1. sheril
  2. "War on Science" Thesis Vindicated...Again

"War on Science" Thesis Vindicated...Again

By cmooney on June 11, 2008.

My latest Science Progress column is up: It's about two recent developments which basically prove that those of us who have been flagging abuses of climate science in the administration were right all along.

The developments are these: 1) NASA's own Inspector General now backs up charges that the agency's public affairs office tried to censor James Hansen; 2) The administration itself has finally coughed up an assessment of climate change impacts on the United States, one that clearly validates the position that it is happening, human caused, and going to hurt us. (Hey, it's only four years late!)

What's significant is that these statements are now coming directly out of the administration itself. All in all, as I put it in the column, I think it leaves you feeling...

...like someone who has finally won an eight-year court case, but went through incredible suffering and sacrificed untold resources in the process--it's hard to really celebrate. You're glad it's over, but you still hate and lament what you went through. You mourn the incredible waste--so much time lost, when it didn't have to be that way. Or to give NASA's inspector general the last word: "In sum...none of this course of conduct was in the public's best interest."

You can read the full column here.

Tags
Politics and Science

More like this

The Big Climate News
Well, folks, Andy Revkin has done it again. Previously I have written about how Revkin has basically broken every major story about abuses of climate science, and climate scientists, by the Bush administration. And I must say, it's quite a litany of abuses. That's why I'm glad that so many bloggers…
The nightmare at NASA is over
The report of NASA's Office of the Inspector General on the clumsy attempts to censoring climate science makes for a most enjoyable read. We can laugh now that it's over, I mean. There are lots of gems among the overall finding the a small cabal of political appointees in the public affairs office…
Is NASA's Science Council Head a Climate Skeptic?
There's been trouble at NASA lately. A suite of scientists from the agency's National Advisory Council have resigned over the agency's priorities, a dispute which seems to centrally turn on how the president's Moon-Mars plans have taken an emphasis away from purer scientific research. The NAC…
Fact-Checking The Washington Post's Claims About Its Role in Unearthing the 2006 NASA Censorship Scandal
A report by the NASA inspector general released earlier this week acknowledged that political appointees in the NASA press office censored climate scientists from 2004 to 2006. That would have been interesting news... about two years ago. Yawn. What caught my eye, though, were these claims in an…

My question is where has Science Adviser John Marburger been during all of this?

Wasn't it HIS job as Science adviser to investigate the charges (of political interference with, distortion of and/or misuse of science) made by James Hansen, Rick Piltz, Union of Concerned Scientists and others?

Isn't that one of the primary things that the head of OSTP gets paid the big bucks to do: to see to it that the President and American people get accurate scientific information?

After all, here's what the OSTP's own website says:

The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government. OSTP leads an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets.

In the case of censoring of Hansen, we know Marburger did not investigate the charges (at least not in any great depth) because if he had, he would have discovered the very same thing as the NASA Inspector General.

In fact, Marburger was apparently not even involved in the Inspector General's investigation (which came at the behest of several Senators) in any material way, as indicated by the response of Marburger's office to the release of the IG report:

Kristin Scuderi, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an e-mail that director John H. Marburger III "would not comment until he's reviewed the report, and he has not yet done so yet. Therefore, OSTP has no comment at this time."

No comment? Sounds like something a lawyer would say.

By Dark Tent (not verified) on 11 Jun 2008 #permalink

For those who ever doubted the fact that the War on Science continues, you have only to follow the speeches in the House of Representatives by Dana Rohrabacher. The description of one is in the Huntington Beach (Rohrabacher's home town) Independent today this week.

In a lengthy speech condemning former Vice President Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the International Panel on Climate Change, as well as previous environmental cause célèbres such as fears about holes in the ozone layer and acid rain, Rohrabacher claimed large parts of the environmental movement were mere "pseudoscience" to justify increased government regulation.

"I have no doubt that unless we thwart the onslaught of nonsense being foisted upon humankind in the name of man-made global warming, the next generation will be deprived of freedom, prosperity, and a healthy environment," he said.

Of course, his major benefactor over the years is Charles Koch, Libertarian and owner of a large energy company.

However, Rohrabacher has a constituency that eats this up and believes that the "L" in Rush Limbaugh stands for Liberal.