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.
Simples – To secure funding – end
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 .
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
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.
“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.
Let’s be serious, please.
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?
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.
A message from the President to whining government climate scientists
Very difficult to “fire” Govn’t employees in Australia. Simply cannot be fired.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.,
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.
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.