It is a red-letter rule in business that transactions between a company and its insiders or employees must be disclosed. Some of the most egregious breaches by Enron were its attempts to avoid disclosure of writeoffs by selling worthless assets to the infamous limited partnerships organized by company insiders for equally worthless paper issued by the partnerships. Company insiders cannot evade securities laws by pretending to be be acting in a “personal capacity”.
The U.S. federal government has a detailed set of regulations requiring scientific information to be peer reviewed before it is disseminated by the federal government. NASA, which says that it has “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”, has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies. Once again, the system involves an employee purporting to be acting in a “personal capacity”. Here’s how it works.
Peer Review Policy
U.S. federal policy on data quality is set out in a variety of steps. The Data Quality Act itself is very short and states:
The guidelines under subsection (a) shall –
(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and
(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply –
(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);
(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and
The OMB has issued several guidelines under the act. The first statement is here . A subsequent OMB Bulletin clearly required peer review of important scientific information before dissemination by the federal government as follows:
This Bulletin establishes that important scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the federal government.
There’s an interesting exemption in this bulletin (and we shall see below how this comes into play):
This definition includes information that an agency disseminates from a web page, but does not include the provision of hyperlinks on a web page to information that others disseminate.
NASA Policies
NASA has several manuals and policies setting out its own procedures for ensuring compliance with such policies. NASA guidelines specify far-reaching obligations on data quality for information disseminated by NASA. It notes the wide use of NASA information:
NASA’s information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy; NASA’s scientists and others cooperating with NASA to pursue their important work; the media in describing to the public the importance and advances of research; the educational community to educate a new generation of citizens in science, math, and engineering; and members of the public to enable them to be knowledgeable and inspired about NASA’s goals and accomplishments.
It states that the policies apply to NASA Centers as well as to headquarters:
These guidelines are applicable to NASA Headquarters and Centers, …
It states that NASA will ensure the quality of its disseminated information:
NASA will ensure and maximize the quality, including the utility, objectivity, and integrity, of its disseminated information, except where specifically exempted. Categories of information that are exempt from these guidelines are detailed in Section C.3….
Information products disseminated by NASA will be based on reliable, accurate data that has been validated.
NASA policy NPR 2200.2B Chapter 3 states that the policy applies to all “information” prepared by NASA employees and then sets out an approval process:
3.1.1 This chapter presents the standards and responsibilities that apply when NASA employees prepare papers for or participate in scientific and technical symposia and when they prepare and submit information, e.g., monographs or journal articles, for external (non-NASA) publication. ….
3.2.2 Approvals. Dissemination of information in symposium presentations or in external publications is approved in accordance with procedures included in Chapter 4 [which describes an elaborate review process]
The manual contains a header stating: COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY and does not contain any mechanism whereby a NASA employee can sometimes be a “private citizen” and sometimes be a “NASA employee”, anymore than a company insider can purport to be a “private citizen” in his relationships with a company.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
Now let’s examine a key NASA webpage on climate change http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/ . The first question on the webpage is:
What does NASA have to do with global warming?
They answer:
NASA employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists…. In addition to collecting information about the Earth, NASA also builds global and regional climate models to understand the causes and effects of climate change, including global warming. NASA shares its climate data and information with the public and policy leaders freely and in a timely manner.
The webpage then asks further questions, in which there are multiple references to a website (realclimate) published by a NASA climate modeler (Gavin Schmidt). This website states that it is published by Schmidt and his associates “in a personal capacity during their spare time”. Thus, although it obviously relates to Schmidt’s professional duties, NASA has apparently not required Schmidt to comply with NASA data quality procedures in respect to his contributions at realclimate.
NASA goes on to ask:
If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?
Its answer includes only two references, one of which is realclimate’s threads, which start off with several diatribes against our work.
