SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES

no notes 6/16<div>
</div><div>=</div><div>witch hunts:</div><div>
</div><div><div>http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/conspiracy-theorising-lamar-smith-cant.html</div><a href="http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/secret_science_intersociety_2015.pdf">http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/secret_science_intersociety_2015.pdf</a>
American Anthropological Association American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Geosciences Institute American Meteorological Society American Society for Microbiology (ASM) American Society of Agronomy American Society of Civil Engineers Association of American Geographers Association of American Universities Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) Biophysical Society Brown University Consortium for Ocean Leadership Consortium of Social Science Associations Cornell University Crop Science Society of America Duke University Ecological Society of America Entomological Society of America Harvard University Massachusetts Institute of Technology National Council for Science and the Environment Society for Conservation Biology Soil Science Society of America Stanford University The Ohio State University The University of Texas at Austin University of California System University of California, Riverside University of Maryland University of Michigan University of Oregon University of Pennsylvaniahttp://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/congressman-demands-more-noaa-e-mails-about-climate-study/
As part of his ongoing fight with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) sent a February 22 letter that demanded documents related to the agency's analysis of global temperature data. NOAA handed over 301 pages of e-mails between NOAA officials (but not scientists) pertaining to a <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/updated-noaa-temperature-record-shows-little-global-warming-slowdown/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">study published</a> last year in the journal Science. There apparently wasn’t anything juicy in those e-mails, however, because Rep. Smith is now asking for a great deal more.A new <a href="http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/lamar_smith_noaa_letter_feb22.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">letter</a> (initially <a href="http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/the-chair-of-the-house-science-committee-is-harassing-noaa-climate-scientists-again" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">acquired by</a> the Union of Concerned Scientists) complains that “[i]t seems unlikely that documents and communications would be so scarce,” and Smith directs NOAA to cast a wider net. He requests e-mails and documents not just from officials in the offices that had been targeted by the previous requests but also from “agency employees” across a broad swath of NOAA. The list includes the National Centers for Environmental Information that houses the scientists behind NOAA's global temperature dataset—a group Rep. Smith has accused of manipulating data.NOAA had apparently searched for e-mails including “hiatus”, “global temperature”, and “climate study”, but Rep. Smith wants that list expanded dramatically. Now, he wants NOAA to hand over anything that contains “Karl” (the name of the lead NOAA scientist on the Science paper), “buoy”, “ship”, “Night Marine Air Temperature”, “temperature”, “climate”, “change”, “Paris”, “U.N.”, “United Nations”, “clean power plan”, “regulations”, “Environmental Protection Agency”, “President”, “Obama”, “White House”, and “Council on Environmental Quality”.Those (very broad) terms reflect the fact that Rep. Smith hopes to find that climate data was manipulated due to a directive from the Obama Administration. (It should be noted that NOAA’s dataset <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">looks the same</a> as everyone else’s, and Smith already has access to the data and details on how it was analyzed.)Rep. Smith also cites a letter to sent him by “325 scientists, engineers, economists, and other scholars raising serious inquiries about the adherence of NOAA to [Office of Management and Budget] guidelines established under the Data Quality Act.” That letter was circulated around climate “skeptic” circles <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/300_signatories.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">for signatures</a> by retired physicist and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C.Marshall_Institute" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">George C. Marshall Institute</a> chairman <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/a-climate-skeptic-states-his-case/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">William Happer</a>. Rep. Smith’s has yet to acknowledge the protest letters sent by a number of major scientific organizations, however.<aside class="pullbox sidebar story-sidebar right" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 17px; padding: 6px 0px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); width: 300px; float: right; clear: right; margin: 6px 0px 20px 20px;"><div class="story-sidebar-part" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-flow: row; -webkit-box-align: start; align-items: flex-start;"><div class="story-sidebar-part-content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 1.33em; text-transform: uppercase; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 2px;">FURTHER READING</h3><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/more-organizations-speak-out-against-congressmans-noaa-investigation/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">More organizations speak out against Congressman’s NOAA investigation</a></div></div></aside>Nevertheless, Rep. Smith has followed the letter’s cue to demand “all documents and communications referring or relating to the processes and methodologies that NOAA implements to adhere to the Data Quality Act,” both generally and relating to the Science paper. The letter even demands “the peer review record” of that paper.The letter gives NOAA until February 29 to deliver.http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/more-organizations-speak-out-against-congressmans-noaa-investigation/In a major move, seven scientific organizations came together today to send a message to the Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). Smith is investigating the NOAA climate scientists behind <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/06/updated-noaa-temperature-record-shows-little-global-warming-slowdown/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">a study</a> that concluded we’ve seen slightly more surface warming since 1998 than previously thought. That organization's message? “Grave concern” about Rep. Smith’s subpoena of internal communications among NOAA scientists and staff.