In short yes, and it is small compared to the amount of CO2 from burning fossil fuel. See, for example http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
about 2/3 the way down the page

“Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!”

O.K. Let’s hear it for the chicken little theory of global warming…

Hey! Anyone hear of Montserrat volcano? Ever wonder what the amounts of CO2 coming out of that hell hole?

There is a difference between repeatability, that is to say other labs repeating experiments and achieving the same results, and simply agreeing.

Well, Roger, if that policy doesn’t amount to a gag I’m not sure what would. Interestingly, *I* just heard from a NOAA scientist (who very much wishes to remain anonymous, not surprisingly). She/he doesn’t work directly on hurricanes, but is close enough to some of those who do to affirm that many of them do think a GW-hurricane connection has been clearly established, but are afraid to speak out about it.

Item number two: No one in their right mind would use Bristlecone Pines, known to be well adapted to wide swings in temperature, and growing in response to spring and summer moisture, as a proxy for temperature.

The official NOAA media policy can be seen here:

http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~ames/NAOs/Chap_219/naos_219_6.html

Several interesting sections:

———————-
SECTION 3. MEDIA AND PUBLIC INTERACTIONS REQUIRING PRIOR NOTIFICATION.

.01 The following shall be referred to the servicing PAO:

a. proposed news conferences, whether for the specialized press or for the general press, radio, or television;

b. proposed contacts with major news media and radio and television stations or networks for coverage of news features involving NOAA programs or activities; and

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.
—————————–

And also:

—————————–
The following is intended to serve as general guidance for individuals who will be in contact with members of the media as a result of their work with NOAA.

a. Discussions should focus on science and fact, not speculation.

b. Limit discussions to matters for which you are responsible and of which you have direct knowledge.

c. Whether in person, on camera, or over the phone, when speaking to a reporter you represent and speak for the entire agency.
————————-

According to this news story starting last September this policy was enforced with renewed vigor and perhaps even modified to require approval further up the agency hierarchy :

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Commerce_Department_tells_Nationa_1004.html

Understood on your definition of honest broker. I was extending the term (perhaps inappropriately) to within the context of science to mean communicating a full range of (published, legitimate) perspectives (which, ideally, would help foster expanded policy options).

Mayfield in the press on 2/10/06: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2006/02/10/65247.htm

Ed O’Lenic (from NOAA CPC) in the press 2/3/06: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/13780292.htm

Landsea in the press 2/1/06: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18444

And finally, Landsea in the press on 2/2/06 (reprint from WSJ, so date of original article may be different): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06033/648772.stm