What are your beliefs on climate change?

[creekland]

 

... I disagree with those in this thread who act as if there is no bias in government funded studies. Government studies and grant applications are absolutely political. As are those appointed to the committees who select what is going to be funded- that is a political process within whatever funding organization you're looking out. It's not a democratic process. Anyone who disagrees hasn't applied for enough grants. There are pet projects and they run in cycles of whatever the particular powers that be have on their agenda. They may not be as blatantly obvious as say the sugar industry or other corporately funded studies,  but there are clear cut patterns in the areas of funding. These committees might not be biasing the results, but they're biasing the studies that get funded in the first place. That's a very easy way to shut up the opposition. Then you still have to get published. There is a lot more that goes into getting your research out there than some are making it sound like. 

 

No one disagrees with this.  It is tough to get funding since there are very limited funds, but once one has funding it's far less likely that anyone is biasing the results (as you write) with gov't funding.

 

The big concern from those I've heard is that the very limited funding is likely to be cut even more - and yes - probably directed to pet projects that don't include very real topics.  It's tough already to convince those holding the purse strings that some areas are worth pursuing to see if there's value in them.  It's likely to get even tougher.  Climate change definitely fits in with this.  Some medical things do too.

 

The media seizing on results often shows that there are many journalists (or other reporters) who can't read a study, but love hyping things for a profit.  We see that in plenty of news stories.  And now, of course, there are folks who get their jollies totally making up news stories, but plenty of people read them and if it says what they want to hear, it's gospel truth - even if debunked by oodles of reputable folks.

 

None of this means science isn't working for our best to try to determine what's going on.  It only means a good segment of our population is pretty darn easy to dupe.

 

The whole picture of it all is what is scary IMO.

 

As for your first part, I may be rare, but I've heard the medical (and science) community say "I don't know" a ton.  It's more often the average person without extra knowledge who feels they are the experts.

[RegGuheert]

So, what exactly does the IPCC have to say about the likelihood of the various scary scenarios being bandied about in the press occurring during the 21st Century?  (See Table 12.4 on page 80 of that document for all the details.)

 

- Collapse of the Atlantic Merdional Overturning Circulation: The IPCC has HIGH CONFIDENCE that it is VERY UNLIKELY that the AMOC will undergo a rapid transition.

 

- Collapse of the Ice Sheets in Greenland or West Antarctica:  The IPCC has HIGH CONFIDENCE that it is EXCEPTIONALLY UNLIKELY that either Greenland or West Antarctic Ice Sheets will suffer near-complete disintegration.

 

- Release of Carbon Dioxide from Permafrost:  The IPCC has LOW CONFIDENCE in the possibility that permafrost will become a net source of greenhouse gases.

 

- Release of Methane from Clathrates:  The IPCC has HIGH CONFIDENCE that it is VERY UNLIKELY that methane from calthrates will undergo a catastrophic release.

 

- Dieback of Tropical Forests:  The IPCC has LOW CONFIDENCE in projections of collapse of large sections of tropical forest.

 

- Dieback of Boreal Forests:  The IPCC has LOW CONFIDENCE in projections of collapse of large sections of boreal forest.

 

- Disappearance of Summer Arctic Sea Ice:  The IPCC has MEDIUM CONFIDENCE that it is LIKELY that the Arctic Ocean becomes nearly ice-free in September before mid-century under high-forcing scenarios such as RCP 8.5.

 

- Long-term Droughts:  The IPCC has LOW CONFIDENCE in projections of changes in the frequency and duration of megadroughts.

 

- Monsoonal Circulation:  The IPCC has LOW CONFIDENCE in projections of a collapse in monsoon circulations.

 

So the question I have is this:  Why do so many here sound the alarm bells about these things when even the IPCC thinks the scientific evidence indicates that most of them are unlikely, extremely unlikely or, in the case of the topic in the OP of this thread, EXCEPTIONALLY UNLIKELY?  (And, BTW, you'd be pretty hard-pressed to finding a real drawback to the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic if that were to ever actually occur.)

[Bluegoat]

No one disagrees with this.  It is tough to get funding since there are very limited funds, but once one has funding it's far less likely that anyone is biasing the results (as you write) with gov't funding.