<a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/former-noaa-researcher-comments-on-whistleblower-allegations/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">Former NOAA researcher comments on whistleblower allegations</a><a href="http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/lamar_smith_AAAS_etc_letter.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">The letter</a> comes from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America.The letter highlights the fact that all the data and methodology of the study “have been publicly shared and discussed directly with the committee staff,” and that there is no evidence of misconduct. The study has gone through the usual peer-review process, as other research relevant to the topic has in the past and will in the future.“Scientists should not be subjected to fraud investigations or harassment simply for providing scientific results that some may see as politically controversial,” the letter reads. “Science cannot thrive when policymakers—regardless of party affiliation—use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence.”While emphasizing that the organizations “recognize the oversight responsibility of Congress,” they argue that this isn’t the right way to fulfill that responsibility. “We encourage the committee to utilize other avenues, such as the National Academies, for assessing the science and distilling technical matters to assist policymakers,” the letter concludes.In a separate development, NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan sent <a href="http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/lamar_smith_sullivan_response_nov20.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">a response</a> to Rep. Smith’s recent letters. Sent on Friday on behalf of NOAA and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, the letter lays out all the actions NOAA has taken since mid-July to answer Rep. Smith’s questions about the NOAA study. It argues that Rep. Smith has all the information he needs. “If the Committee doubts the integrity of the study, it has the tools it needs to commission a competing scientific assessment,” Sullivan wrote.“Nevertheless, we take any whistleblower allegations seriously and stand ready to work with the Committee, the Inspector General, or the NOAA scientific integrity review process to respond and evaluate these allegations appropriately,” the letter also states.Sullivan—a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_D.Sullivan" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.17s;">geologist and former astronaut</a>—also responds to Rep. Smith’s accusations of collusion with the Obama administration, writing, “I proudly serve President Obama, as I proudly served President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush before him. I am a life-long public servant profoundly dedicated to using science to inform decision-making in the best interests of the nation. I have not and will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me.”</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/29/scientists-congress-climate-change/</div><div>
</div><div>group of 31 of the country’s top science organizations sent a <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">letter to Congress</a> this week highlighting the dangers of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">climate change</a> and urging immediate action. The letter, representing millions of scientists, mentions several impacts of climate change, including <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=extreme+weather" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">extreme weather</a>, <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=sea+level+rise" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">sea level rise</a> and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=wildfires" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">wildfires</a>.“The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades,” the letter goes on to say.The effort was spearheaded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, whose leader, Rush Holt, is a former member of Congress. The signers of the letter range from the American Public Health Organization to the American Meteorological Society.For a deeper dive: <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7896fd54ea3c48a0ad77882589f85966/science-groups-congress-climate-change-real-threat" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">AP</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/06/28/top-science-groups-tell-climate-change-doubters-in-congress-to-knock-it-off/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Washington Post</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-is-real-experts-tell-us-congress-global-warming-a7107531.html" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Independent</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-letter-congress_us_577293ece4b017b379f75f61" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Huffington Post</a><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: " trebuchet="trebuchet" ms="ms" lucida="lucida" grande="grande" sans="sans" unicode="unicode" tahoma="tahoma" sans-serif="sans-serif">, <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/28062016/science-organizations-again-urge-congress-take-climate-change-seriously-lamar-smith-science-committee" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">InsideClimate News</a></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>Ever since Smith gained control of the committee in 2013, its most conservative faction has <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientists.html">aggressively questioned climate science and funding</a>, including<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/25/3725782/scientists-scold-science-committee-chair/">charging the scientists</a> at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of misrepresenting climate data.That feud earned the committee an unusual rebuke last year in a joint letter from major scientific groups: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America. They said the committee's actions were chilling scientific inquiry—the very charge Smith is now making about the investigations into Exxon.Smith and his allies on the committee bitterly oppose the Paris climate treaty and action on climate change generally, with many of them vocally doubting the mainstream scientific consensus on the climate crisis. At hearings, the panel's majority often invites testimony weighted toward this view.</div><div>==</div>