RealClimate Articles and Discussions on Paleoclimate
The second link on the page linked by NASA is entitled:
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
followed in short order by another link entitled:
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
Ironically, these claims were not found to be false when reviewed by either the NAS Panel or Wegman Panel. Shortly thereafter, NASA asks:
Haven’t satellites actually observed cooling temperatures in the lower atmosphere?
A realclimate thread by Gavin Schmidt is one of only four references:
Schmidt, G. (2005). Et Tu LT? Real Climate. Accessed June 6, 2007
Then they ask:
What if global warming isn’t as severe as predicted?
Again, a realclimate thread, this time by Pierrehumbert is one of only three references:
Pierrehumbert, R. (2005). Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity. Real Climate. Accessed June 14, 2007.
Finally they ask:
Where can I learn more about global warming?
Once again, realclimate is one of only 7 references - another being the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Conclusion
NASA has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA’s own stated policies.
NASA says that it “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”. It has plenty of opportunity to use product from those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of doing so, NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own employees as a “private citizen” at a “personal” website where his contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control procedures.
UPDATE: rocks observes below that “Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies” (as well as Michael Mann) are thanked as assisting with the NASA webpage, thereby adding another layer of conflict to the entire matter.
Wow!
sigh.
but wait, isn’t this the same organization that Hansen claimed was censoring his work?
If AGW were a company, this is really all I would need to refuse to invest in it, or sell my stock if I held any. For NASA to be in effect leaving its independent role to endorse a partisan site linked to Gore is quite wrong, and undermines its credibility.
But it joins a long list of other wrongnesses including refusals to reveal source data, failure to make the ground stations meet specifications… I cannot follow the details of many of the arguments on technical topics, lacking both time and expertise. But the same thing is true of companies I invest in, where I cannot work through the details of their 10Ks. But there is a strong and rising smell of fish about all this, and one gets a nose for such things after a while.
You should perhaps at some point revisit your view that you’d accept the IPCC/RC conventional wisdom, were you in a policy making position. Don’t think you would or should. What you’d really do is put it all on hold, get the data archived, get the surface stations modified to specification, get the proxies updated, get a group of independent experts together to report on the issue, enforce agency independence. There are just too many things that don’t add up in the conduct of the proponents. I never knew one where there were so many holes, that in the end turned out to be OK.
Its actually called the precautionary principle. If there is any chance of something being badly askew, do an audit, make sure. Don’t jump, don’t buy in. Capital lost is real hard to recover. The NASA/RC connexion is deeply disturbing and quite improper. It cannot be all OK and be being run like this. This is not the way clean growth companies with real though underestimated opportunities and nice clean financials feel and conduct themselves.
Looks like a shell game.
I suspect that it is dear old Gavin who prepares the text for the web page, and gave himself several nice .gov links for his site. Great for Search Engine Optimization.
Alert the legal blogosphere!
NASA and RealClimate. How do they call this; incestuous science?
Thanks SteveM for putting this all together in one spot. I have got to rethink this letter I want to write …lol! and holy moly!
One of the big problems here is that government agencies and the representatives of these agencies are prohibited from a) endorsing political parties/candidates and b) lobbying the government. In the old days, politicians would activate federal agencies on their behalf to get out the vote or pressure on their behalf. Imagine the problems if the FBI publicly and loudly supported a candidate. This is the same reason that such employees can’t accept money from “consulting” or political parties. When I worked at a government lab (not even as a federal employee, as a subcontractor) I could earn extra money say owning rental properties but not doing anything related to my work. I could only accept a coffee mug when I gave a lecture at a university and they offered me an honorarium. Any acceptance of money related to my work was considered accepting lobbying money. That NASA publicly links to RC which has unknown sources of support and takes very specific positions on a very political issue is very very outside the bounds of federal policy. It is stunning actually.
I have to agree with Peter… as egregious as this is, after all the examples of data withholding and just plain old non-cooperation Mr. McIntyre has documented from the scientific community (including NASA), it’s hard to be shocked. Still, I suppose it’s worth documenting each case like this. I don’t think NASA - a putatively scientific organization - should be playing politics, but who am I kidding. That’s practically all they do these days.
