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 and not working at least publicly against the government’s interests. There seems to be a specific exemption for scientists, for their research is rightfully the public’s research. In other words, since scientists like Hansen are partly funded by taxpayers dollars, the work they do is partly owned by the people, the public. Hence, the public has a right to know what the scientists find while doing their work. This is, it seems to me, why NASA relented and issued a clarification of its policy on the rights of employees to speak about their work to the press and public, at least as far as I understand the issue.
There is a fine line a public employee walks between implementing the government’s policy and staying true to your professional ethics. One might, for example, work on a policy that you feel is wrong, based on bad research, dangerous or even worse, fraudulent, yet you want to keep your job, and might feel compelled to shut up and go along. If you feel you cannot compromise your integrity by going along, you must either report the wrongdoing and suffer the consequences or resign. Ideally, one should be able to report the wrongdoing and keep one’s job, but in reality, that rarely happens because the well is poisoned so to speak. In the end, people shut up or quit and no one is the wiser.
In my thinking, a scientist must also walk this fine line. They want to remain objective when doing science and try to minimize bias and error. The scientist is a true skeptic, demanding proof. However, a scientist is also a human being and may be alarmed about the results of their research and what it means for the public, etc. Speaking out, becoming political, is understandable if the results of one’s research are alarming. I have read quite a few blogs written by climate scientists and I do not doubt the sincerity of their fears about the future. Some may be more venal in their actions than others, but I do not distrust most of them when they say they are worried for the future. Given scientists’ inherent skepticism, when they are worried, I feel it is rational for laypeople to worry. I acknowledge they may be wrong, and that we need to examnine their claims closely, but it is worse if they are right and we fiddle.
Re:51
Phil
You don’t get it, do you?
1] Griffin is NASA’s boss and speaks for NASA, not delusional Dr Hansen. If you were somehow suggesting that Bush is Griffin’s boss, you really don’t know how far off base you are.
Only in the public sector does one see a circus like this one. In the private sector, when the CEO says one thing on the company’s behalf and a VP not only contradicts but insults him in public, rest assured that said VP’s next job will be flipping burgers.
2] SteveM’s “red letter rule” comment stands. If said VP were running a side line advocacy blog which somehow implies a connection to the company, he’d be toast. If the CEO allowed the VP to run a sideline advocacy blog to which the provides direct reference links, the CEO would be toast.
Re: 58
Susann
You don’t get it either, do you?
When you accept to work as a civil servant, you give up part of your rights to free speach. This is all the more true the higher up the flag pole you live. The civil service works for the government, and implements the policies laid out by the body politic. The principle of separation of powers precludes a civil servant from overtly participating/endorsing political positions.
That fact that this fundamental principle has become open to questioning only serves to underscore the degree to which government [scientific] institutions have become politicized and ideologically compromised. Civil servants are supposed to serve, not formulate policy. Period. Anything else is cause for red flags and alarm bells.
And for complete clarity, I am a libertarian.
Susan,
No law suit required. We live in a Republic. I’d make this information known to my rep. or Senator. Esp. if they are on the republican side of the aisle.
The Congress is looking for places to cut the budget. What better place to start.
tetris, I’m sure I’m more libertarian than you, and certainly more familiar with rights, because when you say:
>> When you accept to work as a civil servant, you give up part of your rights to free speach.
You are completely wrong. Government workers don’t give up any part of the bill of rights.
Worse, your distortion appears to be motivated by a desire to shut Hansen up, rather than deal with what he says. I’m sure I disagree with him more than you, but I’ll gladly defend his right to speak.
I believe that is precisely what I wrote. Perhaps you might read my post a bit more carefully. I said it went against my grain because I don’t in general support censorship, but that I understood the need for it in order for government to work. I believe I made every point you made, so I do “get” it. I expect at least some pushback from libertarians on any limits to personal freedoms, but somehow civil servants are the ill-favored bastard child even to those who are most adamant about personal liberties.
Gunner, my husband was a senior scientist and regulator for the Calif. EPA. (He left because he hated working there) He absolutely was not allowed to discuss anything with a “civilian” especially via the internet or email.
My Rep. (Manzullo) has been notified.
Not going there…..nope……uh-uh…not going OT….
welikerocks, nevertheless, he did not give up any civil rights by working there. The fact that organizations expect confidentiality to be maintained does not change that. It’s very illogical to say “my husband couldn’t say anything, therefore no one can”. Hansen’s web site is between him and his boss, period. There is nothing immoral, illegal or even improper about it. He has not been fired. nuff said.
