Comments on: Additional Reactions – Waxman Hearing http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dan Hughes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7954 Dan Hughes Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:42:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7954 If you Google around looking for info on the Joint Funding Resolution that was passed by the House Jan. 31, you'll find, "Among the trade-offs were cuts to President Bush's budget requests for NASA, foreign aid and aid for communities affected by the latest round of military base closings." So, this administration's assault on Science at NASA continues. Oh, wait a minute, the House is not controlled by the President's party, and that article says, " ...cuts to President Bush's budget requests for NASA ... ". If you Google around looking for info on the Joint Funding Resolution that was passed by the House Jan. 31, you’ll find,

“Among the trade-offs were cuts to President Bush’s budget requests for NASA, foreign aid and aid for communities affected by the latest round of military base closings.”

So, this administration’s assault on Science at NASA continues.

Oh, wait a minute, the House is not controlled by the President’s party, and that article says, ” …cuts to President Bush’s budget requests for NASA … “.

]]> By: Bill F http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7953 Bill F Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:03:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7953 I have to say it is quite ironic to see such an outcry in DC over "scientific suppression" of pro-AGW scientists, while right down the road in Delaware, the governor and much of the legislature are apparently up in arms because their state climatologist won't toe the party line on the human role in cliamte change. There is a word that begins with an H and ends with an e and has ypocrit in the middle that comes to mind... I have to say it is quite ironic to see such an outcry in DC over “scientific suppression” of pro-AGW scientists, while right down the road in Delaware, the governor and much of the legislature are apparently up in arms because their state climatologist won’t toe the party line on the human role in cliamte change. There is a word that begins with an H and ends with an e and has ypocrit in the middle that comes to mind…

]]> By: Benny Peiser http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7952 Benny Peiser Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:28:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7952 OK, so the climate change hearings in the US go on and on. But here is the thing: is there anyone who is *actually* committed to the Kyoto Protocol? I mean, is any decision maker actually supporting Mr Chirac's call to action? Any volunteers? U.S. risks EU tax unless Kyoto pact is signed http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702010182feb01,1,4416126.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed OK, so the climate change hearings in the US go on and on. But here is the thing: is there anyone who is *actually* committed to the Kyoto Protocol? I mean, is any decision maker actually supporting Mr Chirac’s call to action? Any volunteers?

U.S. risks EU tax unless Kyoto pact is signed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702010182feb01,1,4416126.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

]]> By: Lab Lemming http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7951 Lab Lemming Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:57:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7951 Hi Roger! Your testimony rated a mention in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/washington/31interfere.html Unfortunately, they seem to have interpreted it as suggesting that science has always had political interference, so why start worrying about it now? At least that's the vibe I got. Hi Roger! Your testimony rated a mention in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/washington/31interfere.html
Unfortunately, they seem to have interpreted it as suggesting that science has always had political interference, so why start worrying about it now?

At least that’s the vibe I got.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7950 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:31:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7950 Bob- Realpolitik is always welcomed ... in fact, now that Nature has got Goldston, maybe we might get you under contract here;-) We offer great terms and you get all sort of feedback as you can see ;-) Bob- Realpolitik is always welcomed … in fact, now that Nature has got Goldston, maybe we might get you under contract here;-)

We offer great terms and you get all sort of feedback as you can see ;-)

]]> By: Russell Seitz http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7949 Russell Seitz Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:35:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7949 You have opened my eyes to new dimensions of Congressional mathematics-- some members of the House and Senate evidently believe that science supression may consist either in giving one side in the Climate Wars three billion dollars or allowing the other to receive three million. You have opened my eyes to new dimensions of Congressional mathematics– some members of the House and Senate evidently believe that science supression may consist either in giving one side in the Climate Wars three billion dollars or allowing the other to receive three million.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7948 kevin v Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:01:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7948 this also highlights a curious difference between paths in the House and Senate. It seems very unlikely that we'll be going down this road in the Senate, unless Ms. Boxer brings it up during a climate hearing, but if she does it'll be a side issue rather than the entire focus of a hearing, I suspect. Lieberman and Collins are the ones in Waxman's position, but they're not likely to shift from what they were already doing in the last session which is talking about Katrina and very little else. this also highlights a curious difference between paths in the House and Senate. It seems very unlikely that we’ll be going down this road in the Senate, unless Ms. Boxer brings it up during a climate hearing, but if she does it’ll be a side issue rather than the entire focus of a hearing, I suspect. Lieberman and Collins are the ones in Waxman’s position, but they’re not likely to shift from what they were already doing in the last session which is talking about Katrina and very little else.

