What is the Job of a Government Climate Scientist?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Government climate scientists are apparently complaining they have been “gagged”, that they aren’t able to speak out about their results. My question – why do they think they are special?

It’s Never Been Harder to Be a Climate Scientist

Legal attacks, internet harassment, and a Trump-fueled “culture of fear” are making their work more difficult than ever.

BY EMILY ATKIN

One month before President Donald Trump was sworn into office, the climate scientist Michael Mann wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post about the time someone sent a letter filled with fake anthrax to his office. The August 2010 scare, he recalled, was “just one in a long series of threats I’ve received since the late 1990s, when my research illustrated the unprecedented nature of global warming.” Things had gotten better in recent years, he wrote—no more anonymous mail with potential bio-weaponry, no more personal investigations by congressional committees, and far fewer death threats. But with Trump’s inauguration imminent, he wrote, “my colleagues and I are steeling ourselves for a renewed onslaught of intimidation, from inside and outside government.”

Climate scientists working directly for the Trump administration are the most affected. A report published last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists describes a “culture of fear” as government scientists are gagged, sidelined, or fired, and funding cuts loom. “Some are afraid to utter the words ‘climate change,’” the report reads. The fear has pushed some agency scientists to seek advice from outside sources. Lauren Kurtz, executive director at the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, says several federal climate scientists have asked her about their legal options for speaking out. “One researcher just called to say hey, my boss has made it really hard for me to do my job. What can I do?” she said.

Kurtz is also dealing with a problem that has existed for years: lawsuits filed by conservative groups against non-government climate scientists seeking their private communications. And just generally, Kurtz said she’s hearing from more private climatologists worried about the future of their grant funding, or the backlash they might receive from empowered internet trolls if they choose to publicly criticize against cuts that would effect their work. “It’s definitely become a more stressful profession,” Kurtz said. “Long-term, there’s room for optimism. But right now—especially when you factor in things like potential funding cuts and dealing with harassment, yes, it has become more difficult to be a climate scientist.”

Read more: https://newrepublic.com/article/144056/its-never-harder-climate-scientist

How did government employed climate scientists ever get the idea that their job is to spend taxpayer’s money and publicly criticise government policy?

What other government employees get to do this?

I have no problem with public statements from climate scientists who raise their own money – they can say whatever they want. But the job of an employee of the government is to do what the government tells them to do. For a government employed scientist, surely this means researching what the government asks them to research, and submitting reports to the government agencies which commissioned the research – not grandstanding in front of the media on a regular basis.

If a government employee discovers a risk so serious they feel compelled to make a public statement criticising their employer, I understand and respect that. But employees who publicly criticise the boss on a regular basis have no right to expect job security.

Advertisements

121 thoughts on “What is the Job of a Government Climate Scientist?

    • I had 40 years of Federal service an always had boss. My job was to implement policy. Doing what you are told to do is not a bit much. If one does not like it they can always resign.

      • “I had 40 years of Federal service an always had boss. My job was to implement policy. Doing what you are told to do is not a bit much. If one does not like it they can always resign.”

        But that is not what we are talking about, so why do you bring it up? Implementing policy, such as a particular approach to negotiating trade agreements, is completely different from fundamental research and the findings of that research.

      • And that is exactly the problem because a lot of these “scientists” now consider it “their job” to DETERMINE policy.

        Lauren Kurtz, executive director at the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, says several federal climate scientists have asked her about their legal options for speaking out. “One researcher just called to say hey, my boss has made it really hard for me to do my job. What can I do?” she said.

        Hey, how about you try doing your job instead of evangelising for your leftwing environmental politics.

      • Agree. USGS hydrogeologist gave talk. Admitted his boss told him not to push his cyclical ocean current theory since it wasn’t orthodoxy of USGS. Could work on it on own time, but never be published in official USGS Bulletin.

      • Same here. I only had 38 years though. As you said, we had to implement the policies set by higher ups. We were strictly forbidden from expressing our opinions on those policies to the public while acting in our official capacity.

