Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Why so secretive?

In case you missed it the other day - and you probably did - Vox excoriated the House Science committee because they were looking for information from government agencies on how they've come to their conclusions on climate change.

Well, in the interest of openness, transparency, and fresh air (pun intended), these agencies have...declined to answer.  PJ Tatler: "NOAA Refuses House GOP Subpoena of Research Denying Pause in Global Warming."

I'm no climate scientist, but this seems suspicious.

Related - Mark Steyn: "The certainty of uncertainty."


Then and now said...

From the Viking Pundit archive:

March 2007:
"Subpoena assault - Congress's real goal is crippling the Bush Presidency"

May 2007:
But what about all the subpoenas? That's something, the subpoenas

July 2007:
Yawn, another subpoena

August 2007:
“independents [are] frustrated by a Congress more adept at sending subpoenas than passing legislation.”

Eric said...

Oh, yeah, the entirely Constitutional firing of some U.S. attorneys.

Question: why does the Left suck so bad at debating global warming, particularly if all the evidence is on their side? Why does Al Gore refuse to share a stage with anyone? How did we get to the hilarious video of the Sierra Club President repeating "I believe the 97%" like some kind of cult member?

NOAA More Pause said...

At first, there was great consternation among climate scientists about how to deal with the obvious "pause" in global warming of the last 18 years. Then NOAA got a brilliant idea:

"Hey guys, let's eliminate the pause by revising the historic data records to show that there was no pause! How cool will that be? Then we can just refuse to provide any investigator with the records on which our science is based because we're, you know, scientists! And transparency is detrimental to science!"

Question: why does the Left suck so bad at debating global warming, particularly if all the evidence is on their side?

If they participated in debating it, that in itself would imply that it is not "settled science". In their minds, the far better course is to impugn, censor, and dream of conducting Nuremburg-type trials against the evil deniers.

"I believe the 98%" said...

I'll see your 97% and raise you 98%:

Last year, 98% of economists expected interest rates to rise; they fell instead.

Like climate "scientists", economists are incapable of accurately predicting the future, but expect everyone to believe them when they "explain" things that have just happened.