Thursday, April 06, 2006
The censored news that's in all the news
The headline says it all: Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House. Then you go on to read uncensored comments from government scientists complaining about censorship.
“These scientists -- working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. -- say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004.”
Yep – that’s right: People working for agencies of the executive branch are now expected to clear media contact with…the executive branch….like just about everyone else in…the executive branch.
How serious a problem is this? Ten paragraphs into the article we learn:
“None of the scientists said political appointees had influenced their research on climate change or disciplined them for questioning the administration. Indeed, several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases. NOAA's budget for climate research and services is now $250 million, up from $241 million in 2004.”
How ludicrous are the charges?
“The assertion that climate scientists are being censored first surfaced in January when James Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the New York Times and The Washington Post that the administration sought to muzzle him after he gave a lecture in December calling for cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin issued new rules recently that make clear that its scientists are free to talk to members of the media about their scientific findings and to express personal interpretations of those findings.
“Two weeks later, Hansen suggested to an audience at the New School University in New York that his counterparts at NOAA were experiencing even more severe censorship. "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," he told the crowd.”
As part of the ongoing censorship of Mr. Hansen, he then did a piece on “Sixty Minutes”. DC is littered with publicity hounds who would love to be the subject of this kind of censorship.
The Washington Times begins an excellent editorial on the subject of climate change thusly:
"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,"
…only they didn’t write that. They were quoting a Newsweek cover story from 1975…and the climate change then was a cooling, not a warming.
The danger is that scientists, flush from the excitement of discovery and finding a receptive and gushing media taking down their every word, may stray from science to policy….and, as in 1975, be spectacularly wrong.
These whining scientists are not the executive branch and, accordingly, should not be speaking on its behalf. They should just do their work and let those entrusted with governing decide that work’s impact on policy. In other words, as Mike and Mike in the Morning would say: Just Shut Up!
“These scientists -- working nationwide in research centers in such places as Princeton, N.J., and Boulder, Colo. -- say they are required to clear all media requests with administration officials, something they did not have to do until the summer of 2004.”
Yep – that’s right: People working for agencies of the executive branch are now expected to clear media contact with…the executive branch….like just about everyone else in…the executive branch.
How serious a problem is this? Ten paragraphs into the article we learn:
“None of the scientists said political appointees had influenced their research on climate change or disciplined them for questioning the administration. Indeed, several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases. NOAA's budget for climate research and services is now $250 million, up from $241 million in 2004.”
How ludicrous are the charges?
“The assertion that climate scientists are being censored first surfaced in January when James Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the New York Times and The Washington Post that the administration sought to muzzle him after he gave a lecture in December calling for cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. (NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin issued new rules recently that make clear that its scientists are free to talk to members of the media about their scientific findings and to express personal interpretations of those findings.
“Two weeks later, Hansen suggested to an audience at the New School University in New York that his counterparts at NOAA were experiencing even more severe censorship. "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," he told the crowd.”
As part of the ongoing censorship of Mr. Hansen, he then did a piece on “Sixty Minutes”. DC is littered with publicity hounds who would love to be the subject of this kind of censorship.
The Washington Times begins an excellent editorial on the subject of climate change thusly:
"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,"
…only they didn’t write that. They were quoting a Newsweek cover story from 1975…and the climate change then was a cooling, not a warming.
The danger is that scientists, flush from the excitement of discovery and finding a receptive and gushing media taking down their every word, may stray from science to policy….and, as in 1975, be spectacularly wrong.
These whining scientists are not the executive branch and, accordingly, should not be speaking on its behalf. They should just do their work and let those entrusted with governing decide that work’s impact on policy. In other words, as Mike and Mike in the Morning would say: Just Shut Up!