        Of course, off site, when discussing issues with friends, relatives, and total strangers, we could express our personal views on those policies.

    • Yes lucaturin, government employees should do what they’re told – that’s what they’re getting paid for…

      If these unhappy scientists think they’re being told to perform bad science they can always quit and get a job in the real world or go to another bubble like university teaching/admin positions…

      • “If these unhappy scientists think they’re being told to perform bad science they can always quit and get a job in the real world or go to another bubble like university teaching/admin positions…”

        False statement. What the Trump administration is asking them to do is to ignore the findings of their research.

      • Suure! the issue is that the “scientists” were agenda driven at the expense of real research, even if it followed the policy preferences of the past administration. Perhaps micromachining can produce a violin small enough to play to express my sympathy for them.

      • No, they are being told to show the results of their work and to stop leaking as anonymous sources to the press, they got something to say then they need to stand up like men and say it. It is high time the people paying for all this crap actually got to see it.

      • “False statement. What the Trump administration is asking them to do is to ignore the findings of their research.”

        Is that a code to stop evangelizing the CAGW religion?

      • If it truely is the findings of their research, they could prove it by showing their data and their methods.

    • I work for an investor owned company. Every day, when I log on, a message pops up that tells me I have no “right to privacy” on that network. Anything I type on that keyboard is subject to discovery. If I want to criticize my employer in public, I have every right to do so, but they also have the right to fire me for it. Why should government workers have any different arrangement?

      • Because they work under a different set of rules. The reason is to encourage independent thought, not a bunch of yes men.

      • Well chris a bunch of ‘yes’ men and women are what we’ve had in climate science for the past 20 years.

      • “The reason is to encourage independent thought, not a bunch of yes men.” Sure Chris, so long as that independent thought matched that required by the past administration. How many academics were railroaded out of their positions, prevented from publishing, etc. when they even slightly criticized the consensus on ‘Global Warming?'”

      • Jorge, feel free to provide evidence to support your statement. Otherwise, just empty words. Here’s a quote from an article on the origins of civil service job protection: “The first civil-service protections were created in response to widespread abuses during the decades after the Civil War, when the spoils system reigned and presidents stuffed the bureaucracy with their political cronies.”

    • Well I always thought the job of Government employees, other than the USA military services, was to make and implement laws. That would seem to render the concept of a “government scientist”, somewhat pathetic.

      But when people go to school to study something for which there are zero advertised Jobs in any newspaper, one wonders how they planned to earn a living to support themselves or a family.

      G

      • “Well I always thought the job of Government employees, other than the USA military services, was to make and implement laws”

        You might want to educate yourself more. Do researchers at the National Cancer Institute make and implement laws? Of course not, they do research. Same for Sandia Labs, etc.

      • Do they think they have a god given, moral imperitive to determine health policy as well? No, they do research.

      • Well since you re so superiorly educated, perhaps YOU can tell me under which clause of Article I Section 8 does a National Cancer Institute fall. That’s the section of the US Constitution that tells the federal Government (The Congress) what their job is.

        I see screeds of ads on TV all the time promoting cancer research; I’m all for it. I’m quite sure none of those ads I recall mentions, any National Cancer Institute or any other non-private entity.

        it’s somewhat like the National Endowment for the Arts. That’s not the Government’s job either. But lots of private persons like me do support the arts.

        Article I Section 8 gives them 17 simple things they are allowed to do, and other sections like Article IV Section 4 tell them things that they must do (which they don’t).

        So there is plenty of legitimate stuff for Government employees to be doing, and a whole lot of stuff that is none of their business.

        G

      • Greg, George’s post said that federal employees make and implement laws, which is a ridiculous assertion. Some do, but lots do other things entirely unrelated. Economists that produce GDP reports, fisheries folks that do research on invasive species, etc.

