Comments on: The Abdication of Oversight http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2097 Steve Bloom Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:17:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2097 Kevin, I was thinking more along the lines of things like producing legislation in conflict with the Bush agenda (or absence thereof) and being willing to push it hard, or actions similar to what the small group of moderate Republicans (including Boehlert, I assume) just did in blocking the budget bill over the ANWR drilling issue. Kevin, I was thinking more along the lines of things like producing legislation in conflict with the Bush agenda (or absence thereof) and being willing to push it hard, or actions similar to what the small group of moderate Republicans (including Boehlert, I assume) just did in blocking the budget bill over the ANWR drilling issue.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2096 kevin v Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:57:15 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2096 Mmm...I would say Boehlert both is willing and already has. He hasn't hesitated from calling out the Bush Administration on climate change (this is one example of many: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2002/087.html) And his fight against Barton this summer (see Roger's and my posts in the archives) is indication that he doesn't much care what the other R leadership thinks. Mmm…I would say Boehlert both is willing and already has. He hasn’t hesitated from calling out the Bush Administration on climate change (this is one example of many: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2002/087.html) And his fight against Barton this summer (see Roger’s and my posts in the archives) is indication that he doesn’t much care what the other R leadership thinks.

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2095 Steve Bloom Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:36:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2095 Kevin, I don't think it can be said that Boehlert is at the point of being willing to openly break with the Republican leadership over climate change. If I'm right about that, then it's not inappropriate to want to push him in that direction. On the other hand, I don't for a second believe that most of the Dems who signed onto the Kucinich effort will be much more willing to get real on climate change than are the Reps. Kevin, I don’t think it can be said that Boehlert is at the point of being willing to openly break with the Republican leadership over climate change. If I’m right about that, then it’s not inappropriate to want to push him in that direction. On the other hand, I don’t for a second believe that most of the Dems who signed onto the Kucinich effort will be much more willing to get real on climate change than are the Reps.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2094 kevin v Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:12:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2094 DOK - you would have a point in other arenas, especially in those that carry a statuatory proscription that controls the sharing of info such as for classified material. But in the case of atmospheric science there are no documents to hide. Just data that anybody can access (via NCDC if nowhere else), anybody can analyze and anybody can publish. And the more I have thought about this since my comment yesterday, the more I have realized just how stupid this was. Angering your committee chair is always a bad idea. Doing so when he's already on your side and is already your only hope of doing anything at all in the House about climate change is beyond stupid. DOK – you would have a point in other arenas, especially in those that carry a statuatory proscription that controls the sharing of info such as for classified material. But in the case of atmospheric science there are no documents to hide. Just data that anybody can access (via NCDC if nowhere else), anybody can analyze and anybody can publish.

And the more I have thought about this since my comment yesterday, the more I have realized just how stupid this was. Angering your committee chair is always a bad idea. Doing so when he’s already on your side and is already your only hope of doing anything at all in the House about climate change is beyond stupid.

]]> By: Dylan Otto Krider http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2093 Dylan Otto Krider Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:58:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2093 If Kucinich was asking for what could mean truckloads of documents, then it does sound like an attempt to cause mischief. Such documents should be publicly available, and if some aren't, then Kucinich has a point. But, I would agree that Kucinich is an idiot in general. If Kucinich was asking for what could mean truckloads of documents, then it does sound like an attempt to cause mischief. Such documents should be publicly available, and if some aren’t, then Kucinich has a point.

But, I would agree that Kucinich is an idiot in general.

]]> By: kevin v http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2092 kevin v Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:27:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2092 Fellas, the only lesson here is that Kucinich is clueless and he got the staffers of 150 other D's to play along. Somebody forgot to tell him that the chances of using climate change to create an election-year wedge between R's is slim to none. Why? Because first, all three are safe seats and second, the voters in the districts he'd like to affect could not possibly care less about the issue. InsideEPA was very generous in calling this "a novel effort." As Roger pointed out, it is counterproductive at best (it certainly got Boehlert's hair up) and I'll say moronic at worst. It certainly cannot - with a straight face - be called anything other than playing politics with the science. Eli - you have got to be kidding. Better call Oliver Stone so he can make a movie on how the Bush Administration has somehow stiffled all public academic research on "hurricane impacts on coastal areas," keeping all that info closeted within the executive branch agencies where Dick Cheney has iron control and can ensure none of it leaks out. Haven't you noticed? Anything even remotely sensational that can be in any way linked to anthropogenic climate change now is not only published but disseminated to the media in countless press releases and press conferences. You've heard of Judy Curry now, right? Had you ever heard of her before her paper with Peter Webster last month? Fellas, the only lesson here is that Kucinich is clueless and he got the staffers of 150 other D’s to play along. Somebody forgot to tell him that the chances of using climate change to create an election-year wedge between R’s is slim to none. Why? Because first, all three are safe seats and second, the voters in the districts he’d like to affect could not possibly care less about the issue. InsideEPA was very generous in calling this “a novel effort.” As Roger pointed out, it is counterproductive at best (it certainly got Boehlert’s hair up) and I’ll say moronic at worst. It certainly cannot – with a straight face – be called anything other than playing politics with the science.

