Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress • Hacker News Board

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#71

Post by fineman » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 1:28 AM UTC

moonchrome wrote: post #53

fineman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Work with experts" the way you already work with accountants, lawyers, etc. Hire two and have one check the other. And no, it's not unreasonable to expect a non-technical person to review the data or the methods either. Many people don't want to put the time in to try but it's well within the reach of any high-school grad.

>Hire two and have one check the other. Not if you don't trust the field. It's like saying if you don't like your numerology readings hire a different numerologist and compare the results. Not saying I agree with the view but science is a lot less convincing when when you can't setup repeatable experiments. >And no, it's not unreasonable to expect a non-technical person to review the data or the methods either. You'r…

Fwiw, not trusting climate science is like not trusting geological sciences.

But sure, if you don't trust someone from the 'warming' camp, get a 'status-quo' camp person to check their work.

And as for numerologists - try looking for another person skilled in your actual problem, relationships, work, etc...

When a mathematician checks their work they do so by a different method, not just repeating the same steps to reach the same potentially flawed answer.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#72

Post by Turing_Machine » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 3:19 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #43

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 i…

Yes. Congress has, in the past, sent U.S. Marshals out to physically arrest witnesses who refused to respond to a subpoena. That action was upheld by the Supreme Court, too.

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#73

Post by guelo » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 3:44 AM UTC

vox_mollis wrote: post #46

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.

Is your point that when criticizing politicians one is required to criticize other political groups at the same time?

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#74

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #70

Karunamon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they should - at least the ones pertaining to their official duties. I do not understand your next two questions.

You know Congress is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, right? They just happened to exclude themselves from that one.

Yes, but I'm saying they shouldn't be excluded :)

Re: Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress

#75

Post by mrow84 » Tue, Nov 17, 2015, 10:51 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #62

mrow84 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to recognise that a lot of the model runs are done on super-computers, and the runs themselves aren't always easy to replicate from a practical point of view, because of things like resource limitations and configuration issues. I certainly agree that things should be open sourced, probably allowing for some kind of embargo system for publication, but we shouldn't allow a rhetoric to develop suggesting…

Today's supercomputer is a GPU in 5 years time.

Maybe in terms of various metrics (though I'm not so certain things are progressing that quickly), but not in terms of source compatibility, which was the point I was trying to make.