 

The big concern from those I've heard is that the very limited funding is likely to be cut even more - and yes - probably directed to pet projects that don't include very real topics.  It's tough already to convince those holding the purse strings that some areas are worth pursuing to see if there's value in them.  It's likely to get even tougher.  Climate change definitely fits in with this.  Some medical things do too.

 

The media seizing on results often shows that there are many journalists (or other reporters) who can't read a study, but love hyping things for a profit.  We see that in plenty of news stories.  And now, of course, there are folks who get their jollies totally making up news stories, but plenty of people read them and if it says what they want to hear, it's gospel truth - even if debunked by oodles of reputable folks.

 

None of this means science isn't working for our best to try to determine what's going on.  It only means a good segment of our population is pretty darn easy to dupe.

 

The whole picture of it all is what is scary IMO.

 

As for your first part, I may be rare, but I've heard the medical (and science) community say "I don't know" a ton.  It's more often the average person without extra knowledge who feels they are the experts.

 

What do you mean when you say "science" though?

 

I think it includes the whole kit and caboodle, myself, not just the information and conclusions that pop out the end. Actually - I would not really call the knowledge science if I was trying to be really exact, I'd call the process science.  THe information and knowledge are what they are, however we come to know them or even if we don't.

 

  But how we train people, how we support and employ them, how we decide what to study, the experimental method, peer review, journals and literature, etc.  These things are all important parts of the method, though some can be done in different ways and have been at different times.  But if, for example, we find the peer review process isn't working as well as we'd like, or the way we fund science is causing problems, or the way we employ scientists in universities - to me, that very much is science not working for our best.  Maybe its a problem that can be fairly easily addressed if we really want to, or maybe it is a more serious problem, and I think both are possibilities.

[creekland]

What do you mean when you say "science" though?

 

I suppose you can replace my word with "scientist."  I'm thinking of my own lad researching nuances of how kids learn language - or the previous lab he worked for where they had found out about different aspects of G Proteins (in cells) and were trying to determine their possible benefits.  (I could list more I know about IRL, but that could take a long time.)

 

Those are totally different fields, but both (and plenty more) offer potential benefits to humans.  Both already work hard to get grants and so far have gotten them from the gov't.  Both (and plenty others) are concerned about future funding.  Neither have to worry about "what" results they get and from those results, they are only trying to further their knowledge for future human benefit.  Not every lead they pursue brings headline grabbing information, but that doesn't mean the overall effort is worthless.

 

With climate change, I suspect it's pretty similar.  At youngest's college research on the environment and ecology is going on.  FL is a state that could be greatly affected by some of the potential scenarios.

[Guest]

What do you mean when you say "science" though?

 

I think it includes the whole kit and caboodle, myself, not just the information and conclusions that pop out the end. Actually - I would not really call the knowledge science if I was trying to be really exact, I'd call the process science. THe information and knowledge are what they are, however we come to know them or even if we don't.

 

But how we train people, how we support and employ them, how we decide what to study, the experimental method, peer review, journals and literature, etc. These things are all important parts of the method, though some can be done in different ways and have been at different times. But if, for example, we find the peer review process isn't working as well as we'd like, or the way we fund science is causing problems, or the way we employ scientists in universities - to me, that very much is science not working for our best. Maybe its a problem that can be fairly easily addressed if we really want to, or maybe it is a more serious problem, and I think both are possibilities.

I just can't like all of the things you are saying enough. :)

 

There is a reason "publish or perish," is spewed all over academia. If you don't get things published, you're out. That pressure doesn't go away. Particularly now that tenured positions are disappearing like they are, the competition is immense for what decent paying research positions remain.

 

I have no citations to base this off of, but to me, it feels as if the university system (which is a bedrock of research) is undergoing a massive transition at this point. I think we would do well to examine more in depth the results that is having on the scientific process and community; as well as what they are producing.

[sassenach]

I just got it Reg! You're the opposite of a Tree Hugger! Wow, how many times did I read your name and miss that?

OMGosh!! Mind blown.

 

Also, since they're both on this thread, I'm just going to admit that I've had a heck of a time keeping regentrude and RegGuheert straight over the years. Clearly, they're very different, but I find myself mentally sorting every time- man or woman? German or American? Professor? Married to Momsinthegarden?

