Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#41

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #20

leothekim wrote: post #5

"Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) wants thousands of e-mails among scientists and NOAA’s staff of political appointees that he thinks will show that the researchers had something to hide when they refuted claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the past decade." Apparently climate change science is not in the published research itself, but can only be found by going through someone's email. What bald-face…

It's indeed an exercise in douchebaggery, but the fact is, Smith has the right to subpoena the emails. They're public property. If you saw The Martian, you might remember the arguments among NASA managers about how much information on Watney's predicament should be revealed to the public. It was pointed out that their only legal option was to lay it all out there. That's pretty much how government agencies actually w…

> Smith has the right to subpoena the emails.

Government officials, exercising their office, do not have "rights" from their office, they have "powers". Its important to distinguish between those concepts.

Smith has the power to issue subpoenas, and Congress has the power to impose consequences if it believes that valid subpoenas from its officers have been denied (there are some options for judicial enforcement as well, but they are both less likely to be legally available and more practically difficult to apply if they are available against executive officers, so are mostly irrelevant.)

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#42

Post by jfoutz » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:30 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #20

leothekim wrote: post #5

"Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) wants thousands of e-mails among scientists and NOAA’s staff of political appointees that he thinks will show that the researchers had something to hide when they refuted claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the past decade." Apparently climate change science is not in the published research itself, but can only be found by going through someone's email. What bald-face…

It's indeed an exercise in douchebaggery, but the fact is, Smith has the right to subpoena the emails. They're public property. If you saw The Martian, you might remember the arguments among NASA managers about how much information on Watney's predicament should be revealed to the public. It was pointed out that their only legal option was to lay it all out there. That's pretty much how government agencies actually w…

I generally agree. Climate science (among other research topics) are really politically charged. Those scientists will get death threats.

I don't believe the good congressman Smith is actually trying to get people killed. There is no indication he's making a good faith effort to understand their findings, he's looking to justify his beliefs. And that's ok, i guess. The good people of texas have a lot riding on oil being safe to burn. They should do everything they can to keep that oil flowing. But they shouldn't be endangering the researchers specifically.

The only acceptable risk to impose on the scientists, is the same risk we all face collectively. We collectively need to make decisions about climate change based on NOAA's findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#43

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #9

On one hand, the aims of the politicos here are bald-facedly wrong. On the other hand, good luck with that whole "refusing a subpoena" thing - courts don't generally look upon that with favor, and besides, NOAA is a public institution, so the emails are public record, regardless of the aims of the people seeking them. Being in a contentious field is not free license to ignore the law, and it tends to make people thin…

> On the other hand, good luck with that whole "refusing a subpoena" thing - courts don't generally look upon that with favor

Courts generally (there are rare circumstances in which there are exceptions) aren't more than minimally involved in dealing with Congressional subpoenas to the executive branch, so how favorably they look on something generally is probably irrelevant here. Of course, Congress on its own can impose consequences if it so chooses, so there's that.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#44

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #17

lemevi wrote: post #6

Why would emails be more important than the data? The data should speak for itself, only a politician is looking for "gotcha" phrases they can print in huge letters for a poster board that they put up while making speeches denying global warming. It's not that these politicians don't understand how science works, they understand how to manipulate people to favor legislation that is actually against their interests. E…

In theory, yes. Among ideal rational agents, yes. But in practice, science depends on the trust that scientists aren't actively subverting the process: failing to consider alternate hypothesis, fabricating data, ignoring data, deliberately filtering for confirmatory data, groupthink, etc. So an import safeguard is the ability to detect when someone is doing the above, even if the detector doesn't know the literature…

While it would certainly make science more efficient, science as a whole does not depend on colleagues within one program working perfectly.

Science is global endeavour based on data. If one scientists is lax or fraudulent, there are numerous incentives for competing scientists to prove so.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#45

Post by dragop » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:37 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #23

oberstein wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data should speak for themselves. Unfortunately people who don't know statistics think they can't, because as we found out from emails, the data were "manipulated" via statistical methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c... Honestly I'd rather we press scientists of all sorts for all their source code and modeling tool configurations including the raw data that hasn't been post-proces…

Any science based on simulation, any member of the public should be able to download, compile and run on their PC and get exactly the same results. It's the only way to be completely transparent. C and FORTRAN compilers are free.