When I was a young and inexperienced programmer, NASA was held up as the “gold standard” of quality control and programming excellence. They were putatively CMM level 5, which means that ever scrap of code goes through mulitiple layers of review by other professionals, and all objections raised during those reviews are answered and there are means in place to prove that this is so and that audits are carried out on a regular basis to ensure that all of these quality assurance processes are carried out.
What a joke.
I believe that Hansen’s code, in terms of CMM maturity level, would be classified as at the “pond scum” stage.
Here’s stunning:
Another employee asked about comments Griffin made at a recent celebratory event, in which the administrator thanked former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) for his long-standing support of NASA. “He’s still with us and we need to keep him there,” Griffin said at the event — a comment some interpreted as an inappropriate reelection endorsement.
Griffin explained yesterday that he meant “we need to keep him as a friend” and apologized for his “inartful choice of words.”
In theory, it’s possible that Gavin’s web page at NASA should be reviewed under CMMI, and this should have been documented, and their should be records of it that might be available under FOI. Just sayin…
I wonder if what is effectivly lobbying for government policies by NASA employees would fall under the limitations of the Hatch Act? It is impermissible for a “less-restricted government employee” (defined by the Act) to solicit support from those parties whch may come before the employee’s agency.
Did anyone noticed that alot of Gavin’s spare time seems to be when he is working or should work for NASA.
That would make NASA one of the first contributor of Realclimate for paying their scientist while they are working on realclimate website.
This is really important and goes straight to the heart of scientific credibility. I think this is in violation of NASA’s stated policies and there should be an audit/oversight of how the relationship has evolved. If a blog run by an employee is used as a reference from a government web site, that lessens credibility of the government agency. Seems NASA should be concerned that information is being disseminated outside of their quality policies for a number of reasons.
If a blog hosted by an emplyee during their “spare time” is being actively monitored and updated from a government office/computer (don’t know if that is the case, but it seems that it would be hard for things to wait until after returning home from work each day), that is a really big problem and makes me wonder what our tax dollars are funding there. An audit could sort this out.
On the page SteveM gave for questions answered about global warming you can read who contributed to the fact sheet at the bottom. Mann and Schmidt are listed as helpers. It also gives a link for a contact form set up: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/contact/
“Please feel free to send us your comments and questions. We get a lot of mail and will try and answer as soon as possible.”
Craig: “That NASA publicly links to RC (realclimate.org) which has unknown sources of support and takes very specific positions on a very political issue is very very outside the bounds of federal policy” This is well said. May I use it?
Here is a funny one, a link to lessons learned in software development at NASA. Seems like they have learned almost nothing.
We need Feynman back to give NASA another barbed wire enema.
Well,
have a look at this. think about gavin on RC
http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/NDG03_TableofPenalties.pdf
Examples include:
Re 21. yup those are the ones I selected.
Let me get this straight.
NASA has an “Earth Observatory” program that encompasses observations of earth from human and satellite platforms in space. This is a cross-center effort that is part of NASA’s “Science Mission Directorate”, intended to provide information and data free to the public. The program is managed by David Herring, with a science editorial board of 12 mostly external respected scientists, including James Hansen, and authorship contributions from about a dozen people at various NASA centers including Johnson (Texas) and Goddard (Maryland).
On May 11, 2007, Holli Riebeek posted a Global Warming fact sheet, a simplified public introduction to the data, derived from a previous 2002 edition of the fact sheet by John Weier. This fact sheet links to dozens of other “earthobservatory” sites providing more in-depth coverage of the details; it also links out to the National Weather Service and places like the “World Radiation Center” in Switzerland. At the end of this is a long list of references, including citations to scientific papers, some more informal sources, the IPCC, the US Climate Change Science Program, and the EPA climate change website. And right at the bottom of that references page, among links to the CCSP and EPA again, is also a link to “realclimate”. Makes sense to me - realclimate has some of the best explanatory information out there on the issues and responses to many popular questions raised by things like Al Gore’s movie and Michael Crichton’s book, etc. so why not give it a link?