[SKL]

What is wrong with disclosing the names of scientists in the government?  I thought people wanted transparency.  Other than international spies, I don't see why anyone needs to be a secret.

[QueenCat]

I would argue that "beliefs" is a loaded term. Belief is a synonym for faith. Maybe we should rephrase the question? Something like, "Do you agree with the conclusions of these scientists based on these facts?"

 

:iagree: Belief is a religious term not a scientific term.

[treestarfae]

:iagree: Belief is a religious term not a scientific term.

 

 

My beliefs are science. Call it religion if you like.

[creekland]

What is wrong with disclosing the names of scientists in the government?  I thought people wanted transparency.  Other than international spies, I don't see why anyone needs to be a secret.

 

McCarthyism is a word that comes to mind.  Blackballing is another.

 

Then there can be issues of various types of pressure put on someone to get them to change their views or data.

 

Any of these things are pretty typical forms of "play" with powerful folks who aren't the least bit afraid of using their power to get what they want.

 

It's better to have folks shielded in some cases, esp when the tide turns against what it's been.

[athomeontheprairie]

And then there is federal funding. With an openly anti science administration, we expect significant cuts to the National Science foundation and similar organizations. Scientists cannot do research if they are not being paid. How do you think it works?

At the risk of being publicly flamed, I'd like to ask a question. A genuine question, one I don't know the answer to-feel free to persuade me.

 

Scientists can't work if they aren't being paid. But WHY is it the responsibility of the national government to fund it? Why can't it be a private market?

Edited December 14, 2016 by athomeontheprairie

[Arctic Bunny]

OMGosh!! Mind blown.

 

Also, since they're both on this thread, I'm just going to admit that I've had a heck of a time keeping regentrude and RegGuheert straight over the years. Clearly, they're very different, but I find myself mentally sorting every time- man or woman? German or American? Professor? Married to Momsinthegarden?

I have nothing to add except that I agree with all of this!!

[treestarfae]

McCarthyism is a word that comes to mind.  Blackballing is another.

 

Then there can be issues of various types of pressure put on someone to get them to change their views or data.

 

Any of these things are pretty typical forms of "play" with powerful folks who aren't the least bit afraid of using their power to get what they want.

 

It's better to have folks shielded in some cases, esp when the tide turns against what it's been.

 

Suppressing US scientists won't stop info from other scientists around the world. How will we be blocked from that?

[RegGuheert]

I do not "believe" in gravity - it exists whether I believe in it or not.

Of course it does. And so does climate change. Climate always has and always will change.

 

But does General Relativity Theory describe gravity accurately? If it does, then where does the idea of "dark matter" come from?

 

By definition, "dark matter" is matter which cannot be measured. Do you believe it exists? On what basis? On the basis that General Relativity Theory does not predict what is observed in the universe? In that case, you support your belief in a theory which does not match measurements by believing in something that cannot be detected.

 

Metatheory tells that that two forces of the same form, such as the electromagnetic force and the force of gravity, which are both square-law forces cannot both be fundamental forces. Either one is a form of the other or they are both a form of some other force.

 

Likewise, it is clear that the "Strong Force" is not really strong, but actually is just another square-law force. This can be easily seen by plotting the NIST-measured mass of the isoelectronic series for any atomic mass and noting that the masses exactly fit a parabola. Such a result can only come from a square-law force.

 

Einstein spent the last part of his life trying, in vain, to find a formulation for a universal formulation for everything in the universe. Superstring theorists have now taken up that task.

 

But there is now existing a universal force theory which is based purely on the electromagnetic laws developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. It fits well all phenomena at all sizes. Is it "right"? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Lots of beliefs in science are just that: beliefs. Are they wrong? Yes and no. They are not wrong in the sense that they can describe (even predict) vast arrays of phenomenon. They are wrong when they slow the advancement of science because they do not allow scientists to base their views on a proper structure. There are many, many examples of this in the history of science.

 

It is the ultimate arrogance to believe that, all of a sudden, science has somehow become "settled." The moment a scientist believes that, the moment science stops advancing.

 

Science is not settled today, nor will it be settled tomorrow. If it somehow becomes settled, then we will no longer have or need scientists, only technicians. Fortunately, there are an innumerable number of unsolved problems out there to be addressed.