      • George, looking up constitutional clauses is not relevant. There are roughly 2M federal employees. Some make and implement laws. Many have roles unrelated to making and implementing laws. Some of those roles are research, but there are lots of others – producing GDP reports or operating early warning systems for hurricanes and earthquakes, for example.

    • I’ve been a government employee and an employee for private companies and I’ve never had the luxury of doing what I want. In every instance, without fail, I had to do the job I was hired to do. The only limit is that whatever I was asked to do was lawful in nature. If my employer or supervisor asks me, as a lab tech, to clean a toilet, I clean the toilet. Either that, or I quit my job and find a job where I’m not asked to clean a toilet. Whether you’re a government scientist or janitor, or even a scientist or janitor in the private sector, you’re hired to do a job. So, do your job. If you don’t like it, find another job. If you can find a job where you can do anything you want any time you want, then more power to you.

      • Corporations and other businesses exist for the benefit of their owners. They are generally NOT democratic entities.

        Anyone is free to start their own, if they are not happy with what they are given to do, where they work now.

        It’s the system that makes the world operate most efficiently.

        G

    • Lucaturin,

      Yes, a person on a payroll must do what they are told by their manager. As a government scientist, your job is to perform research as directed, using defined scientific protocols, and to report your findings. Note that under proper protocol, the findings are not ‘directed’ but the topic of research is.

      The fact that any given scientist desires to research something different than his job requires is irrelevant because his job, government or not, is not to determine the direction of research, it is to perform research as directed. If he or she desires to pursue a different line of research they should find another employer who wishes to pay for that research.

      Otherwise, I would say that that this is ‘much ado about nothing’. There have been no reports of government scientists being fired, no government scientists has been told to alter their findings, nor has any reported that their findings were altered by others.

      What has changed is the direction of research due to the change in policy. As an example, imagine an Administration that sought to supress coal usage through government regulation. One way to do this is by directing that government scientists research the negative effects of coal generated emissions on health and to use this to direct the EPA to make regulations to correct the ‘problem’.

      Clearly, if the current Administration at the time of this hypothetical desires a certain outcome they can influence it. The only ethical way to do this is to hire scientists who support CAGW. Of course, when a new Administration takes power and the policy changes, the scientist who supports CAGW may not desire to pursue different research but, again, they must research what they are told to research. It is after all, a job like any other.

      So what is ‘different’ research under the new Administration for a government climate scientist? How about “coordinate with NASA to determine the exact diurnal drift of each satellite and provide correct drift adjustments to the data’. There are many others but few will benefit the CAGW belief system. If you’re ‘that’ scientist that is a fervent CAGW believer, I imagine it feels a little uncomfortable at the moment. However, the scientist should either do their job or quit.

    • These clowns don’t want to share their data and methods, but they want to speak out about their results.
      Cry me a river.

      • +10

        ….or document when they are bypassing quality control checks in their agency in order to meet political deadlines like the Paris Climate Agreement.

    • Why is it a bit much? Not contradicting company policy is SOP for every other employee in the country.
      How long do you think you would keep your job if you went on TV and started bad mouthing your company and bosses?

  1. Top 3 on my list: 1. attend meetings and generate reports to promote the globalist agenda; 2. promote a message that will ensure job security and pay and recognition (see #1.); 3. build up frequent flyer miles and hotel points in personal accounts for use during personal travel.

    • Don’t forget #Zero on the list: make your boss look good! As long as you do that, and your boss keeps his job, you’re in ‘fat city.’

    • R.S., I have not read all of the comments here — but at least half of them — and, so far, your’s is, as far as I am concerned, the only one, regarding addressing the title and concept of this particular article, going in the right direction … where I am limiting my talking points to USA govt employees:

      [a] the govt employee — as any similar employees that I’ve ever known in “large” corp settings — is supposed to do whatever TASKS and RESPONSIBILITIES and etc he/she may have been contracted to do … precisely according to a most-likely-present clearly established and laid-out policies and objectives;
      [b] if such includes your liberty for “hot-shotting” your work out willy-nilly — in whichever way you have decided unilaterally — to wherever, whomever or whatever entity, media outlet, etc … well, if that’s how your contract is worded; or, OTOH, as has been 99% of my experience
      [c] he/she most likely will need to go through specific established channels and hierarchy … again, per one’s contracted agreement.

