“The constraints placed on scientists, preventing them from informing the public about their concerns, is much worse in places such as the National Institutes Health and the Environmental Protection Agency than it is in NASA. My quotation on 20 April 2006 Freedom Forum calendar, In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been controlled as it is now”, is accurate.”

If anyone wants to continue elsewhere http://tinyurl.com/ekabt

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/communication_policy.html

Committee on Science
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, CHAIRMAN
Bart Gordon, Tennessee, Ranking Democrat

Press Contacts:
Joe Pouliot
(202) 225-4275

BOEHLERT STATEMENT ON NEW NASA PUBLIC AFFAIRS POLICY

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2006 – House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) today issued the following statement in response to the release of a new public affairs policy for NASA:

“I am very pleased with NASA’s efforts to develop a clear public affairs policy that puts a premium on open communication. This policy should become a model for the entire federal government. I am particularly pleased to see that the policy allows scientists to communicate their views as long as they make clear they are not speaking for the agency. I applaud Administrator Mike Griffin and Deputy Administrator Shana Dale for acting swiftly and forcefully when presented with information indicating that NASA scientists were not always able to speak their minds. I also greatly appreciate their efforts to keep Congressman Bart Gordon and me up-to-date as the policy was being drafted. Obviously, the full test of the policy will occur once it is implemented. I will continue to carefully review NASA’s activities to ensure that the policy truly results in an agency that fully complies with the principles of openness that are stated in the policy.”

# # #

109-218

Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:11:54 -0500
From: James Hansen
To: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Cc: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Subject: “Political Inclinations” and “Back to Science”

To be removed from Hansen’s e-mail distribution list, respond to sender with “Remove” as the subject.

“Political Inclinations”
Following statement was placed on my web site in response to journalist requests and (moderate number of) e-mails/letters from the public (not colleagues).

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/polinclin.pdf

“Back to Science”

Dear Colleague,
Last December, following a talk on global warming that I gave at the AGU meeting, NASA Public Affairs attempted to place rigid constraints on my ability to communicate with the media and the public. When I objected publicly to their proposed constraints, and ignored them, I received several offers of pro bono counsel. I accepted advice from the Government Accountability Project (GAP), headed by Louis Clark. I especially appreciate the practical, insightful guidance of GAP Legal Director Tom Devine with regard to my legal rights of free speech and how to protect myself in exercising them. I urge anybody with similar concerns to contact GAP.
The situation in NASA regarding free speech (albeit not science funding) is promising. There is no doubt that Administrator Griffin recognized the problem, fully supports openness and free speech, and intends to have supportive rules and procedures. If implementation by Public Affairs differs from that spirit, you will hear about it.
NOAA’s Admiral Lautenbacher also expressed support for openness. I am unaware of whether actions are being taken to insure free speech in NOAA. It will be interesting to query NOAA colleagues to see if there is still selective use of government ‘minders’ to monitor interactions with the media on topics such as global warming. The situation in EPA, where double-speak (“sound science”, “clear skies”, …) has achieved a level that would make George Orwell envious, is much bleaker, based on the impression that I receive from limited discussion with colleagues there. The battle to achieve open communication between government scientists and their employer, the public, is far from won.
Nevertheless, I agree with the opinion of colleagues that the focus should be on discussing solutions to global warming. Unless some new event demands it, I am not going to participate further in “whistle-blower”
activities. In particular, I decline the generous offer of GAP and Rick Piltz to share in a whistle-blower award and ceremony in April. I think that it would be most useful and effective for the spotlight to shine brightly on Rick Piltz and EPA, where the rubber meets the road.
My personal aim is to get back to science research full time, especially on quantifying options for dealing with global warming. Sincere apologies for overdue book reviews, workshop reports, and science manuscripts. As of now, I am working on these.
Best regards, Jim Hansen

And I take it you have heard directly from Jim Hansen that he is fully satisfied. Funny, my grapevine says different.

Since this is a family blog I won’t use the barnyard description of what you are trying to do.

All of that said, I’m not at all interested in seeing public fights among hurricane scientists, but your campaign to pretend that the differences over the science are less than they are is getting a little tired.