 

And the science behind climate change is at a very primitive state today. Scientists still do not know all of the causes of the largest driver of climate on Earth: clouds. Scientists do not have either the knowledge (in either math or science) nor the computational resources to accurately predict future climate states. What we have are measurements. Those measurements clearly show that temperature tracks closely the inverse of global cloud cover and that changes in cloud cover persist for decades. The effects of those changes in cloud cover swamp the effects of CO2 by nearly two orders of magnitude.

[regentrude]

Scientists can't work if they aren't being paid. But WHY is it the responsibility of the national government to fund it? Why can't it be a private market?

 

There is private funding through companies, but most of it in areas where a direct application can be expected on short term, from  which the company sponsoring the research can profit.

Private companies do not usually fund basic research where tangible applications that can lead to profits are decades or possibly centuries away.

 

If we, as a society, would value increased knowledge about the world without the perspective of short term tangible benefits, we need to fund it through taxes.

 

ETA: Private companies won't fund research that does not help their bottom line at least in medium term. That is not their function.

Edited December 14, 2016 by regentrude

[regentrude]

What is wrong with disclosing the names of scientists in the government?  I thought people wanted transparency.  Other than international spies, I don't see why anyone needs to be a secret.

 

The problem is who is doing the asking and what their well known bias is. There cannot be any benign reason for wanting lists of names.

This has nothing to do with transparency.

 

 

[creekland]

At the risk of being publicly flamed, I'd like to ask a question. A genuine question, one I don't know the answer to-feel free to persuade me.

 

Scientists can't work if they aren't being paid. But WHY is it the responsibility of the national government to fund it? Why can't it be a private market?

 

Not who you quoted, but adding my own thoughts/experiences anyway.  Private markets almost always come with an agenda - a profit agenda.  They don't care about doing any research that won't be profitable to them.  If we want other things looked into (including climate change or obscure diseases or learning language), it pretty much has to be gov't funding.  There aren't that many non-profit private places out there willing to raise and donate money for these causes.

 

Suppressing US scientists won't stop info from other scientists around the world. How will we be blocked from that?

 

Are you suggesting it's better to farm out science research and quit doing it in the US?  Because that's what it sounds like, but maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

 

As things are now, in many research fields (including middle son's), his university is working in partnership with several others both domestic and worldwide.

 

The US has many great colleges and minds.  It would be sad to not be able to put them to use and just sit back reading the journals from others calling it "good enough."

[Tanaqui]

Scientists can't work if they aren't being paid. But WHY is it the responsibility of the national government to fund it? Why can't it be a private market?

 

Because this sort of research doesn't lead to quick profits, therefore, the private market is unlikely to fund it. We have a government, one which was explicitly formed to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That means spending money to do the sort of unprofitable scientific research which, nevertheless, will save lives.

[Pawz4me]

Suppressing US scientists won't stop info from other scientists around the world. How will we be blocked from that?

 

We won't be blocked as long as we have access to the internet and scientific journals. But that access is something that at the moment I wouldn't take for granted.

 

Also, I believe sitting back and reading about the scientific work performed in other countries is pretty much what people in third world countries do. Do you want to become one of them?

Edited December 14, 2016 by Pawz4me

[regentrude]

But does General Relativity Theory describe gravity accurately? If it does, then where does the idea of "dark matter" come from?

 

By definition, "dark matter" is matter which cannot be measured. Do you believe it exists? On what basis? On the basis that General Relativity Theory does not predict what is observed in the universe? In that case, you support your belief in a theory which does not match measurements by believing in something that cannot be detected.

 

General relativity is outside my area of expertise, and I am not informed about the most recent developments in cosmology.

I do know that general relativity pretty accurately describes many phenomena and is the best theory we have for things for which we otherwise have no explanation. That does not mean it is divinely sanctioned truth - Newtonian gravity works really well within a certain realm and leads to accurate predictions; it is not "wrong", it simply cannot be applied to all scenarios.

From what I understand, the jury is still out whether GR needs to be overthrown completely, or modified.

