Readers may recall this oh so terrible squashing of free speech by the White House limiting NASA public employee Dr. James Hansen’s ability to talk to the media. It seems that the issue has been repeated today, but there’s a twist.
From the Wikipedia entry on James Hansen:
==============================================================
In 2007, Hansen has stated that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[80][81] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[82] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general found that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had mischaracterized the science of climate change intended for the public.[83]
In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[84] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[84]
===============================================================
Apparently it is only “censorship” if done by a Republican White House, as this story about the EPA today demonstrates oh so clearly:
From E&E Greenwire: http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2013/02/21/2
Agency openness a likely confirmation issue if McCarthy is nominated
“That effort has required EPA to set some rules when it comes to its scientists’ ability to interact with reporters. EPA funnels all media requests through its Office of Public Affairs — a practice McCarthy defended as necessary to ensure agency employees don’t speak outside their expertise.“
I’m sure the same people like CBS’s Scott Pelley, NYT’s Andrew Revkin, Democracy Now, and others who jumped on the censorship bandwagon of that “limit to ensure agency employees must funnel through the press office” will jump right on this new revelation with the EPA.
Brian Angliss, who told us back then how the affair played out might have some new insight on this EPA issue.
h/t to Chris Horner
Related articles
- Top NASA Sci-Guy Arrested (foxnews.com)
- NASA’s James Hansen, a muse to Eco-Terrorists?! Morano on Fox News: ‘NASA’s resident ex-con James Hansen is inspiring these people to potential acts of eco-terrorism’ (climatedepot.com)
- Quote of the Week – NYT on James Hansen & Bill McKibben’s ‘boneheaded’ efforts (wattsupwiththat.com)
Hansen must be retired he is way over the edge. In fact just let him drop.
James Hansen: World’s Loudest Victim of Censorship.
Re: Lance of BC
Uh, the massive impact hypothesis for the moon is testable, and predictive. As are the models explaining Venus rotating backwards from other bodies due to a massive impact(s).
Occam isn’t used for simplicity, it is used for unneccessary multiplication of entities.
“Things should be as simple as possible, but only just.” ~Einstein
“what, besides global warming alarmism, has Hansen done to be considered a scientist of any calibre?”
No, no, no. Please don’t confuse yourself. When you are a “great man” like me and Dr. Hansen are, you don’t have to do much of anything other than sit (or stand) around and be great, and *maybe* produce a squiggly line on a chart every once in awhile to show the Climate Collective that you still love them.
Andrew
Mods, pls take note.
Really, Michael … at it again?
You KNOW site policy on this subject … no?
[good point . . thanks for pointing it out . . mod]
.
Restriction of free speech has landed in the land of the free I see. watching the face of the USA change over the last 10 years or so I am shocked, moves are afoot here also in the UK to restrict free speech, and indeed to have whistleblowers dragged to the courts. But we do not have drones patrolling, not yet anyway.
– – – – – – – – –
Greg Holmes,
Restriction of free speech can only happen in the USA if the media condone it. And, I do not know what they teach now and have taught for the last ~50 years in university journalism schools here in the USA. But, why does it look like many have taught students to condone some level of blocking certain ‘incorrect’ views from getting access to media? And who will do some in-depth and critical reporting on the possibly ugly process of making politically correct sausages (aka journalists) at USA journalism schools? Not journalists, I presume.
John
1. Ethics: Where is it written that an employee has free speech on matters connected to his employment? That is truly a bizarre concept. And whether a contractual or ethical obligation, it was only Hansen’s first problem.
2. Comptetence: Hansen’s second problem was and remains that his model of climate is wrong, and plainly so. It should have been a professional embarrassment, but he fell short of even recognizing it.
3. Greed: Hansen, like Gore most obviously among others, has made a personal career if not fortune by converting (2) into a political movement at the expense of (1), and at the expense of all tax payers.
I’m very much in favour of having scientists completely free to talk about their research and its implications. If this is true about McCarthy’s stance, let’s can her. I’ve had trouble finding confirmation of this news; hopefully it’s either made moot by Obama nominating someone else, or it comes up in confirmation hearings.
It seems like most commenters here are more in favour of letting partisan hacks present the research results, instead of the scientists themselves. What’s the argument in favour of that? Is it just that you don’t like what this one scientist has to say, and thus you support muzzling all scientists?
Have you ever heard of, or are you familiar with the term “white paper”?
Are you familiar with, or doing you have any passing familiarity with the website ‘realclimate.org’ whose (byline ‘claim’ is: “Climate science from climate scientists“)?
Does the name or term “Fenton Communications” ring any bells?
.
[good point . . thanks for pointing it out . . mod]
… but, I see no sanctions invoked; it seems (to my screen view at least) the infracting post above still stands … perhaps a higher-ranking / more-authoritied mod needs to become involved?
Just following-up …
[And some things are just worth ignoring. 8<) Mod]
[Reply: Moved to Trash. — mod.]
.
I was in Santa Fe NM yesterday and got to see a rambling, disjointed presentation by Hansen with a jumble of charts with numerous assumed extreme outcomes. It was not obvious to me that these outcomes were certain and even he, on several occasions admitted that it was yet to be determined what the outcomes would really be. At least a third of the slides discussed political topics and methods for “fixing the CO2 problem”. It was painful to watch, yet most of the approximately 100 people there seemed to be acolytes, there to worship the planet’s saviour.
Let him speak. From his performance yesterday, I cannot see how he can, in the end, be much of a threat.
” . . . perhaps a higher-ranking / more-authoritied mod needs to become involved?”
. . .
Wait, wait, I know this one!
“Give an example of “superciliousness””
Do I win?
Private organizations don’t censor, they determine what is beneficial to the organization and what is not. Individuals can make the same determination, with the consequence of going elsewhere.
Governments censor, restricting publication by others.
The challenge comes when government is employer; it can’t discern and not censor at the same time. Another great reason to keep government small.