A civil servant is just that, a servant of government policy. He must not pass political commentary in a public arena. That keeps civil servants nuetral which is what they must be to serve whatever government that is in power. A minister in charge of a portfolio would employ a communications manager to deal with the press etc and would never allow one of his public servants to make political comment. On the other hand ministers of state are generally forbidden to criticize public servants in the public domain. This alos protects the civil servant.
who is talking about stopping gavin from making his “personal” comments.
The issue is nasa endorsing his “private” activity with public funds.
I could care less what he does on his personal time, personal computer, personal phone line.
nasa has a web page. I pay for that. On that web page he references and thereby endorses his private blog
Gavin can do what he wants on his personal time. But when he appears as an employee on a nasa web page
he should NOT reference his personal blog.
Is that hard to understand?
paul, you seem to be referring to some foreign set of rules. That’s not how it works in the US.
>> nasa has a web page. I pay for that.
Being a taxpayer doesn’t give you the right to demand anything. All you can do is vote. Find a candidate for the “no govt endorsement of personal web sites” party.
Gunnar, what you say…all maybe true on some level but because of sensitivity issues , (like discrimination, sexual harassment etc) MOST organizations or companies wouldn’t take the chance of allowing their employee to link to a website private or otherwise the run, l with debates and arguments on the topics directly related to what he does for that company or organization, coupled with the power to edit, block, and censor and to say, “I am THE expert on this” don’t listen or read anything else, read this this and this because what you think/know/feel is wrong/dumb/naive/etc etc.
If I think on this, and read again how that thread on the French scientist panned out over there, I am truly stunned. And I wrote and email to NASA earlier today expressing my feelings about it, based on stevemosher’s points @69 too.
Funny legal theory there…
Gunnar: “There is nothing immoral, illegal or even improper about it. He has not been fired. nuff said.” Yes he would have been. Its in the policy at the EPA. He didn’t hate working there because of that policy..he left because it was working for a government agency, slow, messed up, boring, paperwork paperwork.., and he wanted to do real science in the field more.
Re #59
I certainly do get it, according to the White House he wasn’t speaking for NASA.
White House Science Advisor Jack Marburger said:
“It’s pretty obvious that the NASA administrator was speaking about his own personal views and by no means representing or attempting to represent the administration’s views or broader policy,” Marburger said. “He’s got a very wry sense of humor and is very outspoken.”
And of course Griffin was nominated by President George W. Bush, John H. Marburger, Science Adviser to the President and OSTP Director, administered his swearing of the oath of office. He serves at the pleasure of the president.
welikerocks, companies do have blogs that relate to the business, eg Microsoft. They do it because they help the bsn. Same in this case. You are naive to think that AGW is not in the govt interest. It’s also in Nasa’s interest. With no one in the mood to fund a trip to the andromeda galaxy, they need to do something that will endear them to about half of congress.
Your e-mail to nasa is like writing to the Wolves and complaining that the Sheep need more protection. “Yea, we’ll get right on that”.
bottom line: this whole discussion is petty, because you’re just trying to shut him up, rather than deal with issues.
welikerocks, the point is that Hansen has not been fired.
Sure they do. Happens all the time. For instance, a soldier [another gov’t worker] gives up the right to publicly promote aid & comfort to the enemy — something NY Times journalists, for instance, routinely do.
My concern, as a citizen/taxpayer, is that the work product that I have paid for is now a secret. We’re talking about the weather here, folks, not about how to make anthrax. That being the case, I do not see how it is ethical to hide the methodology, data, etc., from those who pay the freight.
snip
Re #76
Odd then that the NASA administrator and the White House had the NASA Mission statement changed to remove the phrase “To understand and protect our home planet”.
welikerocks. Kudos for writing to Nasa.
Now to the question everyone missed. Why doesnt nasa run a realclimate like web site?
Proxy’s aint just for temperature, they are also for wars.
84, Lucia trusted her blog to karma, and you saw where that got her…
Re Gunnar
“Being a taxpayer doesn’t give you the right to demand anything.”
I don’t think Gunnar really gets it. Governments typically have rules about these things that are aimed at protecting the tax payer.