 

I "believe" that dark matter "exists" in the sense that I acknowledge that the current models do not accurately describe the behavior of the universe if we assume that it is solely composed of the known matter. I acknowledge that the discrepancy can be fixed by the hypothesis that there are dark matter and dark energy which are not accessible to observation through electromagnetic waves. Since I am not a cosmologist, I have no opinion whether we are dealing with a flaw in the theory or whether there actually "is" something beyond what we can observe. It will be interesting to see whether the detection of gravitational waves can shed a light on (pardon the pun) this otherwise unobservable matter, since whatever it is does show gravitational interaction.

I am keeping an open mind. Science is not "finished". It would be very exciting to find that what we have thought is matter comprises only 5% of the universe and that there is "other" stuff. but then, humans did not know about electromagnetism for a long time either - so who is to say there aren't more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt by our philosophy, to paraphrase the Bard.

[creekland]

Science is not "finished". 

 

:iagree:  For many of us science types, this is what makes it both intriguing and fun.  It'd be quite boring if we already knew everything.

Edited December 14, 2016 by creekland

[SKL]

The problem is who is doing the asking and what their well known bias is. There cannot be any benign reason for wanting lists of names.

This has nothing to do with transparency.

 

I disagree that there can be no benign reason.

 

We can agree to disagree.

[hornblower]

What is wrong with disclosing the names of scientists in the government?  I thought people wanted transparency.  Other than international spies, I don't see why anyone needs to be a secret.

 

Climate scientists are already being harassed on twitter, including being sent photos of guns (after Breitbart ran an inflammatory piece saying every time you hear peer review you should grab your 'browning') 

 

You want their names & addresses out so that the looony fringe can go harass them (or worse) in person? 

 

It's not like responsible gov't officials don't know who works in their departments. The issue is making public lists.  

[creekland]

I disagree that there can be no benign reason.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

Would you think it's ok if SWB were asked for a list of names of folks who posted on here and complied?  Say it's in the guise of the gov't wanting to know who homeschools and is requested by a gov't figure who isn't fond of homeschooling.

 

No problems with that?  Totally benign wanting to know?

[SKL]

Would you think it's ok if SWB were asked for a list of names of folks who posted on here and complied?  Say it's in the guise of the gov't wanting to know who homeschools and is requested by a gov't figure who isn't fond of homeschooling.

 

No problems with that?  Totally benign wanting to know?

 

If I was being paid a taxpayer-funded (or forum-member-funded) salary to do whatever I do on this forum, then I would not expect anonymity.  I would expect to be accountable to whoever was paying me.  I could understand exceptions for things that are obviously secret such as spying.  I hope most Americans don't equate government-funded scientific research with spying.

 

Everybody who uses or pays for the work I do has my name, business address, and electronic contact info.  They could get my home address instantly by running a search on the internet.  Whooptie doo.

Edited December 14, 2016 by SKL

[hornblower]

If I was being paid a taxpayer-funded (or forum-member-funded) salary to do whatever I do on this forum, then I would not expect anonymity.  I would expect to be accountable to whoever was paying me.  I could understand exceptions for things that are obviously secret such as spying.  I hope most Americans don't equate government-funded scientific research with spying.

 

Everybody who uses or pays for the work I do has my name, business address, and electronic contact info.  They could get my home address instantly by running a search on the internet.  Whooptie doo.

But they are accountable to who is paying them. Their bosses in the department know who they are, their qualifications & how they're being paid. 

 

This is  something completely different.  

 

 

 

Hey, if you're so into openness, how about following the Norwegian model where everyone's taxes are public. I mean shouldn't we all see what gov't tax breaks & deductions all people are getting? 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by hornblower

[regentrude]

If I was being paid a taxpayer-funded (or forum-member-funded) salary to do whatever I do on this forum, then I would not expect anonymity.  I would expect to be accountable to whoever was paying me.  I could understand exceptions for things that are obviously secret such as spying.  I hope most Americans don't equate government-funded scientific research with spying.

 

Everybody who uses or pays for the work I do has my name, business address, and electronic contact info.  They could get my home address instantly by running a search on the internet.  Whooptie doo.

 

A lot of information about all public employees, including DOE employees, is public. Their qualifications and salaries are public record. What is NOT published is the precise nature of everybody's work.