This “Global Warming” page is linked in many places from the Earth Observatory’s library (Reference) links.
There are additional global warming-related pages on the site - under the “Data and Images” link is a vast collection of raw data on radiation, clouds, land and sea temperatures, ozone, aerosols, etc. This data is surely what the “data quality” standards referenced above are intended to cover. Under “News” is an item noting NASA scientists among the Nobel prize recipients for the IPCC’s work, among other related pages. This news item links only to the Goddard page, but other news items link out to USGS, IPY, the Department of Energy, etc. “Missions” lists various climate-relevant satellite observation systems. “Experiments” includes a completely different “global warming” page, that encourages some sort of interactive discussion of the science.
And finally there’s “Features”, which on 2 of it’s six main pages (Atmosphere, and Land), among dozens of links on each page, has a link to “Global Warming Questions and Answers”, which is the page Steve is whining about here.
So, first of all, this is a pretty obscure page on the site.
Second, if you actually visit the QandA page in question, you’ll see concise and informative answers attributed to the following scientists:
* Robert Cahalan, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
* G. James Collatz, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
* Anthony Del Genio, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
* Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
* Forrest Hall, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
* Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University
* Paul Newman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
* William Patzert, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
* Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
* Brian Soden, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
* Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
and Earth Observatory Writers David Herring, Rebecca Lindsey, Holli Riebeek, Michon Scott, and Robert Simmon.
Appended to each of the answers is a list of references or “further reading” material, or source material for data. I count 50 total references or links; some of these are to non-NASA material such as the IPCC summary, the AIP climate history page, Physics Today, Science and other research journals, etc. And I count exactly 4 of the 50 that are links to “realclimate”.
When Steve above complains, on the question “what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?” that “Its answer includes only two references”, he is being very misleading. The answer is in fact 5 paragraphs long, includes one telling figure, and each paragraph makes an important and succinct point on the question. The two links after the article are *not* listed as references, but as “further reading”, an important distinction on this page.
On the question “haven’t scientists actually observed cooling in the lower atmosphere” Steve complains “a realclimate thread […] is one of only four references”. But once again Steve doesn’t mention that this is after four informative paragraphs and another telling figure, and there are two additional (external) links he doesn’t mention to the source of the actual data displayed. The linked realclimate article by Gavin Schmidt on the satellite surface temperature data is in fact a very informative discussion of the details; Steve doesn’t happen to mention here either that *all 4 references* (plus the two data links) are to external (non-NASA) sites: NASA people don’t seem to have worked on this question in their official capacities at all. Would you rather it go unanswered than link out to external sites?
Why Steve would complain about Ray Pierrehumbert’s article being linked I can’t imagine either. Would you rather have them link to a page here at climateaudit.org? What page would you recommend? Using your google search function for “climate sensitivity” returns this page as the top response. You think they should have linked to that? Really?
Steve never claims in his article here that NASA is violating policies, just “evading” them. Given the actual context, rather than what you would guess just from reading Steve’s article, I don’t see *any* attempt at evasion here at all. Really, if you want outsiders to come and respect your work here at “climateaudit”, you need to quit this sort of whiny nonsense. The “yes man” echoing responses in the comments don’t exactly help.
Well this is all fine and dandy but what does anyone plan to do about it? Yes Gavin may very well be violating NASA policy but do any of you honestly think NASA will do anything about it? Remember what happened when they tried to get Hansen to follow the rules. Gavin knows damn well that he is untouchable because if anyone at NASA tries anything he will go screaming to the press.
RE 23. Art, the point is rather simple and one most of us learned long ago.
you dont use your day job power to promote in any way whatsoever your personal endeavors.
