Reposted with my permission, as author.

(That's supposed to be a joke)

I had posted a brief quote RE Dr. Hansen and his issues with NASA taking a look at his speaking schedule and interaction with Journalists. Someone then asked me what are we to do about potential censor of Government scientists. I responded with the following:

Dear BF, every once in a while I toss something out there of which seems to stir a thought, but I am also not yet ready to expound upon. Or rather I need to gather my thoughts or in this case I had no time to further expand upon the original kernel or idea.

Also, often when someone asks a question or comments, it helps massively for me to congeal and bring to the surface a certain clarity which in turn helps me to explain where I wanted to go with an un-finished thought.

This is one of those times, thank you.

What to do? We have an interesting dilemma. On the one hand we have issues of free speech and unbridled creative scientific exploration and exchange of ideas. And on the other hand we have the perception of a need to control the public position and Company Line of the enterprise. For the above instance we could define the enterprise as the US Government (Bureaucracy) as well as the current Executive Branch Administration. From a day to day local on the ground nuts and bolts view, we may also find value to also encompass our employer / employee relationships.

There is no such thing as constitutional free speech in the work place. Can we repeat that for dramatic effect? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTITUTIONAL FREE SPEECH IN THE WORKPLACE.

Not mine, not yours. The only exception I know of is if you are a reporter for the media, and in that case there are still rules.

The article I mentioned above (below for this post) was tossed out to the milieu for digestion for two reasons. One, there are fun areas to examine with the base issue of free speech and two, the particular subject at hand is weather and climate.

Both near and dear to my heart.

Just as I wish public school teachers would keep silent with political matters in the classroom and hallways, so should government scientists when on the clock (my opinion). These are both examples of professional responsibility to remain un-biased and on purpose when performing the service for which they were hired.

Closer examination of the reference cited indicated reputable sources suggesting the gentleman in question had maintained a certain decorum and referenced personal viewpoints and his personal opinion when speaking freely AWAY from the office.

In the event an interview was taking place within or under the auspices of representing the Government Agency (and also applies to any employee of any Company) there is a level of appropriate distinction and responsibility to speak in accordance with ones position. And in doing so represent the enterprise accordingly.

So where does this leave us with the specific example?

I EXPECT a level of integrity from our Government Employees whether elected official, scientists, IRS, Law Enforcement, or any other civil servant. I also consider the President as a civil servant who is required to also operate with a level of integrity commensurate with the position.

This level of integrity extends to not only the behind the scenes day to day behavior, but also the manner in which a representative of any particular institution speaks in public when regarding issues of public importance.

There is an old rule about while speaking if asked a question, which the answer is unclear, there is no large integrity issue to just say, I dont know.

I also have no problem with we dont know.

Get that? We dont know. We are talking here of global weather and climate issues with potential catastrophic consequences. We dont know is probably the most enlightened thing anyone could ever say.

In my post regarding the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on handling of refrigerants aside from the very well presented details on a massively complex conversation, one of the first things that stood out for me was the striking level integrity of calling out areas of uncertainty. The authors ADMITTED they didnt have all the answers and indicated this in the sections in such a way as to not gloss over vagaries, rather identify the areas where more work is yet to do.

(For this forum my IPCC/TEAP Special Report info post will be sometime in the future (Ozone).

So we have two discussions. A broad picture conversation of free speech and the distinction between speech on the clock and speech by a private person and on personal time.

We also have a conversation about weather and Global Climate Change and the need for our Government to have a coherent policy and plan to keep the citizens (read that as owners) informed both with respect to the issues, and the plans going forward.

These are separate distinct issues, and I intend to explore them separately.

(End of my comment)

The Dr Hansen situation from the news:

Quote:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

End quote.

- Please read the article for the full context -

Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/archive/past_events/2005-2006/James%20Ha...

This quote is not provided for any negative or positive bias either regarding Dr Hansen, our Government, or the subject of Climate Change.

Folks should review the full text of the source to avoid any bias re the selected portion.

The subject of scientific responsibility to both citizens and employer is delicate and also transcends any particular issue or subject matter.

My comments above, although framed within the context of climate change, would be my opinion irregardless of the subject at hand. This post is about free speech and how it gets complicated when science is used by Politicains, and vice versa.

The two subjects "should" be independent of each other for best quality, the reality is they aren't.

Anyone care to share opinions?