      These days, particularly and especially in a govt operation, where the govt and its employees, agents, etc have been provided with a “public trust”, and, are working with taxpayer money, I would find it most difficult to accept that such employees will NOT be obligated contractually to follow the latter course. [ As has been my experience, there are just way too many anal-retentive lawyers to have it any other way.]

      In the meantime, my advice [per my one ovte] for govt employees: unless you are making a decision whether to leave your job, focus on your obligated tasks and keep your personal values and opinions in your wallet; for all remaining matters go through the chain of command. That is what your contract, perhaps even in so many words, most likely says. In other words: do what you said you were going to do.

  2. “Seeking their private communications”? An interesting way of describing Freedom of Information requests on Federally funded research used to influence government policy. I don’t think Mann has ever complied with civil discovery in the Steyn case, either, and there was a report that Mann was sanctioned in a Canadian civil case as well.

    • There was an internet article that Mann has not complied with judge’s orders could be sanctioned by John O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan wrote the same thing back in 2014. This article has been widely repeated and exaggerated. Unfortunately, there is no real indication that Mann has been sanctioned.

      • Which is why I worded my mention that way. The purported case with Tim Ball has been disputed as to it’s reality, but it is out there.

    • Ding, ding!
      Would also help their case if they quit fabricating data, tampering with data, and cherry picking data. But that is probably asking to much of them…

  3. This particular issue was addressed more than 10 years ago in a letter by me published in Eos when I was the Chair of the AGU Public Information Committee, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006EO180011/pdf. It was a comment that complemented an earlier Eos Editorial by Soroosh Sorooshian entitled “Communicating Government Science” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006EO160001/epdf), written when he was the Chair of the AGU Public Affairs Committee.

    • Harry,

      I endorse the spirit and content of your letter. A formal adoption of the USGS policies would go a long way towards addressing complaints that many ‘skeptics’ have. The role of the “disinterested observer” in science seems to be an unfamiliar concept to many younger scientists.

      Unfortunately, the USGS has declined in visibility and political influence over the last two or three decades. In discussions about the role of NASA, some have lost sight of the role that USGS formerly played in the Landsat program and use the Landsat program as a reason that NASA shouldn’t have funding cuts. It has been my perspective that the role of Earth observation by USGS has been usurped by NASA, which isn’t justified by its original charter. Further, USGS has a different culture and a long history of high-quality, unbiased research that is lacking at NASA. One need only look at the shuttle disasters for support of my claim.

      • wasn’t the shuttle disaster a managerial and engineering failure, rather than a question of science quality?

      • CS 10:35 am. USGS’s dabbling in polar bear science is jeopardizing its reputation of high quality and unbiased research. Mission creep in support of CAGW has been a misadventure for a number of government agencies.

      • Greg,
        It is sometimes difficult to draw the line between engineering and science failures. The use of an O-ring that wasn’t suitable for the environmental conditions and the use of insulation tiles that ultimately caused fatal damage might be assigned to either.

      • Greg, actually the problem with the shuttle was one of management/politics. The engineering recommendation not launch with the then current temperature was overridden by the Morton-Thiokol management. If I remember correctly (somewhat suspect) of the two engineers who were vocal about their recommendation, one became clinically depressed and the other said never again and became involved in NASA safety. The problem was the temperature was outside or at the threshold of the design limits. If the SRB should have met lower temperatures then this is a specification/requirements (yet another management problem) issue not engineering. Sorry for the rant but as an engineer for over 40 years I’ve had too many issues where those outside engineering created issues ultimately blamed on engineering.

