IN 2006 the New York Times said NASA was attempting to gag Dr. James Hansen, the agency's inhouse cheerleader for the man-made global warming thesis. The Houston Chronicle waxed indignant, but mildly so.
(The rebuke was soft because the paper itself serves as head cheerleader for NASA.)
When a young political appointee in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration allegedly attempted to muzzle agency climatologist James Hansen, NASA's commitment to science and learning was called into question. NASA Director Michael Griffin has issued a welcome clarification of the agency's public information policy that reaffirms the right of employees to freely discuss their work and personal opinions without screening by censors.
(Editorial, "Nonpartisan science: NASA chief issues guidelines guaranteeing agency scientists the freedom to speak their minds," Houston Chronicle, April 3, 2006)
What made the Hansen flap such a kneeslapper, of course, is that the mad scientist has never been silenced. By some counts, he is now up to 1,400 sermons, most proselytizing for the Most Holy Church of Environmentology. ("Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia?")
Now comes an actual silencing, this one by the Obama administration, as recounted by Kimberly Strassel:
In March the Obama EPA prepared to engage in the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issue an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It established that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.
Around this time, [Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics] and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report said.
The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. . . .
[Later] Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."
(Kimberly A. Strassel, "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic," Wall Street Journal, July 3, 2009)
The purpose of the silencing, Ms. Strassel reports, was to keep Mr. Carlin's report out of the public record for the endangerment rulemaking, in apparent violation of a law that requires agencies to publish "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded" and in total violation of President Obama's pledge of utter transparency in matters of science, now that he has driven the Bush ideologues back under their rocks.
The silencing of Mr. Carlin perfectly illustrates the fourth postulate of liberal faith in the man-made global warming thesis, which is that the first three postulates may never be debated. (Click here for the full formulary of postulates.) Ms. Strassel reports that anonymous EPA officials are now trashing Mr. Carlin's reputation.
Mr. Carlin is . . . an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.
Here's betting that the local franchise of "elites like Al Gore" known as the Houston Chronicle editorial board will not find time wax indignant, even mildly, about the silencing of Mr. Carlin.
* * *
UPDATE: More on the suppressed report here and here.
* * *
As a reward for sticking to the end, here's a Cliffie: The Goddard Institute is housed in the same building as the eatery used for exterior shots of the Seinfeld restaurant.
* * *
What's a Cliffie? It's something Cliff Claven would say.
Who's Cliff Claven? If you don't know, you didn't spend much time where everybody knows your name.
* * *
Finally, the Chronicle's 2006 editorial also whacked NASA's administrator for saying his agency had "no better friend . . . than Tom DeLay." Bad old politics, you see.
The editors apparently ran out of ink before they could say anything about Mr. Hansen's 2004 public endorsement of John Kerry.
Comments