Rep. Joe Barton Harrassing Scientists Who Warn of Global Warming

According to Chris Mooney:

http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1926

A GOP Abuse of Science--And of Power

I am extremely disturbed by this: House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton has sent a threatening letter to the heads of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Science Foundation, as well as to the three climate scientists who produced the original "hockey stick" study. Barton isn't simply humoring questionable contrarian attacks on the "hockey stick" graph; he's using his power as a member of Congress to intimidate the scientists involved in producing it. Here's what the letter to Michael Mann (PDF) demands, for instance:

1. Your curriculum vitae, including, but not limited to, a list of all studies relating to climate change research for which you were an author or co-author and the source of funding for those studies.

2. List all financial support you have received related to your research, including, but not limited to, all private, state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or honoraria.

3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding support under which you were a recipient of funding or principal investigator, provide all agreements relating to those underlying grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions, adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the dissemination and sharing of research results.

4. Provide the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you were an author or co-author and indicate: (a) whether this information contains all the specific data you used and calculations your performed, including such supporting documentation as computer source code, validation information, and other ancillary information, necessary for full evaluation and application of the data, particularly for another party to replicate your research results; (b) when this information was available to researchers; (c) where and when you first identified the location of this information; (d) what modifications, if any, you have made to this information since publication of the respective study; and (e) if necessary information is not fully available, provide a detailed narrative description of the steps somebody must take to acquire the necessary information to replicate your study results or assess the quality of the proxy data you used.

5. According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release the exact computer code you used to generate your results. (a) Is this correct? (b) What policy on sharing research and methods do you follow? (c) What is the source of that policy? (d) Provide this exact computer code used to generate your results.

6. Regarding study data and related information that is not publicly archived, what requests have you or your co-authors received for data relating to the climate change studies, what was your response, and why?

7. The authors McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005) report a number of errors and omissions in Mann et. al., 1998. Provide a detailed narrative explanation of these alleged errors and how these may affect the underlying conclusions of the work, including, but not limited to answers to the following questions:

a. Did you run calculations without the bristlecone pine series referenced in the article and, if so, what was the result?
b. Did you or your co-authors calculate temperature reconstructions using the referenced “archived Gaspe tree ring data,” and what were the results?
c. Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature reconstruction, particularly for the 15th Century proxy record calculations and what were the results?
d. What validation statistics did you calculate for the reconstruction prior to 1820, and what were the results?
e. How did you choose particular proxies and proxy series?

8. Explain in detail your work for and on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including, but not limited to: (a) your role in the Third Assessment Report; (b) the process for review of studies and other information, including the dates of key meetings, upon which you worked during the TAR writing and review process; (c) the steps taken by you, reviewers, and lead authors to ensure the data underlying the studies forming the basis for key findings of the report were sound and accurate; (d) requests you received for revisions to your written contribution; and (e) the identity of the people who wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record portions of the report, particularly Section 2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?”





What an asshole!!

This is harrassment, plain and simple.

This just keeps getting sadder...

Dear Rep Barton:

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Michael Mann

Please provide to the American PUBLIC:

ITEM 1:
Copies of all communications, (written, verbal or electronic)
with your party Leadership concerning environmental issues.

1(a):
Date and cross-reference to all related legislative, official,
and personal actions undertaken re: those issues.

ITEM 2:
Copies of all communications, (written, verbal or electronic) with any:
PACs,
Donors,
Lobbyists,
shareholders,
Industry Representatives,
consultants,
"Vested Interests"
Close Personal Friends,
Expert Witnesses
and/or "concerned Citizens"
which touched upon any Environmental issues.

Provide detailed Biographies of all individuals,
INCLUDING but not limited to:
Schooling
Work History
Close friends
Investment history
Police record (if any)

2(a):
Date and cross-reference as per 1(a).

ITEM 3:
Detailed records of all monies, campaign donations,
gifts, trips, advice, and/or services you have recieved
from any of the above groups/persons.

3(a):
Date and cross-reference as per 1(a)

Items 4 through 25(a):
More of the same.
Much, much more.

:shrug:

your suggestions are, of course, much more constructive ;)

...and insist upon full documentation, and cross-referencing as per 1(a)!

We will have funded some studies that were erring on the side of caution and protecting our environment.

If Barton is wrong, he and the anti-science (read corporate Big Oil) faction are dooming us to irreversible world-wide destruction of the environment we need to live.

It's so stupid, I cannot believe people could elect these kind of moron's to manage our national interests.

Someone had posted this recently:

22 Jun 2005

The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus


We are disappointed that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has chosen to yet again distort the science behind human-caused climate change and global warming in their recent editorial "Kyoto By Degrees" (6/21/05) (subscription required).

Last week, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies expressed the consensus view that "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". And just last week, USA Today editorialized that "not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming".

It is puzzling then that the WSJ editors could claim that "the scientific case....looks weaker all the time".

While we resist commenting on policy matters (e.g. the relative merits of the Kyoto Protocol or the various bills before the US Senate), we will staunchly defend the science against distortions and misrepresentations, be they intentional or not. In this spirit, we respond here to the scientifically inaccurate or incorrect assertions made in the editorial.

http://www.realclimate.org/
-------

The Wall Street is working hard against this these days. They must be worried.

about Michael Mann and links to his research:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=47


P.S.

" As part of his hockey-stick defense, Mann co-founded with Schmidt a Weblog called RealClimate (www.realclimate.org). Started in December 2004, the site has nine active scientists, who have attracted the attention of the blog cognoscenti for their writings, including critiques of Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, a novel that uses charts and references to argue against anthropogenic warming. The blog is not a bypass of the ordinary channels of scientific communication, Mann explains, but “a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues.”

to anyone who disagrees with the 'standard' neocon belief system.
"declined to release the exact computer code" - sound familiar? There is apparently no other science but the science of neocon 'krstjien' phonies.

