Lamar Smith, Future Chairman For the House Committee On Science, Space, and Tech

An anonymous reader writes "Lamar Smith, a global warming skeptic, will become the new chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Someone who disagrees with the vast majority of scientists will be given partial jurisdiction over NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. When will candidates who are actually qualified to represent science or at a minimum show an interest in it be the representatives of science with regard to political decision-making?"

To Be Fair, He's Replacing Texan Ralph Hall

[retroworks]

Hall's opposition was even more pronounced. One could even say that by appointing Lamar Smith, who only attacked "one sided coverage" (vs the 88 year old Hall's direct attack on the science), that Texas may be slowly warming up to the idea... http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/12/ralph-hall-speaks-out-on-climate.html [sciencemag.org]

You're confused about who he's representing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The candidate (Lamar Smith) is not there to represent science, so he doesn't really need to be qualified for that. He's not there to represent NASA, EPA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the USGS. He's there to represent the people who elected him, and more broadly all of the people of the US. Just playing devil's advocate here. Not everyone in the US agrees with all things science.

My apologies.

[game kid]

To all of Slashdot's out-of-US readers: On behalf of the United States of America, I apologize for this event. I do not live in Smith's Congressional district; nor would I have dare voted that anti-freedom, anti-technology SOPA author and professional monster [wikipedia.org] to Congress (let alone this apparently influential committee position) if I did.

Smith has left great bruises on the certainty of a free internet and will now leave a great and lasting scar on Science and the Useful Arts. He will not endanger the science of "climate change" or "global warming", he will endanger knowledge itself.

Vast Majority?

[loyalw]

Just because a vast majority believe a certain thing to be true does not make it so. Things all fall at the same rate, the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Earth is a spheroid, etc. None of these beliefs was held by the vast majority at some time in the past. I don't know if there is global warming or not. Some of the data show a rise in sea level and a loss of polar ice. Is this man-made, man-enhanced, or just a natural cycle that the Earth is going through? How much carbon is put into the air from forest fires, volcanoes, etc.? How does that compare to what the cars and other man-made carbon spewers put into the air? Some unbiased data would be good. It is unfortunate that big business (and government, which really is just another big business) pays for most research. It makes it very hard to publish a study with a conclusion different from what the sponsor would like. Just my $0.02.

Re:Skeptic is ok...

[steveg]

...but in this case knowledgeable people are divided.

Well, knowledgeable people are divided on every topic. The question is divided how? If it's 50-50 or even 60-40, I can see some ambiguity. If it's 95-5 or thereabouts (which actually seems to be the case) then it's much less so.

And maybe it's just me, but my mind doesn't go to "holocaust denier" when the term "denier" comes up. I've been hearing the term with regard to global warming for some time, and your post is the first time I've ever seen anybody try to draw that connection, and it certainly wouldn't have occured to *me*.