
Climate Scientists refuse subpoena from Congress - stillsut
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/16/climate-scientists-to-be-grilled-by-congressional-investigators-but-their-e-mails-are-still-off-limits/
======
lemevi
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.

Edit: For those that are suggesting that you need the emails to verify that
scientists aren't making up the data, the data itself includes information on
its providence. All the information you need to trust the data come from
independent verification of the data and from information in the data itself.
You don't need emails to verify research, but if you did then there's a
problem with how research is published.

~~~
SilasX
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 well enough to refute
it.

With that said, that doesn't mean there's enough evidence of misconduct to
justify a subpoena in this case; I'm just saying, it's not simply a matter of
"just look at the data rather than the people".

~~~
cracker_jacks
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.

~~~
sanderjd
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.

~~~
dalke
Congress _had_ a solution to this problem, in the Office of Technology
Assessment. Quoting from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment)
:

> The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was an office of the United States
> Congress from 1972 to 1995. OTA's purpose was to provide Congressional
> members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the
> complex scientific and technical issues of the late 20th century, i.e.
> technology assessment. It was a leader in practicing and encouraging
> delivery of public services in innovative and inexpensive ways, including
> early involvement in the distribution of government documents through
> electronic publishing. Its model was widely copied around the world.

It was de-funded "Contract with America" period of the 1990s.

~~~
sanderjd
Very interesting. I wasn't aware of that! I'm still skeptical of the ability
for anything to be completely "objective and authoritative", but that still
seems like a good thing to have, and it's unfortunate that it was eliminated.

------
leothekim
"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-faced
douchebaggery.

~~~
CamperBob2
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 work, and it's not
a bad thing.

~~~
mjn
The actual power being used here, the Congressional subpoena power, doesn't
have anything to do with whether something is public property or not, so that
isn't the basis they're claiming. It's a general quasi-judicial investigatory
power, which can be used to compel any person to both appear physically, and
turn over any documents in their possession that Congress, in their sole
discretion, believes might be important to decisions made by Congress. That
obviously has significant scope for abuse, which is why Congressional
subpoenas tend to be controversial, especially if they're fishing expeditions.

~~~
CamperBob2
Regardless of the legal details, they don't get to keep their .gov emails
private if someone with the proper authority requests them. That's part of the
deal when you sign on with Uncle Sam.

------
basseq
Good. The only purpose to reviewing _internal communications_ was to find a
red herring to use as a lever to undermine the scientific method. Providing
details about the research and the methods presented is reasonable for a peer
review, but this is someone with a political axe to grind.

------
jerf
I will avoid the cliche about how sites like HN have one opinion.

But I do find myself wondering how many people here frothing at the mouth
have, in other contexts, sung the praise of heavy government funding of
science research. Or how many sing praises of government oversight.

This is it. This is government funding in science research, and government
oversight. The oversight committee has the right to perform oversight. In any
healthy country, eventually, politicians you don't like will be in charge of
the oversight levers, as naturally as day follows night. (Unless you live
under eternal single-party control, in which case you've got bigger problems
than science oversight committees.)

There's no world where the government funds science research but just ships
out the dollars with no regard for what happens afterwards.

------
clumsysmurf
Lamar Smith is going after others too.

"Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the chairman of the science panel of the
House of Representatives, announced plans to investigate a nonprofit research
group led by climate scientist Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in
Fairfax, Virginia. _He is the lead signer of a letter to White House officials
that urges the use of an antiracketeering law to crack down on energy firms
that have funded efforts to raise doubts about climate science._ "

[http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2015/10/turnabout-house-
re...](http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2015/10/turnabout-house-republicans-
say-they-ll-investigate-climate-scientist-requesting)

------
ghjkdfshjk
I think the scientists should release all of their personal emails if these
politicians are willing to submit themselves to the same level of
transparency.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Wikileaks them both. Problem solved.

------
guelo
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.

~~~
vox_mollis
_These Republicans are shameful_

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

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

------
Zikes
That subpoena is fairly damning evidence that these politicians don't
understand how science works. Instead of scrutinizing the published data they
have to dig into communications - where all sorts of theories might be floated
and dismissed - so they can find something to take out of context.

------
tptacek
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.

------
gavanwoolery
Politics and science really have no place together. Politics is about pushing
the most favorable agenda, and science is about the pursuit of truth.
Politicians and liars have always had close association. Politics and science
are thus inherently at odds.

That said, I have seen, on more than one occasion, scientists become
untruthful for the sake of grants and political agendas (and this is not
necessarily referring to global warming). The FDA is one example where money
often trumps science. [http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/common-
decongestant-m...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/common-decongestant-
may-be-worthless-study-finds/)

~~~
markusbrutus
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 unreasonable amount of energy (pun intended).

~~~
gavanwoolery
[http://i.imgur.com/axlcWY1.jpg](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 warming, just that sometimes people present the data that favors their
hypothesis).

The distribution of primes, on the other hand, relies on one set of data. We
don't know everything about primes, and have some theories that may be
invalid, but the data is isolated and irrefutable. This is how math is
different IMO - it has a tendency to revolve around the nature of numbers
rather than ever-changing real world measurements.

There is a lot of money in climate science and green tech. A friend of my
parents got a multibillion dollar grant from the government to develop a clean
energy solution, for example.

My usual disclaimer - I dont care one way or the other to what degree humans
are warming the earth - I say act environmentally friendly either way.

~~~
dragop
> 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.

~~~
gavanwoolery
[http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-
hockey-...](http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick)

It turns out the data was blended, but it was weighted in an odd way to favor
the spikey outcome at the end. This is just one source, so take it with a
grain of salt.

------
a3n
> “We are just trying to fully understand the full context of the decision-
> making process,” a Republican committee aide said of the demand for
> correspondence.

I look forward to the day when all email between members of Congress are
public by default, to fully understand the representation process that they
conduct on our behalf.

------
rwallace
It's perfectly okay to say all communication on a particular project of public
interest should be open. Fine, set up a public mailing list and tell people to
use that instead of private email.

It's a lot less okay to lead people to believe their communications are
private and then demand to read their email after the fact. What if Alice, in
what she believed to be a private email to Bob, truthfully criticised Carol
for being a vindictive jerk, and in the meantime Carol has climbed the
political ladder and now has the power to sabotage Alice's career?

If Congress or whoever wanted that sort of oversight, they should have said so
upfront, not to try to apply it retroactively.

------
Karunamon
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 think you're hiding something when you do this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
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.

