A while back I wrote a piece elsewhere RE suspect censoring of Dr Hansen by NASA (Climate Change)
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?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Climate Change | CO2 | Hansen | NASA | Politics | Science
Flying Blind
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 1:25pm.
Link to the Federation of American Scientists document "Flying Blind"" which documents the systematic removal of American scientists from advisory roles of not only Congress but also every administration going back to Nixon.
Separately, the history of various Administration's censor of scientists with regard to climate matters is also well documented.
For example, quote:
Quote:
Happer made the mistake of crossing Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton administration's ranking environmentalist. In April, Happer testified before the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on Appropriations. "I think that there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change," he said. "One of the problems with ozone is that we don't understand how the UV-B is changing at ground level, and what fraction of the ultraviolet light really causes cancer."
End quote. Source, "The Jasons" by Ann Finkbeiner, pp 174
Link to narrative on the subject: from SEPP
For a brief Bio for Will Happer LINK
Nothing I've written has ever taken a position that current climate science is either all sound or all fallacy, but the statements "all scientist agree" as well as "95% of scientists agree" are nothing more than self serving political manipulation language with no basis in reality.
Secondly the history of Politicians observing and respecting the scientific method, and sad history of dismissing any data that doesnt support the "Political Objective" is well documented time and time again - on BOTH side of the aisle.
The only science Politicians have time (or need) for is "supportive science" while science that disagrees with political objective doesnt exist in the conversation - by various means and mechanisms to keep it quiet.
Ah yes...
Submitted by mole333 on 8 January 2007 - 1:42pm.
More of your polite objectivity.
I merely gave your background on Hansen and some links to groups handling scientific inetgrity and censorship issues. And you come back with "self serving political manipulation language with no basis in reality." Hansen had no self-serving poltitical goal in mind whatsoever prior to reaching disillusionment with his previous path of trying to work with Bush. And now his only "self-serving political" goal is to stop lawyers from telling him how he is allowed to discuss science.
As to other Administrations, I would be as critical of them if and when I hear the same kind of overwhelming disillusionment I hear right now. I never have. Not under Reagan, not under the elder Bush and not under Clinton. And I have been a scientist through all of those administrations. Sicentists of all kinds are horrified with what's going on right now in a way I have never seen before. UCS never felt it necessary to set up a separate "scientific integrity" project. Nobel Prize winners never before felt they had to set up their own PAC to protect scientific integrity (as far as I know). And I have never seen so many opinion pieces in Science and Nature about political attacks on science as I do now. I also wonder why "but everyone else does it" would be a sound arguement anyway. But even if other presidents did it as well, and I suspect there is some truth to that, this is way beyond what has happened before.
My specific comments and
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 1:59pm.
My specific comments and over riding concern is with the Wolf Blitzers of the world teaching voters about climate change. And also exploring these issues with an objective open mind, instead of one clouded by political bias / ambition or media ratings.
If you took anything I wrote personal, maybe spending some time wondering why you did that would be helpful to us all.
Something I've been wondering is, as a scientist who understands the scientific method and the implications of being open to various views and data, what is the purpose of your picture as you hold a hand axe weapon being held in an aggressive stance?
The subliminal message is a bit alarming and might be intimidating for some.
Ha ha ha
Submitted by mole333 on 8 January 2007 - 2:15pm.
Would it help to know that the picture is from a wedding? Seriously! You got something against Vikings? Oddly, most people find the picture quite amusing, not threatening. For the record, the ax has only been used on one single apple, lying temptingly on the ground. I did succumb to temptation (how traditional that it was an apple!) and split it nicely in two with a satisfying "thwok." Oh, yes I also used it to remove a small tree that was growing too close to a wall in our tiny little back yard.
As to this: "If you took anything I wrote personal, maybe spending some time wondering why you did that would be helpful to us all."
All I can say to that, after all our exchanges, is pot, kettle, black. But really, no I don't take anything you say personally. We're not that close.
I suspect we would both like
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 2:32pm.
I suspect we would both like voters to be able to understand the line between proven science and yet-to-be proven theory and how it applies to these issues, and in doing so learn to think critically enough to recognize self-serving "pejorative" language typically used by politicians. Hopefully regular working voting citizens will begin to feel the need to research via the local library or Yahoo search and seek out the facts and recognize political manipulation and using "selected" science from basic sound balanced science.