Eli – you have got to be kidding. Better call Oliver Stone so he can make a movie on how the Bush Administration has somehow stiffled all public academic research on “hurricane impacts on coastal areas,” keeping all that info closeted within the executive branch agencies where Dick Cheney has iron control and can ensure none of it leaks out. Haven’t you noticed? Anything even remotely sensational that can be in any way linked to anthropogenic climate change now is not only published but disseminated to the media in countless press releases and press conferences. You’ve heard of Judy Curry now, right? Had you ever heard of her before her paper with Peter Webster last month?

]]> By: EliRabett2003 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2091 EliRabett2003 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:02:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2091 While granting John Fleck his headline point, why precisely do you think people are interested in hurricane futures at the moment and effects on coastal areas? If I wanted to be as contentious as some, I would point out that the headline "In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change." says nothing about whether Kucinich is claiming that recent hurricanes are due to climate change and everything to do with the fact that Kucinich wanted all information that the administration has on Climate Change. But I would not do that. While granting John Fleck his headline point, why precisely do you think people are interested in hurricane futures at the moment and effects on coastal areas?

If I wanted to be as contentious as some, I would point out that the headline “In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change.” says nothing about whether Kucinich is claiming that recent hurricanes are due to climate change and everything to do with the fact that Kucinich wanted all information that the administration has on Climate Change. But I would not do that.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2090 Roger Pielke, Jr. Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:49:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2090 Thanks to the reader who sent this along: House Committee on Science Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Minority Member www.house.gov/science FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 9, 2005 Contact: Joe Pouliot, 202-225-0581 joe.pouliot@mail.house.gov COMMITTEE DEFEATS RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY WASHINGTON, DC - The House Science Committee today defeated a resolution of inquiry that would have required the Administration to provide to Congress, within 14 day of enactment, all documents related to "the effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States" produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Weather Service, National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Assessment Synthesis Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The resolution, which was introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), was defeated 11 to 16 and, by voice vote, was reported from Committee adversely. It will not be brought before the full House. Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) delivered the following opening statement at the markup: "I want to welcome everyone to what I hope will be a brief mark-up of what I see as a frivolous resolution on a serious subject, global climate change. I wish we did not have to take time on this resolution, but under the rules of the House, Committees must act on resolutions of inquiry within 14 days or they can be brought up under a privileged motion on the House floor. And I certainly don't want to be responsible for the whole House having to devote time to this measure. "I want to make clear at the outset that any debate or vote on this measure should not be seen as any kind of barometer of what the House thinks, or is willing to do about, global climate change. Personally, I support mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, and I think there is growing concern about climate change around the country. "But I don't think that this resolution would advance the debate on climate change one iota. Rather, this resolution is a broadly drafted, partisan political ploy that tries to create a phony issue about documents. I don't see how that helps anyone. "It's difficult even to determine how anyone would comply with the resolution. What documents are being sought? Every Administration document related to climate change and U.S. coasts? How many truckloads of materials would that be? "Moreover, what would we do with this information if we got it? What would we find? What new insight would we arrive at concerning climate change or climate policy? The resolution reminds me about the old line about dogs chasing cars: What would they do if they caught one? What would anyone do if this resolution succeeded? "The more I've read this short resolution, the more baffling I've found it. Information on the potential impact of climate change on U.S. coasts is readily available. The potential impacts of climate change on coastal areas are the subject of countless scientific papers. "So what prompted this? Has anyone sought specific documents for specific reasons under standard procedures and been denied? Not that we know of. "But then again, there's not much that we know of related to this resolution because it was introduced without any discussion with me, even though, under House rules, it has to move swiftly. This is not the way things work around here if one wants to solve a problem rather than try to score a political point. "By now, I assume no one has any doubts about where I stand on this matter. I urge my colleagues to swiftly defeat this resolution so this Committee can return to more worthy business - including looking further into climate change. I should add that we hope to have a subcommittee hearing in the next month on the Administration's draft Climate Change Technology Program plan. "So we will continue to work on this important issue - unimpeded, I hope, by political gamesmanship." ### 109-159 Thanks to the reader who sent this along:

House Committee on Science
Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Chairman

Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ranking Minority Member

http://www.house.gov/science

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 9, 2005

Contact: Joe Pouliot, 202-225-0581
joe.pouliot@mail.house.gov

COMMITTEE DEFEATS RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

WASHINGTON, DC – The House Science Committee today defeated a resolution of inquiry that would have required the Administration to provide to Congress, within 14 day of enactment, all documents related to “the effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United
States” produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Weather Service, National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Assessment Synthesis Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

The resolution, which was introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), was defeated 11 to 16 and, by voice vote, was reported from Committee adversely. It will not be brought before the full House.

Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) delivered the following opening statement at the markup:

“I want to welcome everyone to what I hope will be a brief mark-up of what I see as a frivolous resolution on a serious subject, global climate change. I wish we did not have to take time on this resolution, but under the rules of the House, Committees must act on resolutions of inquiry within 14 days or they can be brought up under a privileged motion on the House floor. And I certainly don’t want to be responsible for the whole House having to devote time to this
measure.

“I want to make clear at the outset that any debate or vote on this measure should not be seen as any kind of barometer of what the House thinks, or is willing to do about, global climate change. Personally, I support mandatory caps on carbon dioxide, and I think there is growing concern about climate change around the country.

“But I don’t think that this resolution would advance the debate on climate change one iota. Rather, this resolution is a broadly drafted, partisan political ploy that tries to create a phony issue about documents. I don’t see how that helps anyone.

“It’s difficult even to determine how anyone would comply with the resolution. What documents are being sought? Every Administration document related to climate change and U.S. coasts? How many truckloads of materials would that be?

“Moreover, what would we do with this information if we got it? What would we find? What new insight would we arrive at concerning climate
change or climate policy? The resolution reminds me about the old line about dogs chasing cars: What would they do if they caught one? What would anyone do if this resolution succeeded?

“The more I’ve read this short resolution, the more baffling I’ve found it. Information on the potential impact of climate change on U.S. coasts is readily available. The potential impacts of climate change on coastal areas are the subject of countless scientific papers.

“So what prompted this? Has anyone sought specific documents for specific reasons under standard procedures and been denied? Not that we know of.

“But then again, there’s not much that we know of related to this resolution because it was introduced without any discussion with me, even though, under House rules, it has to move swiftly. This is not the way things work around here if one wants to solve a problem rather than try to score a political point.

“By now, I assume no one has any doubts about where I stand on this matter. I urge my colleagues to swiftly defeat this resolution so this Committee can return to more worthy business – including looking further into climate change. I should add that we hope to have a subcommittee hearing in the next month on the Administration’s draft Climate Change Technology Program plan.

“So we will continue to work on this important issue – unimpeded, I hope, by political gamesmanship.”

###
109-159

]]> By: John Fleck http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2089 John Fleck Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:36:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2089 Eli - The press release's headline says: "In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change." I'm not sure how he could have been any more clear about his intention to link this inquiry to the hurricane question. Eli -

The press release’s headline says: “In Wake Of Devastating Hurricane Season Kucinich Demands White House Documents On Climate Change.” I’m not sure how he could have been any more clear about his intention to link this inquiry to the hurricane question.

]]> By: Benny Peiser http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3651&cpage=1#comment-2088 Benny Peiser Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:10:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3651#comment-2088 William It is rather illuminating to see how well you've spotted Blair's hidden agenda for his Kyoto U-turn: "This now lines up a possible explanation, that Blair is angling to lead the post-Kyoto organisation in retirement from being PM." Dream on, my friend. Or are you seriously banking on Gordon Brown? Forget it. Brown and other senior government ministers are just as desperate as Blair to scrap Britain's CO2 emission targets (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article325172.ece). The reason for Britain's new climate policy isn't that difficult to understand either (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4415818.stm). Let's face it. The climate alarmists have lost the political battle in Britain while the moderates have essentially won the argument. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Get over it. It's time to look for a pragmatic, long-term and cost-effective approach to climate change - come hell or high water. Benny Peiser William

It is rather illuminating to see how well you’ve spotted Blair’s hidden agenda for his Kyoto U-turn: “This now lines up a possible explanation, that Blair is angling to lead the post-Kyoto organisation in retirement from being PM.”

Dream on, my friend. Or are you seriously banking on Gordon Brown? Forget it. Brown and other senior government ministers are just as desperate as Blair to scrap Britain’s CO2 emission targets (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article325172.ece). The reason for Britain’s new climate policy isn’t that difficult to understand either (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4415818.stm).

Let’s face it. The climate alarmists have lost the political battle in Britain while the moderates have essentially won the argument. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Get over it. It’s time to look for a pragmatic, long-term and cost-effective approach to climate change – come hell or high water.

Benny Peiser

]]>