The Earth is warming. There may be some lingering debate about what exactly caused it, but CO2 reduction will go a long way to at least slowing it down.
These fools will be on the wrong side of history and their names WILL be cursed in future generations.
WHEN will they realize that global warming warnings are not going to go away?
It's time the rest of the world separated economically from this disastrous US (non)-policy and took the lead in recognizing and dealing with the reality.
Denial of evolution is one thing. The future of all of mankind is not something to gamble with.

McCarthy lives

I don't. Like he would understand the nuance of supercomputer modeling code or the distinction between the models using or not using the bristlecone pine data. This is obviously the assemblage of those who not only don't want to acknowledge the existence of global warming but those who don't even admit the mechanism is sound and the likelihood high.

I've been skeptical about those who pronounced with high certainty they've quantified the phenomenon. I would suggest the data is simply not that complete or certain, so models can be no more certain than the data. But, i have no doubt the mechanism for warming is valid and that sooner or later it's going to happen and in increasing rates. Whether we are 500 years from massive climate or 25 years is an open question. That it will happen if we don't reduce fossil fuel consumption is beyond doubt.

Whoever wrote these questions are deniers! They ask questions from a congressman who wouldn't know the answers to these questions if he heard them. He's a tool and his advisors are charlatans.
The Professor

written in Reader's Digest style!

This material is immensely complicated and difficult even for graduate students to get some grasp of. This guy's simply another Texas oil gas company hack who probably hasn't critically analyzed a scientific paper in 20 years... if he ever has.

There is not a doubt in my mind that this guy wouldn't understand the mechanistic chemistry behind the theory or the application work behind the studies. He is, as you said, a political hack doing the bidding of the petro biz folks who want to milk the cow dry before we start changing things 'round here.
The Professor

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if you could cite even one peer-reviewed study discounting the existence and probable long-term effects of global warming.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

too bad the title alone directly conflicts with you premise.

"NATURAL "HEAT VENT" IN PACIFIC CLOUD COVER COULD DIMINISH GREENHOUSE WARMING"

This is about possible mitigating factors to the overall accepted effect known commonly as "GREENHOUSE WARMING".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Funny shit.

meant to discredit global warming is a scientific peer-reviewed paper that assumes global warming is a given.

Funny stuff.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, it was pretty clear you hadn't when you posted it. I would have thought you read it by now though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"No one believes that there is no warming"

In the rarified circles you run in that may be true (Although I doubt it.)

Let me tell you how it is in the world of "Joe Six Pack".

In his world he gets his info on climate change from the Limbaughs and Bushes of the world. He doesn't come to discussion boards and read differing opinions and he wouldn't understand scientific theory from a mathematical postulate.

What he knows about the climate from a scientific viewpoint is more likely to come from the weather girl on channel 14 than from "Scientific American".

Joe does not believe in global warming except maybe on the day his summer electric bill arrives. And it is Joe Six Pack that the Joe Barton in Congress are appealing to and confusing with THEIR JUNK SCIENCE.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the Ragnars keep calling it "junk science" and using every opportunity to descredit the concept of global warming.

Again, where is a study (peer reviewed) which concludes that all the other studies and models are conclusively "junk science".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

quoting Lindzen.

Well, I guess you really did have me fooled.

I thought you were a smart person.

Bye bye now.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

failed to realize that by quoting the infamous Lindzen you made both of you worthy targets of an ad hominum attack, which you were served (with a dash of relish I might add).

That was a delicious discussion last night. I thoroughly enjoyed your triple axels. Those spins are dangerous, your brave to try them. Midori Ito would be proud.

Thanks for the entertaining evening.

Research has moved on in 13 years, believe it or not.

Hopeing you weren't ragging on me.

But I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

see http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

He produced one mechanism that would be a negative feedback. Others dispute it. The basic forcings remain, and so do the actual observations of warming.

"He is asking for methodological and data information necessary to replicate a study"

He is asking for financial and contact information.

"2. List all financial support you have received related to your research, including, but not limited to, all private, state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts), or other financial awards or honoraria."

How is that necessary to duplicate a study?

"8. Explain in detail your work for and on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including, but not limited to: (a) your role in the Third Assessment Report;"

How is related work detail necessary for duplication and verification?

Finally I add this:

"4. Provide the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you were an author or co-author and indicate: (a) whether this information contains all the specific data you used and calculations your performed, including such supporting documentation as computer source code, validation information, and other ancillary information, necessary for full evaluation and application of the data, particularly for another party to replicate your research results;"

Notice that this is NOT a request specific to one study which Rep. Barton wants to duplicate. This is fishing expedition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then why the specific scientific inquiries.

Barton is on a fishing expedition, plain and simple. With a little imtimidation on the side.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all the data regarding his "Energy taskforce" including but limited to any financial ties he or any of his associates have had or continue to have with anyone associated with the consultations leading up to the Bush administrations energy policy and various implimentations of htat policy.

etc.

etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and with whom would he share the data.

For that matter who would he share the financial details regarding grants and financing with? Would this information be used by rivals (maybe within the oil industry) to undercut this man's ability to operate and fund his research?

The parallel was not perfect, neither is your arguement, especially since you keep changing the basis from the scientific realm to the political purpose and then on to the financial.

Typical bait and switch. Let's see, I'll confuse the poor rube with a different arguement and he won't even notice.

I'd like to continue, but this "Joe Six Pack" has a real job to go to very early in the morning.

Goodnight.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

see?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3940085

:patriot:

care of him for way to many years.

on edit:

Someday, Joe, someday we will take you down the river.