]]> By: Bob Palmer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7947 Bob Palmer Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:56:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7947 Roger: I wouldn't be surprised if Cong. Waxman has never issued a subpoena in 32 years. First of all, he's never been a full Committee Chairman until this year. And when he was a prominent Subcommittee Chairman (under Chairman Dingell), the Committee Rules and/or relations between the 2 Members may have precluded the Subcommittee Chairman from issuing a subpoena. There are different rules on different Committees pertaining to subpoena power. It may take a majority of Committee Members, or just the Full Committee Chairman, or in some cases just the Subcommittee Chairman to issue a subpoena. One of Mr. Waxman's predecessors as Chairman, Mr. Burton (R-IN), had unilateral authority and issued over 1000 subpoenas to the Clinton Administration, none of which led to anything substantive. In most cases, potential subpoena battles are resolved without the actual issuance of one. Negotiations occur between the Committee and the Administration -- often over a period of many weeks -- and usually an accomodation is reached. For a variety of reasons, administrations are nearly always eager to resolve these issues short of a subpoena actually being issued, and the threat of a subpoena is very strong medicine in itself. Sorry to taint you site with this realpolitik discussion, but the subject matter seems to be increasingly relevant to science policy. Roger:

I wouldn’t be surprised if Cong. Waxman has never issued a subpoena in 32 years. First of all, he’s never been a full Committee Chairman until this year. And when he was a prominent Subcommittee Chairman (under Chairman Dingell), the Committee Rules and/or relations between the 2 Members may have precluded the Subcommittee Chairman from issuing a subpoena.

There are different rules on different Committees pertaining to subpoena power. It may take a majority of Committee Members, or just the Full Committee Chairman, or in some cases just the Subcommittee Chairman to issue a subpoena. One of Mr. Waxman’s predecessors as Chairman, Mr. Burton (R-IN), had unilateral authority and issued over 1000 subpoenas to the Clinton Administration, none of which led to anything substantive.

In most cases, potential subpoena battles are resolved without the actual issuance of one. Negotiations occur between the Committee and the Administration — often over a period of many weeks — and usually an accomodation is reached. For a variety of reasons, administrations are nearly always eager to resolve these issues short of a subpoena actually being issued, and the threat of a subpoena is very strong medicine in itself.

Sorry to taint you site with this realpolitik discussion, but the subject matter seems to be increasingly relevant to science policy.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7946 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:38:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7946 Hi Bob! Thanks for weighing in ... you are far better positioned to handicap this than I am! I have read somewhere that Waxman has never issued a subpoena in 32 years . . . It would sure be interesting if he does so on this issue. Thanks!! Hi Bob! Thanks for weighing in … you are far better positioned to handicap this than I am!

I have read somewhere that Waxman has never issued a subpoena in 32 years . . . It would sure be interesting if he does so on this issue.

Thanks!!

]]> By: Bob Palmer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4084&cpage=1#comment-7945 Bob Palmer Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:50:41 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4084#comment-7945 Roger: Your guess about future Waxman hearings in the climate area is correct, I believe. However, I wouldn't rule out future hearings involving scientific misconduct/mismanagement in other areas. After all, Waxman authored his report on Bush scientific malfeasance at least 6 months before the UCS report, which actually added very little to what Waxman had already documented. There's lot of fertile territory there, on contraception, stem cells, etc. A lot of folks seem to be missing the fact that yesterday's climate hearing had more to do with House politics than anything else. Speaker Pelosi wants to set up a Select Committee on Climate and Waxman is trying to demonstrate by his early hearing that the Select Committee is unnecessary. That's why this hearing was held so early in the session. I don't agree with you on the subpoena issue. Waxman will get the documents. It's not a useful precedent to back down in your first fight as Chairman. Roger:

Your guess about future Waxman hearings in the climate area is correct, I believe. However, I wouldn’t rule out future hearings involving scientific misconduct/mismanagement in other areas. After all, Waxman authored his report on Bush scientific malfeasance at least 6 months before the UCS report, which actually added very little to what Waxman had already documented. There’s lot of fertile territory there, on contraception, stem cells, etc.

A lot of folks seem to be missing the fact that yesterday’s climate hearing had more to do with House politics than anything else. Speaker Pelosi wants to set up a Select Committee on Climate and Waxman is trying to demonstrate by his early hearing that the Select Committee is unnecessary. That’s why this hearing was held so early in the session.

I don’t agree with you on the subpoena issue. Waxman will get the documents. It’s not a useful precedent to back down in your first fight as Chairman.

]]>