You can find NOAA's current climate model here, with source code, compile scripts, and sample data:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cm2-5-and-flor

However, as mrow84 points out, you will need a supercomputer, unless you have a lot of time on your hands.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#46

Post by vox_mollis » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #3

These Republicans are shameful. The sad part is that they will all be dead when their grandkids are cursing their names for assisting in the destruction of the environment.

These Republicans are shameful

You know, the left has their own variety of anti-science denialism.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#47

Post by sanderjd » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

cracker_jacks wrote: post #28

SilasX wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory, yes. Among ideal rational agents, yes. But in practice, science depends on the trust that scientists aren't actively subverting the process: failing to consider alternate hypothesis, fabricating data, ignoring data, deliberately filtering for confirmatory data, groupthink, etc. So an import safeguard is the ability to detect when someone is doing the above, even if the detector doesn't know the literature…

Then have a separate group of scientists reproduce the results and review the methodology used. Their publication should provide all the information necessary to reproduce and evaluate their findings. All the possible 'evidence' of misconduct will be there in the data. Using a subpoena to threaten scientists for finding results you don't agree with is a form of censorship.

Unless the data collection itself is biased. The solution to that is to have another team collect its own data and compare its findings. But now you once again have scientists doing science, and if those scientists confirm the other findings, then they might also have used biased methods, so you once again have to either trust them, or not. So to build trust, yet more scientists have to collect and analyze yet more data. But what if those scientists are also in on the bias? So maybe at this point, you hire your own scientists that you trust implicitly because you're the one paying them. Maybe their findings contradict all the earlier findings, and so you trust that. But now nobody else trusts their findings, because you paid them for the study, so people think they are probably biased toward your perspective. This is literally what has been going on for years.

So now what? How do you collect and analyze data when trust in those doing the collection and analysis is not a given?

One approach is to implicitly trust scientists, because they are experts in their field, while you are a novice. This is what a lot of us do, and I think it's a perfectly fine solution, but it is a trade-off; you might misplace your trust.

Another approach is to train up on the science yourself, so that you can independently verify things. This is a great solution, but it isn't scalable. Most people have other jobs and other interests, and in any case, you can never be an expert in everything that matters.

Another approach might be to try to build trust using out-of-band signals, like transparent communication. Transparency often sounds nice, but it also has a major chilling effect, because people communicate more efficiently in the sorts of candid conversations that are hard to have publicly.

Personally, I think the witch hunt for biased climate scientists is disgusting and beside the point, but I also find it distasteful to suggest that it isn't a really hard problem to disseminate trusted information about complex subjects in a highly specialized society.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#48

Post by tptacek » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

An important detail of the story that the headline doesn't highlight is that these scientists are employees of the government, and the communications being subpoenaed are work emails. It's hard to see from where NOAA gets the authority to turn Congress down on this.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#49

Post by dragop » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:40 PM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #21

markusbrutus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grants, careers and reputations aside there are fields like Mathematics where there can be no political agenda because the findings are not input to political decisions. Climate change is definitely not such a field and people are wary of agendas in either direction. Given the huge interests involved it is impossible for even the most well-intentioned layman to arrive at a safe conclusion without spending an unreason…

http://i.imgur.com/axlcWY1.jpg The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me. So, there are some types of science that are more based on perception. (Note, I'm not saying that this instance invalidates anthropogenic global war…

> The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me.

The hockey stick graph is based on a aggregation of global or hemispherical temperature records. It is most certainly not based on a single temperature record from Arizona.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#50

Post by magicalist » Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

gavanwoolery wrote: post #21

markusbrutus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grants, careers and reputations aside there are fields like Mathematics where there can be no political agenda because the findings are not input to political decisions. Climate change is definitely not such a field and people are wary of agendas in either direction. Given the huge interests involved it is impossible for even the most well-intentioned layman to arrive at a safe conclusion without spending an unreason…

http://i.imgur.com/axlcWY1.jpg The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me. So, there are some types of science that are more based on perception. (Note, I'm not saying that this instance invalidates anthropogenic global war…

> The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me.

The (in)famous hockey stick graph was not of temperature at one location, it's of global mean temperature.