Comments on: NASA in the Political Minefield

By: Rabett

Rabett — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:28:23 +0000

Paul, when I was a kid I used to play let’s you and him fight. I don’t much do it anymore.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 19:01:18 +0000

Eli,

Be careful. You’re gonna’ send Roger into a “comment guidelines” frenzy.

By: Rabett

Rabett — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:07:01 +0000

Oh yeah, while Griffin was technically in violation, I don’t think it is very serious. Lots of NASA folk have praised Barbara Milkowski for example. Proximity to centers attract political support.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:03:25 +0000

Let us see, just to make sure, a few months ago is what? mid-February at the latest? This, of course, is April 1. NOAA leadership is what? Only Adm. Lautenbacher, or does that include those operating under his announced policy http://tinyurl.com/e9lkk from June? which includes:

01 The following shall be referred to the servicing PAO:

c. official and non-official scientific and technical papers authored or co-authored by NOAA employees that may result in media interest.

.02 NOAA employees must notify the servicing PAO or OPCIA before responding to news media inquiries whenever the inquiries:

a. are of national news interest;

b. concern regulatory actions or issues;

c. concern controversial issues;

d. pertain to science or research having known or potential policy implications;

e. involve the release of scientific or technical papers that may have policy implications or are controversial; or

f. involve a crisis or a potential crisis situation.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:37:06 +0000

Paul- Glad to have that cleared up. Of course, this is now the third time that you have mistakenly accused me of some sinister intent because you are working with partial or incomplete information. As I said before, and I will repeat again, if in the future ybefore making accusations you’d like to simply ask me to clarify a position that you don’t fully understand, I am easily reachable and happy to respond. That in my view is good reporting. Thanks.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:24:02 +0000

Got it. So Landsea WAS the favored son of NOAA, but the agency is NOW more open.

Your original comment, “I have yet to identify anyone who claims to HAVE BEEN censored by NOAA leadership….” [emphasis mine]

My reporting here is done. Back to work.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:07:26 +0000

Paul- You are using the news story to allege continuing censorship among NOAA scientists by NOAA leadership, when the story does not say that. That is “second-hand innuendo.”

The story refers to experiences a “few months ago” when NOAA admitted that they had some problems, as did NASA. Those issues became public, and the head of NOAA apologized and said he’d make changes. Since then I have not heard similar allegations.

If you know different, then simply provide the evidence. Allegation absent evidence is innuendo. I do wonder why you continue to point to old news to make claims about the present.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:58:00 +0000

Great. Pointing to a news story that appeared in a newspaper is now “second-hand innuendo from weblog commenters.”

Brilliant.

By: Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr. — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:52:23 +0000

Paul-

I just spent the week with Knutson and Landsea. The article is not right or wrong, it is one reporter’s experience. Your reference to it is good fodder for consipracy theorists, but doesn’t really address the issue. You are a reporter, no? Why don’t you do some real reporting on this issue? I’m not really sure what it is that you disagree with, since you haven’t really presented an argument or claims.

I am satisfied from what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears that the arguments that I present here are accurate. But beware — they could be wrong, and I’ll change my views when that is the case. But it is unlikely that second-hand innuendo from weblog commenters is going to make that threshold. Sorry. Do some reporting and maybe that’d be different.

Thanks.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:34:27 +0000

In prior post, Roger wrote, “I am sorry to report that your views of this community bear little correlation with reality, starting with my own views.”

Roger’s denial continues, “I have yet to identify anyone who claims to have been censored by NOAA leadership, though I’d be interested in hearing from them. If you (or Jerry Mahlman) would like to name names, I’m all ears.”

See story in Providence Journal here:

NOAA accused of hiding truth about global warming

By PETER B. LORD
The Providence Journal
28-MAR-06

link: http://tinyurl.com/rzbn5

Knutson seems to be out, while Landsea seems to be NOAA’s superstar scientist for the moment. Gee, I wonder why?

Obviously, this is the case of yet ANOTHER journalist not getting it “wrong”, Roger. I would suggest you send a letter to the editor.