      • Gil,
        It is worse than just the polar bear situation. The USGS has been morphing into the USBS over the last three decades. I’m not sure that the people they have been hiring to replace the retiring geologists are as well qualified as those they are replacing. There are cases where old mine sites are being remediated because an X-ray fluorescence reconnaissance has detected lead and other heavy-metal elements. However, they haven’t demonstrated that the lead is in a bioavailable form. It is most likely lead sulfide (galena), which is relatively inert. There is another study I’m aware of where USGS biologists are looking at heavy metals in stream waters draining areas known or suspected of containing platinum group minerals, which are themselves not a risk. However, copper, chromium, and mercury are sometimes found in the same kind of rocks, and will be present even if there is no mining. There seems to be a mindset of trying to eliminate all risk without assessing the degree of risk. The younger generation seems to be operating under the guiding principle, “I’ve heard that element X can be toxic, so we want to be sure none of it is absorbed by humans or other animals.” So, yes, the biologists seem to be jeopardizing the USGS’ reputation of high quality and unbiased research.

  4. But the job of an employee of the government is to do what the government tells them to do.

    Right. And if that means that—clandestine or not—if the government tells them that they should “find” the planet to be warming, then by golly, they’re going to “find” it alright!

      • If “one” disapproves of what, say a corporation (big or small) is doing, then one has proper remedies one can apply.

        a/ Do NOT invest your money in that corporation’s stocks or bonds.

        b/ Do NOT buy ANY product that corporation makes/manufactures/sells.

        c/ Do NOT work at any job for that corporation.

        See how easy that is ! Why would it be different for disapproval of Government actions.

        Is personal integrity not needed when working for government ??

        G

  5. “Kurtz said she’s hearing from more private climatologists worried about the future of their grant funding”

    It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.

    • Said a long time ago. Cut off Funding of Global Warming, and see if AGW Climatologists continue in their belief, or jump ship to create a new Fear to Monger for Funds.

  6. But ,but “the science” is settled.
    Who needs climate scientists when we can go straight to the Goracle itself?
    Or that wonderous standin, The Mann.

    Funny how these “experts” cannot figure out the obvious.
    If you do not want to do what your employer asks of you, then get another job.
    Is my belief we can fire 85% of the federal payroll with little harm to the Taxpayer.
    The parasitic class might feel a little pain, for which I will cheer.

    • “Is my belief we can fire 85% of the federal payroll with little harm to the Taxpayer.”
      I’m not sure which government shutdown it was, probably the one in ’95 or ’96 under President Clinton when they stated that they would continue with only the most important parts of the government working. Both Congress and the Executive branch quickly figured out that was not the message to send to the people. They would soon figure out that If the rest of the government was not important then why pay taxes to support ’em.

    • Well the problem is that those 85% believe that THEY are actually taxpayers.

      I’m happy to pay my taxes to cover what the government is supposed to be doing.

      I would make all government jobs non taxpaying. Don’t tax them, and don’t hand them money that they just return to the treasury and say, ” See, I’m a taxpayer !

      G

  7. In the Department of Defense, nothing can be publicly released without the approval of the Public Affairs office. This includes materials such as scientific papers and presentations. I’ve spent 40 years working in the defense community (both on active duty and later as a contractor) and it’s always been this way. I suspect all agencies have such requirements but they have certainly been ignored by many.

  8. Federal employees have more rights than do private sector employees. Their main restriction is political activity. link (the restrictions are way down at the bottom of the page) In the private sector you can be fired for making the corporation look bad even if you are on your own time. link

    Federal employees have a duty to uphold the constitution. They even used to take an oath to that effect. In that light, what should a federal employee do if she thinks that doing what her boss tells her is violating the constitution?

    Some federal scientists probably think they have the duty and the right to defy their duly elected bosses. To them I say, ‘Good luck dudes.’

    • “In that light, what should a federal employee do if she thinks that doing what her boss tells her is violating the constitution?”

