Today's Article
How this White House
has for the last seven
years bluntly
suppressed and
denied any scientific
fact that went against
its political ideology.
has for the last seven
years bluntly
suppressed and
denied any scientific
fact that went against
its political ideology.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
How Bush White House Has Denied Global Warming: Report
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 21st, 2008
Today we quote from a still-pertinent March 2007 report by the Government Accountability Project (GAP)--
which calls itself "the nation’s leading whistleblower organization"--concerning the Bush Administration's
manipulation of scientific data for the sake of political ideology.
The GAP study is bluntly called, Redacting The Science Of Climate Change. While its primary focus is the
Bush Administration's "increasingly restrictive policies and practices" on facts concerning global warming, it
may also be an example of how this White House has for the last seven years bluntly suppressed and denied
any scientific fact that went against its wishful thinking and blind prejudice.
We quote from the GAP study below:
"This report, which presents and synthesizes the findings of a year-long investigation to determine the extent
of political interference at federal climate science agencies, demonstrates how policies and practices have
increasingly restricted the flow of scientific information emerging from publicly-funded climate change research.
"This has affected the media’s ability to report on the science, public officials’ capacity to respond with
appropriate policies, and the public’s grasp of an environmental issue with profound consequences for our
future.
"Conducted by the Government Accountability Project, the investigation incorporated dozens of interviews; a
review of thousands of Freedom of Information Act disclosures, internal documents, and public records; and a
comprehensive search of news archives.
"Although the investigation focused heavily on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it also
included the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Department of Agriculture, and the Climate Change Science Program.
"A perception of inappropriate political interference is widespread among employees of the federal climate
science agencies and programs, as well as among journalists from national, mainstream outlets who cover
their research. This perception is substantiated by evidence from inside sources, scientists’ personal
testimonies, journalists, and Freedom of Information Act disclosures.
"The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with climate change research. Instead, unduly
restrictive policies and practices were located largely in the communication of 'sensitive' scientific information to
the media, the public, and Congress.
"In this context, 'sensitive scientific information' is meant to signify that science which does not support existing
policy positions or objectives in research dealing with the effects of climate change or greenhouse gases on
hurricanes, sea levels, Arctic ice loss, marine life, and human society.
"Interference with media communications includes delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews, as
well as delay, denial, and inappropriate editing of press releases. Interference with the public and Congress
includes inappropriate editing, delay, and suppression of reports and other printed and online material. These
restrictive communication policies and practices are largely characterized by internal inconsistencies,
ambiguity, and a lack of transparency.
"In turn, they send chilling signals to federal employees, including scientists and public affairs officers, that
reinforce the suppression of 'sensitive' information.
"There is a clear trend toward increasingly restrictive policies and practices unsupported by any official
justification from the agencies and programs.
"Why are these restrictions becoming more pervasive than ever before? The evidence suggests that incidents
of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications
for the administration.
"Attempts to impose such restrictions are sometimes unsuccessful and even counter-productive; how
frequently they succeed unreported, however, cannot be quantified. [...]
"Directives and signals from executive offices such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are channeled through political
appointees and younger politically-aligned career civil servants at lower-level press and policy offices.
"These communications largely take place off the record, frequently deviating from written policy guidelines and
involving individuals with few scientific qualifications.
"Whereas low-level agency and program support staff are typically sympathetic to the scientists and their
science, as one scientist noted, 'the closer you get to Washington, the more hostile [they are to the science].'
"Despite supportive rhetoric, senior managers who are aware of the perception and even the incidents of
interference largely fail to address them. To the contrary, they may be conforming to pressures from above to
downplay politically-inconvenient science.
"Whether these restrictive communication policies and practices have precipitated overt and, often, well-
publicized incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent and under-
represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies and
programs.
"In some cases, the policies and practices [are] constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal
climate science employees’ free speech and whistleblower rights.
"[But] in most cases, the policies and practices undermine the government’s inherent obligation to disseminate
the results of publicly-funded research."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Jan. 21st, 2008
Today we quote from a still-pertinent March 2007 report by the Government Accountability Project (GAP)--
which calls itself "the nation’s leading whistleblower organization"--concerning the Bush Administration's
manipulation of scientific data for the sake of political ideology.
The GAP study is bluntly called, Redacting The Science Of Climate Change. While its primary focus is the
Bush Administration's "increasingly restrictive policies and practices" on facts concerning global warming, it
may also be an example of how this White House has for the last seven years bluntly suppressed and denied
any scientific fact that went against its wishful thinking and blind prejudice.
We quote from the GAP study below:
"This report, which presents and synthesizes the findings of a year-long investigation to determine the extent
of political interference at federal climate science agencies, demonstrates how policies and practices have
increasingly restricted the flow of scientific information emerging from publicly-funded climate change research.
"This has affected the media’s ability to report on the science, public officials’ capacity to respond with
appropriate policies, and the public’s grasp of an environmental issue with profound consequences for our
future.
"Conducted by the Government Accountability Project, the investigation incorporated dozens of interviews; a
review of thousands of Freedom of Information Act disclosures, internal documents, and public records; and a
comprehensive search of news archives.
"Although the investigation focused heavily on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it also
included the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Department of Agriculture, and the Climate Change Science Program.
"A perception of inappropriate political interference is widespread among employees of the federal climate
science agencies and programs, as well as among journalists from national, mainstream outlets who cover
their research. This perception is substantiated by evidence from inside sources, scientists’ personal
testimonies, journalists, and Freedom of Information Act disclosures.
"The investigation found no incidents of direct interference with climate change research. Instead, unduly
restrictive policies and practices were located largely in the communication of 'sensitive' scientific information to
the media, the public, and Congress.
"In this context, 'sensitive scientific information' is meant to signify that science which does not support existing
policy positions or objectives in research dealing with the effects of climate change or greenhouse gases on
hurricanes, sea levels, Arctic ice loss, marine life, and human society.
"Interference with media communications includes delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews, as
well as delay, denial, and inappropriate editing of press releases. Interference with the public and Congress
includes inappropriate editing, delay, and suppression of reports and other printed and online material. These
restrictive communication policies and practices are largely characterized by internal inconsistencies,
ambiguity, and a lack of transparency.
"In turn, they send chilling signals to federal employees, including scientists and public affairs officers, that
reinforce the suppression of 'sensitive' information.
"There is a clear trend toward increasingly restrictive policies and practices unsupported by any official
justification from the agencies and programs.
"Why are these restrictions becoming more pervasive than ever before? The evidence suggests that incidents
of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications
for the administration.
"Attempts to impose such restrictions are sometimes unsuccessful and even counter-productive; how
frequently they succeed unreported, however, cannot be quantified. [...]
"Directives and signals from executive offices such as the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are channeled through political
appointees and younger politically-aligned career civil servants at lower-level press and policy offices.
"These communications largely take place off the record, frequently deviating from written policy guidelines and
involving individuals with few scientific qualifications.
"Whereas low-level agency and program support staff are typically sympathetic to the scientists and their
science, as one scientist noted, 'the closer you get to Washington, the more hostile [they are to the science].'
"Despite supportive rhetoric, senior managers who are aware of the perception and even the incidents of
interference largely fail to address them. To the contrary, they may be conforming to pressures from above to
downplay politically-inconvenient science.
"Whether these restrictive communication policies and practices have precipitated overt and, often, well-
publicized incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent and under-
represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies and
programs.
"In some cases, the policies and practices [are] constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal
climate science employees’ free speech and whistleblower rights.
"[But] in most cases, the policies and practices undermine the government’s inherent obligation to disseminate
the results of publicly-funded research."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!