You Just Can’t Say Such Things Redux
December 11th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
From today’s Rocky Mountain News still more evidence that the climate debate is spiraling out of control:
A federal climate scientist in Boulder says his boss told him never to utter the word Kyoto and tried to bar him from using the phrase climate change at a conference.
The allegations come as federal investigators probe whether Bush administration officials tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and attempted to censor their research.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement – never ratified by the United States and opposed by the Bush administration – that requires nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming.
Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Boulder laboratory, said the ban on using the word Kyoto was issued about four years ago.
“We were under instructions not to use the word Kyoto, which of course is absurd,” said Tans, who measures levels of carbon dioxide at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division. He has worked for the agency since 1990.
Tans said the order was issued verbally by his boss, David Hofmann, the division director. Another senior researcher at the Boulder laboratory, NOAA physicist James Elkins, said Hofmann told him the same thing.
Elkins studies greenhouse gases and has worked at NOAA for more than 20 years. He said he can’t remember when the directive was issued, but it was “probably in 2000 or 2001.”
“When I asked why we weren’t supposed to use Kyoto, I was told that we’re not supposed to use it in the policy context,” Elkins said. “I’m not supposed to be talking about policy.”
Hofmann, however, called the allegations “nonsense” and said there was no ban on using the word Kyoto.
“I never said it specifically in those words,” Hofmann said. “I probably said that since the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified – is not part of the U.S. program – stay away from talking about Kyoto when you give a presentation.”
“It has nothing to do with the science we’re doing here,” Hofmann said of Kyoto.
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 and went into effect in February 2005, following ratification by Russia.
Elkins said the prohibition against using the word was lifted after Russia ratified the protocol.
“Once Russia signed Kyoto, it was a done deal,” he said.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I agree the public debate has spiraled out of control.
One side plays hard ball and the other side becomes defensive and it degrades into a tit-for-tat situation.
It would be better if there was an effort by all interested parties to seek a higher level of discussion.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:16 am
Roger,
I have spent most of my career in the private sector, but I did work with a small government agency for a few years. During that time, I had guidelines about what I should talk about while representing that agency.
If one is speaking as a representitive of ones employer, isn’t it expected that you speak the message the employer wishes to deliver? Isn’t that your job?
I find it hard to believe that federal agencies have never employed such guidelines until the current administration.
December 12th, 2006 at 7:35 am
Jim- Indeed for government to work it needs a consistency in approach to policies. Imagine if every State Department employee was out giving public comments about their personal views on Iran or Israel.
At the same time there are more and less effective ways of managing such consistency. I discussed some of the complexities in this op-ed:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2453-2006.04.pdf
In this instance NOAA’s efforts are ham-handed and self-destructive at best.
Thanks!
December 12th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
My government experience spanned 3 presidents, 1988-98. From 1988-93, I was freely permitted to write papers and deliver presentations on issues relevant to my job, with the usual disclaimer that I did not speak for my employer. From 1993-98, I was not. I had to obtain prior permission from the general counsel, who was none too eager to grant it.
There is an asymmetry in the way these incidents are characterized depending on which party holds the reins of government.
Make a list of the ranks of so-called “whistleblowers” and you will see that they disproportionately (if not exclusively) represent one point of view.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Jim,
Goverment employees are employed by the public, so the public has a right to know what they are doing and what they think about it. The prohibition on governemnt copyright and FOA are ample evidence that government is supposed to be as open and communicable to its owners as is practical.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Lab Lemming,
All jobs have terms of employment that employees are reasonably expected to follow. Every new employee — whether in the government or non-government sectors — gets to decide whether to adhere to these terms of employment. In the government sector, failure to adhere to these terms will not lead to dismissal, but in the non-government sector it will.
This creates a pair of notably perverse incentives. First, those who have no intention of being constrained by the terms of their employment contract are drawn to work in government, where they expect civil service rules to shield them from the costs of insubordination. Second, senior government managers try to discern who those people are when they apply for jobs and avoid hiring them.
Scientists and other technical people are hired by government to perform scientific and technical jobs, not to make policy or even to provide policy advice. When they arrogate to themselves the authority to make policy or provide policy advice, they violate the terms of their employment. It is only the shield of civil service that protects thm from dismissal.
Of course, civil service rules were established to protect against politically-motivated retaliation, not to permit or encourage insubordination. But this is the predictable result. Government scientists engaged in politically-motivated insubordination are shielded from otherwise permissible civil service sanctions because the application of such sanctions would appear to be politically motivated.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Richard,
I’m not sure I take your meaning. My reading of your comment suggests that you think the prohibitions of the NOAA administrator were reasonable. This seems strange to me in light of the statement in the article:
“and tried to bar him from using the phrase climate change at a conference. ”
Certainly the use of the term might be construed to have policy ramifications that the Bush Administration might not wish to address, but how could a scientist not use a scientific term? This seems to interfere with the basic job of the scientist. I also wonder fundamentally how separable the science perspective is from the policy one. I believe Roger has made similar comments in the past re: RC’s self-stated role as an honest broker. Thoughts?
December 14th, 2006 at 4:08 am
Richard,
The problem with those terms in conditions is when they become unreasonable. For example, a shift manager refusing to let his workers mention the word “Listeria” to his higher ups is the same as a president refusing to let his scientists mention the phrase “climate change” to the Americna public. While your general statement is true, it ignores the fact that public servants are supposed to serve the public.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Lab Lemming,
The problem with your argument is that ‘unreasonable’ is in the eye of the beholder. If you agree with the stance of the administration, then their guidelines will appear reasonable. If you don’t agree, you will think the guidelines are unreasonable.
I think the real criteria for speaking out against ones employer (government or otherwise) is if they are asking you to do something illegal or immoral. Only then is it your duty to speak out. Otherwise, express your opinions on your own time and at your own risk!