      1) Contact the department head over his/her boss
      2) Contact the IG office
      3) Contact head of the Congressional Committee that has oversight responsibility
      4) Whistle blower
      5)Quit and go public on why.

      • Oh, the first step would be to bring up your concerns with the boss, of course – then the others in that order.

      • Actually Rhoda, I would say the first thing would be to document it. When caught in that position I usually wrote a “memo of understanding” to the boss, copy to file, asking him if I had correctly interpreted his statements correctly. Usually this was all that was necessary to correct the situation.

    • ” Their main restriction is political activity.”

      EXACTLY what most of them have been doing and are now wailing about not being able to do ( “doing my job ” ) since they have come the think that determining policy is their job and their civic duty.

      The other main restriction is not doing outside paid work without written authorisation. Both of which James Hansen was doing for decades without the slightest sanction or reprimand.

  9. ” Government Climate Scientist”, strange I have always thought of these scientivists as sycophants.

  10. No alarmist ever complained that the potentially inconvenient results of the CERN CLOUD experiment were to be reported purely as the numerical scientific output with no further interpretation.
    Meanwhile, many alarmist offerings have turned out to be almost 100% interpretation and near-zero science. But, it is taken for granted that the world needs saving and that the masses must be saved from their slumbers by slogans and doomsday scenarios.
    https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/

  11. “One researcher just called to say hey, my boss has made it really hard for me to do my job.”

    Cry me a river. They are getting a taste of what it is like to work for a living. Where by you are required to produce quality work with verifiable results.

  12. A culture of fear?

    Why isn’t it ‘a culture of fear’ when a class of publicly funded bureaucrats try to instill fear in the entire population?

  13. Climate science must be the creepiest crawliest way to make a living ever invented or devised; the premise is – climate change not entropy is time’s arrow and will go on for ever.

    • “One researcher just called to say hey, my boss has made it really hard for me to do my job. What can I do?” she said. What can you do? How about you move to France.

    • Climate science must be the creepiest crawliest way to make a living. 1st creepiest crawliest: Become a politician. Above that: Climate Scientist. Above Climate Scientist: Used car sale person.

  14. Wow…I guess Climate Scientists are “Special” and get to skip reporting to their employer and following policy. I mean, they can’t be wrong, so why not have them reporting directly to the news orgs. Why bother with actual review and policy making? (Can we say spoiled child-like graduates of a pseudo-science?)

  15. If a government employee discovers a risk so serious they feel compelled to make a public statement criticising their employer, I understand and respect that. But employees who publicly criticise the boss on a regular basis have no right to expect job security.

    Do you want politicized science? Because this is how you get politicized science.

    In government, we want scientists who are willing to stand up for good science. We want politicians to move out of the scientists’ way, to encourage transparent, high-quality science, and then to take that science under serious consideration when forming policy.

    For government, if the bosses fire scientists for speaking up, then the government is broken. This is how you get politicized science. This is how you get bad policy.

    • Yes, sure, the government can fire scientists who don’t toe the line, but that’s the exact opposite of what we want.

    • It is not the only way to get politicized science. We have politicized science right now and we didn’t get it by firing people with dissenting ideas. We got it by hiring people that were already gung-ho with the political desire or who were malleable to the idea.

      What is the political desire? H. L. Menken said it best: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Climate change may be the best example of Menken’s quote ever!

    • Did you forget the /sarc tag, Windchasers? You said let your employees do whatever they want, don’t interfere with their schemes and blindly do whatever they say. Oh, and let your employees badmouth you without consequence.

    • If government was not putting crippling taxes on private enterprise, there would be plenty of funding for Science.

      I lived through the era when the government destroyed the Bell Telephone Laboratories. I could list an almost endless list of corporate laboratory research enterprises that were ultimately destroyed by government meddling.
      During my brief episode on the staff (junior) at my alma mater Physics Department, fully half of the research journals we read and reviewed every month were Private company journals, ranging from BSTJ to IBM research journal, Brown-Bovery(I) Research journal etc etc.HP journal . This was Privately funded research that was open source available for all to read. Not so much any more.