As far as the various posts of mine and yours, with subsequent comments - I think the readers of this publication are smart enough to consider the content and form their own conclusions.
I also think the folks who have enough of an open mind to think for themselves, can recognize the fact that it isn't limited to any one political party, rather is seems to run rampant in our government.
Yep
Submitted by mole333 on 8 January 2007 - 2:42pm.
Pretty much sums it up.
For the record, I do remember one Democratic Congressman I find to be a bit of a witch-hunter when it comes to scientists: Dingle. However, I can come up with far more Republicans and in their cases the levels of intimidation, threats and "faith-based" views of science far outweigh what I have seen from Republicans. Joe Barton is perhaps one of the worst all around, but many in the Bush administration itself have gone way out of their way to attack scientists. For that matter they now want the Park service to carry creationist books but to stop quoting the geological age of the Grand Canyon because that would contradict their view of Genesis.
I gotta say that it has been a long, long time since I saw any Democrats that bad. I will say that as a Progressive I don't like the anti-evolution stand of those really early progressives like William Jennings Bryan. But then again the ACLU took the other side.
I have no faith in
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 2:57pm.
I have no faith in "Faith-based" Government, or science. The Sumerians after all knew the Earth was round how many thousands of years before Rome decided it was flat?
I can easily see the day where the UK "anti hate based speech" laws also apply to discussion of science.
the ax lends street creed, yo
Submitted by Tara Parks on 8 January 2007 - 2:55pm.
i side with Mole on this one. i also do not understand the ax reference. what the hell? i always thought it was a funny pic. and when he welded it at a waiter during lunch the other day, we were served much faster.
seriously...is JH considered a WB? this administration is making him into a WMD, in my opinion. i think he should have the right to speak about his findings. you don't just ignore information bc it is contrary to the agency/employer you work for. i can guarantee what he makes public, most of the world will never know, sadly. but most people will not research or listen to his or NASA's findings because they don't care. also, NASA can still take their own stance. i think the way to reach the closest possible state of objectivity occurs when nothing is censored, even the bullshit.
and how objective do you think anything is? once it becomes public, people have opinions on it. the people who do the research are probably not that objective, either. i don't mean in their gathering of info, but in their assessment of it.
people should not be expected to function as robots, free of emotion, totally objective. even scientists.
Thank you and yes
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 3:13pm.
As far as Dr. Hansen goes, I in no way disrespect his work or his desire to speak as he chooses. I also think there is a very real difference between speaking as an employee while on the clock vs as a citizen on personal time. Everything I read last year during that episode indicated he had respected that boundary.
(I would still like to see a coherent conversation between the oceanographers and the atmospheric scientists discussing sub-surface geothermal impacts on ocean and atmospheric climate models)
The bigger picture issues of this post are the Politician's use of selected science, the firing of dissenting scientists, and the systematic removal of them from government advisory roles.
The material in the link above within the document "Flying Blind" is the core of this discussion. Anyone who wants to learn a little bit about the role of the scientific community advising government would also enjoy THE JASONS by Finkbeiner, keeping in mind it is only one view, the key is to open the door to curiosity and look deeper.
(Mole333, the Flying Blind reference is the tile of the Report by FAS, noting more. Although I like the title).
Jim Hansen
Leaving aside the issue of scientific censorship and integrity, a little background might be informative. For those interested in issues of scientific integrity and censorship, I refer you to the Union of Concerned Scientists including their statement signed by 10,000 American scientists speaking out against political interference in science (full disclosure: I have signed this statement), as well as the brand new organization, Scientists and Engineers for America founded by, among others, fourteen really pissed off Nobel Prize winners who want to help scientists fight back at the ballot box.
What I will do is give a tiny glimpse into what is behind Jim Hansen's statements. For more than 3 years, Jim Hansen was a loyal team player who advocated laying low and trusting Bush. He remained out of politics and advocated waiting and seeing and advocated faith in Bush's statements that he was concerned about warming science and would listen to scientists. I considered him a Bush apologist (my opinion, not intended to be representative of anyone else's views). Others merely viewed him as unwilling to stand up to authority or genuinely believing that cooperation with the Bush administration is the best way to go.
One had to wonder what it took for this loyal team player to become a whistle blower.