Steve M, only you have standing to make a complaint. Gavin is attempting to damage your reputation and is most likely violating the law. Clearly there is not an arms length relationship between Gavin, in his capacity as a blogger, and the people who make content decisions for the NASA web site (which most likely includes Gavin). We can all get upset about it, but we have no standing. I’d like to see you file a complaint. Once a complaint is filed, we can all throw in our support through our local Congress people.
#23, 25. Of course, nobody’s likely to “do” anything. But you never know. They made Hansen produce his source code.
Tou refer to the links to posts by Gavin and P-Humbert. But take a look at the posts by Gavin’s RC associates (Mann) linked in the Paleoclimate reference; are you seriously contending that these meet NASA quality standards? If so, NASA has a serious problem.
Gavin is not writing about sports or the arts at realclimate; he’s writing about topics intimately related to his professional duties. He’s a NASA employee and NASA has regulations about employee activity. Let’s get rid of the fiction that Gavin is doing realclimate in a “personal capacity”.
The references list also gives another blog site for the question
” Is today’s warming man-made?” It is the third one down.
link
” Science and politics of global climate change”
That’s not ok in my eyes either. And I read through the comments..(all thermo questions lol shhhh) And I am not sure if Dressler is a NASA employee and Eli Rabbet is in the comments, LOL sheesh. How do we know what or who’s comments and concerns are left out or allowed in? Is “the public” really informed this way?
23, there’s a question of standing. The fib is that realclimate is a science website. The fact is that it’s an advocacy website. I don’t want to take the thread off-topic with all of the pings and so on, but it’s not what it claims to be, and NASA has no business promoting it.
Of course Gavin doesn’t do it in a personal capacity but NASA will not do anything about it. And you are pretty much the only one who can file a reasonable complaint about it because you are the one who’s reputation being attacked on the government dime. The rest of us are simply observers with no cause to do anything.
I’d wondered what happened to the first version of this thread. Obviously Steve thought better of being quite as personal against Gavin as he was in that version.
As to #23, why NOT have a link to CA if you’re going to have multiple links to RC? A simple statement like, “For a viewpoint skeptical of human-caused global warming see [link to CA]” would be honest and would at least make the people in charge face the issues directly when they started getting blow-back from AGW partisans.
Let’s try some analogies. Imagine that a senior FBI spokesman runs a blog advocating complete confiscation of all guns from private citizens, with scathing criticism of the NRA and satirical comments on Carleton Heston, and the FBI links to it on their offical web site. Or perhaps a senior scientist at the CDC who runs a blog that advocates for closing all chiropractic offices and and the CDC links to it as a “factual” medical science site. Would these be ok?
When you ride the tiger you very often get bitten.
Let me summarize your argument so that I know I have it right: NASA has policies and guidelines that set out the rules for data quality (peer review) and dissemination of data to the public and other researchers. In other words, all data produced by NASA and its scientists should be peer reviewed before it is made public, and that it should be made available to the public, to other scientists etc. once it has been subject to peer review. This applies to information produced by NASA, by its scientists and on NASA’s website — but not to external links on a NASA website. Links to, say, RealClimate.
I read NASA policies regarding the behavior of its employees when reading up on the whole Hansen matter. AFAIK, NASA employees are able to make statements about science and express their opinions about science matters, including global warming, as long as they make it clear that they are not speaking for NASA or as a NASA employee. They must make clear that they are speaking on their own behalf. I don’t see that RealClimate violates that requirement. RealClimate is portrayed as a private blog run by a group of climate scientists who want to express their personal views on global warming to the public.
I quote:
So, the requirement that data be peer reviewed and made public does not apply to Gavin Schmidt or any of the other posters at RealClimate. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA employee, is allowed to run a website on his own time. As a private citizen, he is not covered by NASA policies because the website he runs is a third-party website not directly under NASA’s purview.
However, NASA is putting a stamp of approval on RC by linking to it in response to Q&As, yet RC is not peer-reviewed or subject to data dissemination requirements that NASA itself is subject. I agree that, given the fact that RC is not subject to data quality control or disclosure that is required by NASA policy and guidelines, it is inadvisable for NASA to link to RC. I understand you are upset, given the attacks at RC on your website and your work. There are false statements on the website regarding your work. People will be directed to RC where the conclusions of the scientists are not peer reviewed or subject to NASA guidelines.