      G

  16. Fake anthrax is better than real bullets. And if you don’t like what you are being asked to do in your government job, do what I did — resign.

  17. First, lets address the salient point of the title. The job of a “government climate scientist” is to steal as many tax payer dollars as they can. As for the complaints of these so called “government climate scientists”? They are employees of the United States and they will obey the orders given them, do the specific tasks assigned them and hand over whatever documents/electronic records they are ordered to. Whether they use a USG computer, tablet, smartphone, telephone, fax machine, typewriter or legal pad it is all the property of the United States Government and they will comply. THIS is what Attorney General Sessions needs to be worried about, not some fake horse sh*t about Russia. He needs to weaponize every IG office throughout the USG and go through these people like a dose of the salts, they are clearly hiding something and no matter what it is we need to find it. All of it. Everybody’s dirty little secrets right out in the open.

  18. People who own their own business have every incentive to solve problems as quickly and efficiently as possible.

    People who have government jobs have every incentive to never solve problems, and to do so as inefficiently has possible.

    The job of a climate scientist is to pull money out of thin air.

  19. Emily says:

    “Kurtz is also dealing with a problem that has existed for years: lawsuits filed by conservative groups against non-government climate scientists seeking their private communications. And just generally, Kurtz said she’s hearing from more private climatologists worried about the future of their grant funding, or the backlash they might receive from empowered internet trolls if they choose to publicly criticize against cuts that would effect their work. “It’s definitely become a more stressful profession,” Kurtz said. “Long-term, there’s room for optimism. But right now—especially when you factor in things like potential funding cuts and dealing with harassment, yes, it has become more difficult to be a climate scientist.”

    Dang … are we tired of winning yet? Lemme check … nope, don’t think so. Emily, keep that good news coming!

    w.

    PS—Emily, it’s cuts that would affect their work, not effect their work. Bad journalism is excusable. Bad spelling not so much.

  20. “What is the Job of a Government Climate Scientist?

    Simples – To secure funding – end

  21. Third rate scientists working in a ‘heads you lose , tails I win ‘ , with far more praise they could ever be justified and no no need to do any hard science area got fat and lazy.
    Of course the idea of having to do hard work and and throw a fit when question for they know they claims are so weak .
    What is the Job of a Government Climate Scientist?
    To give the ‘right answer ‘ even if its the incorrect answer .

  22. I find it difficult to believe that a real scientist cannot see the flaws in the AGW hypothesis.

    Therefore the people we are talking about here have no problems with their consciences or else are content to “research” and administrate something that they feel bad about but are still prepared to share in the deception.

    It looks like their time is coming and I hope they can find some apology for their dishonesty.

    Although I am an economics graduate, not a physical scientist I have to say when the AGW was first brought to my attention, I could see all the holes in it quite quickly. Especially the economic holes/lies.

    Any thought, that there were honest people involved here, went out the window when I read part of Lord Stern’s works on global warming. What I read was quite shocking and his dissertation, had it been for a first year economics paper, would have scored a massive D.

    however we still need to deal with Agenda21 – 2030, ICLEI and a host of other initiatives. These all have appeared from the United Nations and I believe until the United Nations as a whole dies from lack of funds etc. we are going to have these things niggling at us for quite some time yet.

    Some relevant links.
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/unitednations-conference-on-human-settlements_habitat1.pdf (see page 8 in particular)

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

  23. I work for government and must adhere to very strict rules regarding communications with the public and the media. We are hired to implement government policy, not to form it or criticize it. I never understood why “scientists” felt they should be exempt from this, and why the media thinks this is reasonable. No employer, public or private, would or should tolerate this. The arrogance is mind boggling.

  24. “Government scientists should do what they are told.” Well yes, of course, as a general proposition. But what are government climate scientists being told to do under the Trump administration? That’s what I’d like to know.

