seem aware that the “whistleblower” from the Mail on Sunday article, John Bates, gave an interview to E&E News in which he disavowed those allegations. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," Bates said. (In a later Associated Press story, Bates clarified that he believed there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”)
...
Rush Holt, a former congressman and the current CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes the journal Science), was invited to testify at the hearing by Democrats on the committee. When Rep. Smith asked Holt if Science would investigate the 2015 study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl, Holt brought up the new E&E News interview, explaining, “There’s nothing in the Karl paper that, at our current analysis, suggests retraction.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ttee-holds-hearing-on-making-epa-great-again/

Echoing comments made during EPA Administrator appointee Scott Pruitt’s confirmation hearing, there were many complaints that the EPA’s Science Advisory Board lacks “balance.” The board is intended to be composed of relevant experts, but critics argue that it hasn’t been critical enough—accusations aired at the hearing included that the board has been “stacked” and is “an echo chamber.” Remedies suggested at the hearing included adding more board members from industry, as well as from state and local governments. It was also suggested that anyone receiving EPA funding for research be disqualified from serving on the grounds that this constitutes a conflict of interest.

When asked his opinion, Rush Holt responded, “That is a science advisory board—it will not function better by having fewer scientists on it. It is supposed to look at science. But in the name of balance and diversity, there’s an effort to make it, well… less scientific.”

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Crap,this is the 3rd or 4th post about the Karl et al. 2015 paper where he falsified sea water data to make the case about the "pause" just before the Paris Climate Conference. Thanks to former scientist at the NOAA Dr.Bates we know how he did it.

But it's just a repost.

 

[pauldun170]

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his “thumb on the scale” in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-ho...sts-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/science/2015-climate-study-data.html?_r=0
http://mashable.com/2017/02/05/noaa-global-warming-hiatus-story/#xXVF9.dufsqx

 

[MrPickins]

Crap,this is the 3rd or 4th post about the Karl et al. 2015 paper where he falsified sea water data to make the case about the "pause" just before the Paris Climate Conference. Thanks to former scientist at the NOAA Dr.Bates we know how he did it.

But it's just a repost.

From the article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ttee-holds-hearing-on-making-epa-great-again/

Awkwardly, Smith did not seem aware that the “whistleblower” from the Mail on Sunday article, John Bates, gave an interview to E&E News in which he disavowed those allegations. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," Bates said. (In a later Associated Press story, Bates clarified that he believed there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”)

That is, while the Mail on Sunday article centered on the idea that the researchers had deliberately fudged data to exaggerate global warming, its primary source (Bates) now claims nothing of the sort. In a news article on the Science website Wednesday, Bates explains that he wouldn’t have a problem with the 2015 study if it had simply noted that it was using research data rather than official “operational” NOAA data for land temperature

 

[imported_tajmahal]

From the article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ttee-holds-hearing-on-making-epa-great-again/

Ok, he just skirted the rules, had his thumb on the scales that weighed the data and timed it to have a greater political impact, but he didn't actually falsify the data. Got it.

 

[Thebobo]

Duplicate post

This has/is being discussed here from the 5th.

Global warming data a hoax?

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/global-warming-data-a-hoax.2498664/

 

[pauldun170]

Thread started with intention on discussion about hearings in general and another reason to call Lamar Smith an idiot.
I didn't notice the hearings mentioned in other threads

 

[Thebobo]

Yeppers its there, but doesnt matter it was all fake news.

Lamar Smith is a bible thumping, young earth believer, evolution denying, Global warming denier. And top that off he's the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Only in republicanland.

 

[MrPickins]

Ok, he just skirted the rules, had his thumb on the scales that weighed the data and timed it to have a greater political impact, but he didn't actually falsify the data. Got it.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues if that's what you took from that passage.

Face it, you've been taken in by fake news. Take a look at this graph from the ArsTechnica article and show me how the data has been falsified:

 

[Jhhnn]

You clearly have reading comprehension issues if that's what you took from that passage.

Face it, you've been taken in by fake news. Take a look at this graph from the ArsTechnica article and show me how the data has been falsified:

Facts don't matter in the post-truth era. They haven't really mattered to the Repub base for decades.