Comparing NASA’s linking to the RealClimate webpage to the Enron scandal is bit of a reach, IMO. NASA linking to RC is intemperate, but not on the same level as the ENRON scandal.
Finally, I sense that your loyal fans are cheering you on in some quest to attack Gavin and RC, perhaps get him in trouble with NASA. If you want to follow through and launch a lawsuit against RC or Gavin, my advice, for what it’s worth, is to do it outside of CA. Keep CA outside of the personal and political.
Steve: There are a lot of people here who’ve never been through litigation that are quick to urge lawsuits. I’ve had some experience with litigation and would be very reluctant to engage in litigation. At this point, I’m merely observing the inconsistency between NASA policies and practices.
I was not saying that the things are on the same “level” - I’m trying to illustrate the foolishness of people claiming to be acting in a “personal capacity”.
Not quite. Go there and click “about”. It’s rather long so I won’t copy it here, but basically they declare themselves to be the authority on the science. They do disclaim by saying that the contributors aren’t paid (at least by RC), but they don’t state or imply in any way that there is a legitimate other side of the issue and that these are their own personal opinions.
Susann, “I sense that your loyal fans are cheering you on in some quest to attack Gavin and RC, perhaps get him in trouble with NASA.”
With respect, no, you see the public, voters if you will, who policy makers should listen to once in awhile BTW!, making comments out loud about what we think about NASA referencing the “The Team”, and how these employees of NASA called “the Team” speak to the public including myself, and others here, and how they violate their own posting policy- and how they censor and bash even the smallest newspaper article if it does not express their views scientifically or politically, and because of what we know on record about “The Team” in Congress and what SteveM has recorded here.
Do you think they tell the whole truth? I do not. Why did a Congressional Hearing have to take place? Or was that just a big joke? You know, like they made it seem to be on their website? (go read about it)
NASA Public Affairs Policy
Q. What do you mean by public information?
A. The policy defines public information as information in any form provided to news
and information media, especially information that has the potential to generate
significant media, or public interest or inquiry. Examples include press releases, media
advisories, news features, and web postings. Not included under this definition are
scientific and technical reports, web postings designed for technical or scientific
interchange, and technical information presented at professional meetings or in
professional journals.
Q. What does it mean that a NASA employee cannot express his/her personal views
while using government resources?
A. NASA employees can express their personal views as long as they state that it is their
own view and not the view of the agency. The policy states that “government funds shall
not be used for media interviews or other communication activities that go beyond the
scope of Agency responsibilities and/or an employee’s official area of expertise or
responsibility.” In other words, if an employee wishes to participate in activities, the
principal purpose of which is to discuss matters with the public or media that are not part
of the employee’s official duties, government resources shall not be used toward that
activity.
#23
Decided to try NASA for myself as a “fresher lurker”, and tried to find reference link to RC, but gave up in boredom and in any case i got distracted, they have some lovely pictures, better than anyone else’s!
A few things bothered me, NASA proudly report record Artic sea ice melt this summer was due to unprecedented clear skies (24 hour sunshine) , that bit seems common sense, but NASA don’t seem bothered why the record clear skies, just bothered by the melting ice? Doesn’t seem to fit with the extra water vapour, positive feedback theory, surely there should be more clouds around?
Also I am still trying to understand the CO2 infra red absorbtion physics, and the explanations given by NASA don’t help at all, just the same old boring arrows going up and down, but what is actually going on, as I cannot find a reference to it anywhere, even tried AIP website but that was not exactly helpful, just refered to theoretical physics that when they experimented it didn’t work
Steve,
Would it be appropriate for you to write to the NASA Administrator and ask him to clarify the apparent conflict of interest for Gavin to evade his responsibilities as a NASA employee by writing a blog related to his work which evades NASA’s own guidelines on data quality and availability. Also, is it appropriate for an “arms length” blog to be hosted by an environmental pressure group?
