"... Smith threatens to sic law enforcement on the first American woman to walk in space
Kathryn Sullivan
(NOAA)
Kathryn Sullivan, who unlike Lamar Smith is a scientist and has walked in space.
Here's a fun side note. In Smith's letter to NOAA administrator Kathryn Sullivan, he demanded that she turn over her staff's internal communications or face "civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms."
Johnson notes:
I think it might be informative to take note of whom you are threatening. Dr. Kathryn Sullivan is a PhD geologist, former naval reserve officer, former three-time NASA astronaut, former chief scientist of NOAA, and former member of the National Science Board. As an astronaut, Dr. Sullivan became the first American woman to ever "walk" in space.
This is who Smith says colluded with the White House to falsify scientific data.
Smith is making accusations in the press for which he has never offered evidence
Johnson notes that it has taken Smith four months of investigation to articulate any reason for the investigation to exist. And when he finally put an allegation of wrongdoing on record, it was hedged and mild (there were "concerns" that the study was "rushed"). But when it comes to the popular press, Smith shows no such restraint.
From a November 16 op-ed by Smith on Breitbart News:
NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda ... When NOAA concocts data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made, that discredits their entire agenda ... It’s always easy to prove climate change when the Obama administration changes the data until they get the results they want.
In a letter to the Washington Post on November 17, Smith repeated: "NOAA employees altered temperature data to get politically correct results."
Johnson is not impressed:
In one fell swoop, you have accused a host of different individuals of wrongdoing. You have accused NOAA's top research scientists of scientific misconduct. By extension, you have also accused the peer-reviewers at one of our nation's most prestigious academic journals, Science, of participating in this misconduct (or at least being too incompetent to notice what was going on). If that weren't enough, you are intimating a grand conspiracy between NOAA and the White House to doctor climate science to advance administration policy. Presumably this accusation extends to Administrator Sullivan herself. And all of these indictments are conjured out of thin air, without you presenting any factual basis for these sweeping accusations ...
To date, Smith has offered no evidence in support of his sweeping accusation of scientific fraud and collusion. ..."
No worries about who will publish lies when you've got brietbart on your side.
When I see someone described as a "scientist" these days it always gives me pause. It is usually used when the person described has no expertise whatsoever in the field in question, but is quoted as a source of valuable insight. Here, a PhD GEOLOGIST is the purported source of information on climate.
Rocks. Climate. I don't get the connection.
But regardless, her area of expertise is irrelevant. The claims of "warming" conflict with claims of "no warming for the past thirty years," but I have never seen the "Rosetta Stone" article that juxtaposes the data and explains how one reputable source claims that the data PROVES AGW and another reputable source claims that the data REBUT AGW - or at least the projections that caused the early alarms to go off.
Geology is one of the Earth Sciences, like climatology. The effects of climate and climate change are seen in the geological record.
So a congressman lying and slandering people does not concern you? Threatening the head of NOAA?
"... But regardless, her area of expertise is irrelevant. The claims of "warming" conflict with claims of "no warming for the past thirty years," but I have never seen the "Rosetta Stone" article that juxtaposes the data and explains how one reputable source claims that the data PROVES AGW and another reputable source claims that the data REBUT AGW - or at least the projections that caused the early alarms to go off. ... "
And since you will never look for the evidence the facts will never trouble you.
All lies, all the time. that's the Republican way.
Will they even admit global warming is happening when the Marshall islands are under water? When the Arctic Ocean has an ice-free corridor every year? When "historic" droughts in the Western states become "normal" droughts?
Empirical science teaches us the truth. Republicans teach us how to lie about it. Lies are harmful.