These scientists are accountable: to their supervisors who can actually evaluate their work. Who, in turn, are accountable to congress. The scientists are not accountable to political figures who don't possess any expertise to evaluate their contributions and who so far have not offered a reasonable explanation for demanding this information that would alleviate the fears that the purpose is to target the scientists because their work does not fit a certain political agenda.

 

I have lived under a totalitarian regime. I know exactly how it works.

Edited December 14, 2016 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

I just can't like all of the things you are saying enough. :)

 

There is a reason "publish or perish," is spewed all over academia. If you don't get things published, you're out. That pressure doesn't go away. Particularly now that tenured positions are disappearing like they are, the competition is immense for what decent paying research positions remain.

 

I have no citations to base this off of, but to me, it feels as if the university system (which is a bedrock of research) is undergoing a massive transition at this point. I think we would do well to examine more in depth the results that is having on the scientific process and community; as well as what they are producing.

 

Yeah, that's my sense as well, though I have closer ties to the humanities.

 

I also always keep in mind a really interesting interview I read/heard from the CBC, with James Lovelock, which was particularly focused on processes of science.  People often talk about science moving from universities or government to industry.  But he spoke about the change from independent scientists not affiliated with any big organization, to ones who had to, in some way, toe the accepted line, as being significant. 

 

I found it really interesting.

[Bluegoat]

At the risk of being publicly flamed, I'd like to ask a question. A genuine question, one I don't know the answer to-feel free to persuade me.

 

Scientists can't work if they aren't being paid. But WHY is it the responsibility of the national government to fund it? Why can't it be a private market?

 

There are people who do research privately, sometimes welfare type organizations, or other times industry.  Industry tends to do it for profit, and both do it according to the vision of a few. 

 

The purpose of government, or one purpose, is to act in the public good, in areas that are not of interest or not possible for private individuals.  If the public wants research in a particular area, because they see a non-monetary benefit, or just human curiosity, the way to get that done, as a collective, is through government.  That's why we have it, to accomplish things as a group.

[Barb_]

If I was being paid a taxpayer-funded (or forum-member-funded) salary to do whatever I do on this forum, then I would not expect anonymity.  I would expect to be accountable to whoever was paying me.  I could understand exceptions for things that are obviously secret such as spying.  I hope most Americans don't equate government-funded scientific research with spying.

 

Everybody who uses or pays for the work I do has my name, business address, and electronic contact info.  They could get my home address instantly by running a search on the internet.  Whooptie doo.

 

Being able to find something isn't the point.  Asking to be handed a list is the point.  

[SKL]

Well if I was the prez or a US legislator, I would want to be able to hear directly from the scientists rather than just accept summary reports about "a consensus of scientists say ___" or whatever.  Important policies are / will be proposed and enacted based on the outcome of government-funded research.  I think it's kind of alarming that science folks think government-owned research results should be hidden from the people in charge of the government.  So is it the case that our current prez is not allowed to know who worked on reports he receives?

 

I know people can abuse power and fire people for political reasons - it has happened not that long ago here in the US.  That should not be allowed.  But secrecy isn't the right method of prevention.

 

Aside from the basic concepts of accountability and transparency, there is the issue of credibility.  How can we expect people to know whom to believe when the sources of the information are secret?  "A concensus of xx experts" just doesn't cut it in this world.

[Barb_]

Well if I was the prez or a US legislator, I would want to be able to hear directly from the scientists rather than just accept summary reports about "a consensus of scientists say ___" or whatever.  Important policies are / will be proposed and enacted based on the outcome of government-funded research.  I think it's kind of alarming that science folks think government-owned research results should be hidden from the people in charge of the government.  So is it the case that our current prez is not allowed to know who worked on reports he receives?

 

I know people can abuse power and fire people for political reasons - it has happened not that long ago here in the US.  That should not be allowed.  But secrecy isn't the right method of prevention.

 

Aside from the basic concepts of accountability and transparency, there is the issue of credibility.  How can we expect people to know whom to believe when the sources of the information are secret?  "A concensus of xx experts" just doesn't cut it in this world.

 

I don't think you or anyone else cares that Doctor Johnny Whangdoodle was involved in the research.  I think you just like being difficult.

[hornblower]

Well if I was the prez or a US legislator, I would want to be able to hear directly from the scientists rather than just accept summary reports about "a consensus of scientists say ___" or whatever. 