Susann, #34:
And when earlier this year James Hansen berated Michael Griffin, the head of NASA, for saying that he didn’t think global warming would be a serious problem in the future, when Hansen used the terms “ignorance and arrogance” to describe Mr. Griffin’s state of mind, do you think Hansen was acting appropriately? Wasn’t he implying that he is NASA’s spokesman on matters of global warming? That there is only one acceptable view for NASA?
If the “consensus” science of AGW starts to unravel, prepare yourself for not just “snark” but for some real viciousness from the likes of Hansen and his ilk.
Susann, I am not suggesting a law suit. I’m suggesting a complaint in the form of a letter to NASA and GAO. Simple. Let’s not be so skeptical as to think that no one who will do anything about it. There are people in both agencies whose job it is to investigate allegations of misconduct by employees.
So I guess NASA’s climate science amounts to a web blog, (that wasn’t even in the running for Best Science Blog), a bunch of unreadable Fortran, and some temperature stations in parking lots?
Re: 34
Susann
SteveM’s original comment about a red letter rule stands
Re: 44
DaveR
Couldn’t agree more with PaddyL in #43. As far as your question re Schmidt is concerned, my asnwer would be both.
And Hansen’s diatribe against Griffin, had it occurred in the private sector, would have been cause for dismissal with cause.
Susann this is really very simple.
Nasa is a federally funded agency.
You go find another federally funded agency that promotes it’s own employees private websites.
And after you find that agency and that personal website, you go see if that personal website
publishes falsehoods about people.
I bet you can crawl all the gov websites and not find a single one ( except nasa) that links to
an employees private web site. go ahead… taps foot… crickets chirp…
Gavin should sell fricken Tshirts on that site. That would be doubly cool. He could claim its
“private behavior” promote the site using the public dollar ( nasa’s site) and the Susanns of
the world wouldnt care.
How does Gavin decide which hat he’s wearing and when? How do NASA decide which hat he’s wearing and when? The fact that the blog he is writing for is directly related to his work at NASA makes it unacceptable. Are there any statements made by Gavin on RC which directly conflict with statements made on behalf of NASA?
51,
But it takes an extra special type of chutzpah to write a junkscience-o-gram to the Queen of England.
Re #49
Hardly a diatribe! If making a public utterance against the stated policy of your organisation and contradicting the recent statement of your boss on the subject is reason for dismissal with cause why wasn’t Griffin fired? Even the White House issued an apologia for him and said he was joking and that ‘the questions had been too hard’!
MarkR said in #51:
[snip]
On recieving James Hansen’s letter the queen was believed to have remarked:
“Muppet”.
The queen’s personal secretary then responded with, “no ma’m that was Jim Hanson” to which the queen replied, “I know”.
After some thought what the hell is Mann doing editing a government webpage. Where does Gavin a government employee get off allowing a private citizen to use a government funded website to attack his critics and promote his own research?
Well, now. Those are very pertinent questions, no?
NASA needs to make clear exactly where they draw the line. Enquiring taxpayers want to know.
Jim Henson
Sometimes I am amazed at how willing people - even libertarians - are to muzzle government employees but who rail against any restrictions on their own rights to free speech. Restricting a governmnet employee’s right to be politically active, etc. is a limit on free speech. While that goes against my natural grain, for the most part, I grudgingly accet polices that restrict the political activities of employees. Such policies and regulations are necessary to ensure the work of government can progress. The government did, after all, get elected by the people. But do not think for a moment that it is for any other reason than to prevent the employees from undermining the authority of the government in power and hindering its policies. Government employees are there to implement government policy. They have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the merits of the policy as it is being developed, but they have to defer when the policy makers decide how to proceed. If an employee speaks out in public against the government that employs them, they undermine the government and its policies. The policies and regulation covering government employees’ political activities are a whip to keep government employees in line a