"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public....And on NOAA's policy of press releases and public announcements being filtered through public relations, often resulting in rewriting science results and leaving out phrases such as "climate change":
- James Hanson"
Thomas Delworth... said the policy means Americans have only "a partial sense" of what government scientists have learned about climate change. "American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we're doing," he said.(I had to find a way to fit that quote I found from the Washington Post into my post because I actually hung out with and worked with Tom Delworth for a while when I was up in Princeton.)
I've already written several posts (here and here and here and here for example) about how our government is dangerously misrepresenting and censoring science.
James Hanson is the premiere U.S. climate scientist and the same NASA scientist that was in the news last winter because he spoke up when NASA public relations officials attempted to censor his research. In particular, he was told not to report on his work that showed if we do not begin to curb CO2 emissions within 10 years, global warming is in danger of running away from us. He is so concerned about the state of the environment and the consequences of our inaction that he has chosen to oppose the system and speak the truth he finds in his science, loudly and publicly.
I just now finally got to see the rerun of Jim Hanson being interviewed on 60 Minutes.
Very good interview.
Thank you, Jim Hanson, for speaking out.
In a statement issued February 18 , more than 60 highly respected American scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, blasted the Bush administration for suppressing and manipulating scientific evidence in order to promote a predetermined agenda. Entitled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking,” the statement charges: “When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.”
I'm still waiting for the public outcry.