And you still would be able to do that. Congress can hold hearings, can call experts, can summon the bureaucrats to testify.   

 

 

This was a transition team asking for names of  "department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years"

 

Quit making it sound like the scientists are working in some secret bunker & nobody will know anything other than be given a report which they can't question. This is about something completely different. 

 

 

[SKL]

I don't think you or anyone else cares that Doctor Johnny Whangdoodle was involved in the research.  I think you just like being difficult.

 

Merry Christmas.

[Barb_]

Merry Christmas.

 

Happy Holidays, LOL

[SKL]

And you still would be able to do that. Congress can hold hearings, can call experts, can summon the bureaucrats to testify.   

 

 

This was a transition team asking for names of  "department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years"

 

Quit making it sound like the scientists are working in some secret bunker & nobody will know anything other than be given a report which they can't question. This is about something completely different. 

 

 

 

I'm not the one making it sound like the scientists are afraid of the requestor ever knowing their names.

 

I went looking for the exact source of this information, and I can see it was a transition request.  Fine and dandy, but come January 21 are they still going to push back?  The comments here indicate they should keep these people secret as long as anyone skeptical of the extent of human-caused climate change is requesting it.

 

[SKL]

Hey, I can easily get your real name from a small amount of Internet snooping. It's doable. Maybe already done. Then I get your home address, made easier if you've ever talked about your area in online boards. Whooptie doo? How about if I give your name to all those who dislike you fervently, who would get a kick out of outing you, maybe proving you've not been honest about some things, etc.

Soo, that sounds pretty awful, doesn't it? Like really really bad. Can you understand how people are worried? How harassment of people due to hateful idiots is NEVER a good thing? Being a public employee does not mean your name should be freely handed over without knowing the reasons why.

He's not ignorant, he knows exactly what he's doing. These people do not want to be harassed for doing the job they were hired to do. period.

 

Where does it say that the names and/or home addresses were to be published publicly? 

 

Where did anyone say that harassment of people due to hateful idiots is ever a good thing?

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

These people are not being secretive. They are upset at being singled out INDIVIDUALLY for doing their jobs. Why is that so confusing to you?

 

So if he ever wants to hear directly from the source, how is he supposed to accomplish that?

 

[SKL]

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

[SKL]

Well anyways ... this is getting political and I'm taking a break to get some work done.  Merry Christmas.

[Barb_]

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

 

Thats...not how government funding works.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

 

You're probably right, that's pretty much what Lorini and Caccini said to Bellarmine, and Galileo was summoned. Which of course was not a problem for Galileo in any way.

[treestarfae]

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

 

Scientists could be afraid of violence and problems towards them from climate change deniers.

 

Have other countries discussed these threats to scientists here?

[regentrude]

Have other countries discussed these threats to scientists here?

 

Oh heck yes! It is main stream news in Germany. And the language is quite pointed.

[creekland]

So if he ever wants to hear directly from the source, how is he supposed to accomplish that?

 

 

If he (or his assistants) need a list provided to him of everyone who went to a conference in order to figure out who might be a decent source, I think I'm even more afraid for our country...

 

Personally, I'd rather pick from a (scientific) paper I've read or perhaps read a synopsis of.  Those are published.

[SKL]

FTR my questions have nothing to do with any conspiracy theory in my mind.  I simply think the prez should have access to government-paid scientists.  Government scientific research in many contexts is a matter of national security.  It seems strange and paranoid to talk about withholding information about it from the prez.

[SKL]

nm

Edited December 14, 2016 by SKL

[Bluegoat]

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

 

The president has access to all kinds of good information and people, heads of agencies, and those who can tell him to to ask if he needs information.  He can also go through the organizations all these people belong to, whoever pays their bills.

 

There isn't actually a real need to compile a list so that he can find people to talk to.

 

Even if he wanted to compile a secret list, that could be done pretty easily, intelligence agencies do that sort of work pretty easily and may even already have that sort of information.

 

This is meant to be for show, as a statement - meant to make people ask why names are being compiled, and very likely as a threat.  Or perhaps to make some statement to his supporters.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Bluegoat

[bibiche]

nm

Edited December 16, 2016 by bibiche
Knock it off.

[Guest]

nm

Edited December 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer