1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Damned Scientists

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by EricGo, Apr 8, 2007.

Page 1 of 2
  1. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    Taken from http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=841

    Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed “of official interest.â€

    On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing “Public Communications.†This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open science†policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.

    Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,†the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:

    * Any “fundamental research communication†must “before the communication occurs†be submitted to and approved by the designated “head of the operating unit.†While the directive states that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research,†it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
    * National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the publicâ€; and
    * Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks “advance notice†of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.â€

    “This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,†stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature.â€
     
    #1 EricGo, Apr 8, 2007
  2. TonyPSchaefer

    TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    14,816
    2,498
    66
    Location:
    Far-North Chicagoland
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    Wow. How disheartening.
     
    #2 TonyPSchaefer, Apr 8, 2007
  3. jimmyrose

    jimmyrose Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    646
    3
    0
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Be interesting to know where this directive (or the cause of it) originated from...
     
    #3 jimmyrose, Apr 8, 2007
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    The only question is how long it'll take for someone to challenge this and have the supreme court put the 'smack down' on the idiot who decided to make the rule.
     
    #4 efusco, Apr 8, 2007
  5. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Apr 8 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]419808[/snapback]</div>
    I'll give you one guess.

    The proxy is the commerce department.
     
    #5 EricGo, Apr 8, 2007
  6. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 8 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]419810[/snapback]</div>
    Are you talking about the same Supreme Court that was one vote away last week from rubber stamping the EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 on grounds that it contradicted white house politics, arguing that the court has no business interfering in a federal government agency's decision making -- no matter how patently absurd ?

    Jack published this link -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

    The new allegations were made at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

    Waxman said he and the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, had sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but were repeatedly rebuffed.

    "The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

    "We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman added.
     
    #6 EricGo, Apr 8, 2007
  7. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 8 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]419815[/snapback]</div>
    Hope springs eternal! :D
     
    #7 efusco, Apr 8, 2007
  8. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    Hope is good, but it is a mistake to be blind to the fact that the shrub has systematically corrupted executive agencies by replacing key non-partisan competent technocrats with lobbyists and political lackeys.

    The Justice Dept
    The EPA
    The Commerce Dept
    The Bureau of Land Management
    HEW

    to name a few
     
    #8 EricGo, Apr 8, 2007
  9. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,081
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I think I'll go throw up now.
     
    #9 F8L, Apr 8, 2007
  10. MarinJohn

    MarinJohn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    3,945
    304
    0
    The world is 'shrinking' thanks in part to the internet. This latest decree will be a further death knell for US media. Luckily, there are plenty of places to go for 'real' news. I visit this site almost daily to see what the rest of the world is thinking, without the patina of the US propagandists. I suggest you bookmark it. This privilege will last till junior and co. 'go all China on us' and ban search engines which could produce results differing from their ego-centric view of the world.

    http://www.thebigproject.co.uk/news/

    Shame on the scientific community for not going ballistic 'en masse' over such a decree. Some day there will be a book written about these times titled 'Americans went missing' about how the masses allowed junior to singlehandedly change us from a free society to an absent society. The subtitle will be 'How Americans lost their passion for everything sacred in eight short years'
     
    #10 MarinJohn, Apr 8, 2007
  11. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    465
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    government "science" :angry:
     
    #11 galaxee, Apr 8, 2007
  12. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Wow. How Fascist of them.

    One can only hope the new administration spends it's first 100 days undoing all of the Bush Administrations damage.
     
    #12 Godiva, Apr 8, 2007
  13. airportkid

    airportkid Will Fly For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    2,191
    538
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    It's too unbalanced that every response thus far in this thread is unanimous that the decree is unfavorable. We need to hear from Wildkow and dbermanmd to provide us the reasons why this decree should be embraced and celebrated. Fellows ... ?
     
    #13 airportkid, Apr 8, 2007
  14. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Well, considering PEER's bogus claims about the "gag orders" on Grand Canyon rangers, I think more investigation is in order.

    They have been known to simply lie ... they call it being "misleading" at http://peer.org/wordpress/?p=103 ... to achieve their aims. Its not that they were mistaken in thinking the story was true, but that they "mislead" people with a press release just last December based on casual conversations with "reporters" ... note they did not say "journalists", but "reporters". I suspect the "reporters" are emails from people with fanciful stories.

    They backed down after even liberal bloggers started calling them on their lies.
     
    #14 fshagan, Apr 8, 2007
  15. EricGo

    EricGo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    1,805
    0
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM (SouthWest US)
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 8 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]419895[/snapback]</div>
    You are going to have to stick your head in the sand even further than usual.

    http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/Secretar...9_DAO_219_1.pdf

    If you actually DO read the report, read the entire 8 pages. The declarations of scientific openess are followed by political gag orders.
     
    #15 EricGo, Apr 8, 2007
  16. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Apr 8 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]420025[/snapback]</div>
    Yes, I read it, and no, there was no sand in my eyes. There are no "political gag orders". You have to get approval to give a presentation that is not the official departmental policy as long as you are an employee there. That's not unlike the restrictions on any other person, including me in my job. And in fact it is much more open than the restrictions on research scientists who work for drug companies.

    The only official reasons for denying the ability to make the presentation is defined in the order as either disclosure of classified material, violation of existing ethics rules or of giving the impression that the individual's view is the view of the government. And there's an appeal process if the permission is not granted.

    Just like before, PEER is making a mountain out of a molehill (i.e., lying) about what is in this order, and misleading those with a heightened sensitivity to these issues because of real and imagined "attacks" on science. Mostly imagined, as the PEER assertion that there was a "gag order" on Park Rangers at the Grand Canyon was imagined.
     
    #16 fshagan, Apr 9, 2007
  17. airportkid

    airportkid Will Fly For Food

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    2,191
    538
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Looks like fshagan has done what we all should have done - READ the thing. I could find NOTHING that tramples free speech even remotely; the document states in several places that if material prepared on your own time could be construed as relevant to the department, then it must only be accompanied by a disclaimer; it does NOT need to be submitted for approval or review.

    While I vehemently disagree with a government policy that so closely and suspiciously looks over its scientists' shoulders, there doesn't appear to be anything here that could be called prior restraint or otherwise inhibit free expression of ideas, even ideas inimical to the dept, so long as a disclaimer is made that the speaker is speaking his own mind, not the dept's.

    Meanwhile, I hope a number of scientists show some backbone and quit anyway - if this new policy is more repressive than previous policies. Climate, after all, can't be much a "state secret" and it's demeaning to have to work knowing your results are subject to political second-guessing.

    Mark Baird
    Alameda CA
     
    #17 airportkid, Apr 9, 2007
  18. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    PEER has proven to be unreliable in the way they analyze things, so the link to the actual document did help quite a bit. Expect a retraction from PEER, hidden away in the blog somewhere, once this one blows over.
     
    #18 fshagan, Apr 9, 2007
  19. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 8 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]420106[/snapback]</div>
    Good job fshagan, in addition I would add that any organization would want their message to be unified as if the org is speaking with one voice. Keeps the natives from gettin restless. B)

    Wildkow
     
    #19 Wildkow, Apr 9, 2007
  20. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,192
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Mea Culpa, the actual policy seems quite fair, legal and reasonable.
    The closest thing I could find that seems a bit suspicious:
    WRT non-official communication this portion is fairly restrictive, but in no way seems to be in place to restrict their ability to share their views....
     
    #20 efusco, Apr 9, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2