    Are they being asked to repudiate what they found under the previous administration? Presumably their science was supportive of the “consensus” view. Are they now being asked to repudiate that view?

    Anyone have any insight into this?

    • Since their “views” are 100% leftist political agenda yes, they have to repudiate the lies they have told.

      • They are serious, the are 100% political leftists and they lie to advance their leftist agenda. They openly admit this anytime they are asked, why are you in denial?

  25. ALL of the government scientists who complain about being muzzled ARE the ones who are trying to promote their own personal theories which are not supported by the bulk of the evidence.

    Climate scientists supported by grant funding are the least objective scientists in history. Some day, their day will come and they will be outed for being the worst scientists in history.

    Mann and Hansen. Someday, their Wiki page will note the malfeance they carried out.

    • Very difficult to “fire” Govn’t employees in Australia. Simply cannot be fired.

  26. I discovered by accident this week that there was a United Nations University since about 1973.
    Easy to Google and see its reasons for existence, like to study sustainabiliy and pass results to decision makers. Actually a sobering and interesting read of how bad it can get.
    How would you classify scientists working there? Not as private enterprise, closer to government , but still not quite. Makes an interesting diversion to wonder if they are becoming nervous also. Why? Because they US funds much of the UN activity.
    Geoff

  27. I was a “government scientist” who until recently worked on air quality and climate change issues for the BLM, mostly involving NEPA analysis. My work was routinely modified by non-scientist staff back in Washington for not being sufficiently apocalyptic concerning climate change. It got to the point where they were basically telling the states what to say.

    Due to the sheer volume of the work, occasionally some critical skepticism would leak though. Here’s an example: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epa-prodding-over-climate-change-revealed-in-oil-and-gas-plan/article/2597283

    The idea that published work from a government scientist represents what that scientist actually wanted to say is laughable.

  28. It is hard to have your name written into history for saving the world if your employers don’t let you save it, that and the fact that their noses’ are firmly in the trough of government funding means they will fight back.

    Yes, they believe they are saving the world. That is a huge incentive to carry the water for alarmism.

    • All the people who joined National Socialist Party in the 1930s believed they were saving the world. All those people who joined Pol Pot believed they were saving the world. Almost like delusion goes in cycles.

  29. Fire them all.
    Hire those scientists, if there are any left, that have not been tainted by the alarmists machine.
    This is EXACTLY what Obama did, but in reverse. You reap what you sow.

  30. “How did government employed climate scientists ever get the idea that their job is to spend taxpayer’s money and publicly criticise government policy?”

    They were employed by a sane government, and didn’t know they’d end up working for this one.

  31. This is all about where you start measuring from.

    If you started measuring how difficult it is to be a climate ‘scientist’ in the 1970’s, it looks pretty cushy being a climate ‘scientist’ right now. Sound familiar? Hoist by their own petard methinks.

    I have no sympathy for those who have prostituted their scientific integrity for a false cause and a steady pacycheck.,

  32. To be fair, that is over-reaching, because there must be scientists out there who have passed through the education system, fed incomplete information whilst there, look for work, find it in this sector and then become compromised by the edicts issued by their leaders. So I have a little sympathy for some. I guess it might well be difficult to fight benevolence.

  33. A Day in the Life
    of a Goobermint Scientist:

    Come to work late.
    Play computer games all day.
    Take long lunches.
    Drink smoothies, not martinis.
    Flirt with buxom secretaries, er assistants.
    Or flirt with handsome male interns,
    for scientists of the ‘other” persuasion.
    (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
    Make scary predictions that will happen after you are dead.
    Claim that a lot more study is required “to save the Earth”.
    Collect big paycheck.
    Go home early.
    Send eMails to people who claim “the science is settled”,
    because if it was, what goobermint would need scientists
    on their payrolls to study “settled science”.
    Repeat the next day.

Comments are closed.