The report in Sunday’s New York Times where NASA climate scientist James Hansen claims NASA is trying to prevent him from speaking about global warming has generated a reaction in Congress. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chairman of the House Science Committee, issued a press release Monday that contained a copy of the letter he has sent to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin asking for clarification about the issue. “NASA is clearly doing something wrong, given the sense of intimidation felt by Dr. Hansen and others who work with him,” Boehlert wrote in his letter. “Even if this sense is a result of a misinterpretation of NASA policies – and more seems to be at play here – the problem still must be corrected.” Boehlert added that his staff “is already setting up meetings to pursue this issue” and asked Griffin for a written clarification; don’t be surprised this comes up the next time Griffin appears before Boehlert’s committee.
However, a Times article Tuesday notes that not everyone in Congress agrees with Boehlert. A spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a critic of claims about global warming, accused Hansen of “using his government position to promote his own views and political agenda, which is a clear violation of governmental procedure in any administration.”
Chair of the House Science Committee (R-NY) vs. advocate of the energy industry (R-OK)… I wonder who will win.
Perhaps this can shed some light on the subject.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I
A stunning example of ingoramii texii in its
native habitat. Notice the striking plumage.
It must be mating season.
I love the fact that we have R’s who claim they aren’t anti-science, and then try and claim that global warming isn’t happening, or we have plenty of time to figure out a solution.
I love how the left feels that workplace policies aka contractual obligations can be ignored when it suits their purpose. The ends always justifies the means no matter the consequences.
Every government agency has similar positions regarding representing your opinions to the press as agency positions. Yor continued employment is conditional upon your acceptence of the terms.
Don’t like it? Quit and work someplace else.
Mike: I love how the left feels . . . contractual obligations can be ignored when it suits their purpose. The ends always justifies the means no matter the consequences.
This sounds more like the President’s position — vis-a-vis illegal wiretapping without a court order — than any position I might take.
— Donald
Actually, I think it is more like revealing the NSA intercept program ignoring the consequences of violating a Top Secret Security Clearance as opposed to the Constutionalally based legal survelance of hostile foreign interests communicating with parties inside the CONUS.
Oh, you so don’t wanna play the contractial obligations – not with the shit this president has pulled.
Gentlemen:
Please keep your comments on-topic to this post and polite. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.
Interesting piece in the NYT on how a 24-year-old former Bush 2004 campaign staffer, now working in the NASA PAO office, is deciding questions of cosmology.
http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/
I’m waiting for faith-based aerodynamics…