I am very familiar with the Australian Government and UK Government rules on these issues (having worked at a senior level in central agencies in both Governments) that clearly disallow use of public funds for private purposes and also promote impartiality. While, I am not familiar with all the intricacies of the US system I am sure there are plenty of similar rules – bureaucracies always have plenty of rules.
On the main issue raised here – the misuse of public funds – the general rule is a civil servant should not use public funds for private benefit (e.g. frequent flyer points gained during official travel are not for personal benefit.
See also the US Office of Government ethics, here:
http://www.usoge.gov/pages/about_oge/ethics_program.html
The thrust is:
• employees shall not use public office for private gain, and
• employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.
There may be better links – those more familiar with the US system might know them.
On the side issue raised above on endorsing candidates, there is the Hatch Act – see here for a list of the rules and how they apply: Pdf: “Political Activity and the Federal Employee”
http://www.oklahoma.feb.gov/Forms/HatchActFederalEmployees.pdf
These rules boil down to employees being able to express their views publicly or privately about a candidate or about political issues but not engaging in active campaigning for partisan candidates.
Would be interesting to see US Federal Reserve link to a private web site run by Bernake (with technical and legal support from Soros and prize money from Heinz) arguing that GWB economical policy spiraling the country into recession, and writing letters to monarch of foreign country asking to push US to adapt some international treaty.
Susann, you say in #34:
As noted in my post, NPR 2200.2B states:
Do you agree that publication by Schmidt at realclimate constitutes “external (non-NASA) publication” by a NASA employee? If so, 3.1.1 applies. It’s nothing to do with free speech - it’s compliance with an agency code. Should the code be rescinded for climate scientists? If that’s what they think, they should change the code.
Folks, please try to avoid discussion of individuals and limit your comments to policy.
Please - no more about Hansen here. I’m getting a different issue: my point is not whether Hansen is behaving appropriately or not, but the system by which NASA’s website uses product from its own employees supposedly produced in a “personal capacity”.
My take on the NASA policy is that there are two policies: one for scientific publication, and one for public information.
Web postings appear to fall under public information.
Wow, for a site supposedly devoted to “auditing”, the commentary here is ludicrously divorced from reality!
By the way, I’ve suffered through many an audit (for various non-profit organizations); the principle finding in my experience is that whatever the procedures in place, human beings make mistakes, and an audit is a good idea to keep folks accountable. But evidence of an occasional policy violation is far different from systematic fraud; those auditors who have trouble distinguishing between the two end up checking every jot and tittle to little effect other than a lot of wasted time. That seems to be the principle outcome of what’s being done on this site - that and what seems a very high degree of confusion among some frequenters here about the firm conclusions of the science, independent of minor human mistakes. That many of the posters here seem to even doubt that recent warming is proven surely dismays Steve McIntyre - I hope?
Steve: NOthing more was suggested here other than a “policy violation”. No one alleged “systematic fraud” - please don’t raise red herrings like this. Having observed a policy violation, is it your view that the policy violations should be perpetuated?
I’ve never suggested that it is not presently warmer than the 19th century and few posters here hold that point of view. If you wish to cite or engage something that I actually said, you’re welcome to do so, but please don’t put words into my mouth that I haven’t said.
Rewind — how are you dealing with the fact that all of the data, etc., is out and the “hockey stick” has
now been replicated and its conclusions continue to stand? Also, your critique of the same has now been reduced to immaterial, at best. What will you do? Continue to spew nonsense like this … perhaps? You are grossly misleading people — and you know it.
In all honesty, and after reading over that section, I think it was intended to apply to external publications in the formal sense, such as professional journals. I don’t think it was intended to apply to websites or blogs, which would be likely seen as personal and private rather than professional. This may only be the result of policy not keeping up with technology. I don’t think that many organizations are up to speed with the whole world of internet technology and the implications for personnel policy. The question of whether it should apply? I’d have to think a bit more about that before answering yes or no. My gut instinct is to say no, for as a government employee, I resist any attempts to restrict what civil servants can do in their free time, but I admit that this whole issue is quite tricky.
I really do not think this can be directly compared to a private corporation’s policies regarding the conduct of its employees. I really do think the role and responsibilities and expectations of a government scientist are quite different from a corporate employee or executive.
In addition, now that I think about it, let me repeat what I wrote above:
I think it is inadvisable for NASA to link to RC as a source of information for visitors to NASA’s website. If there is to be a separation of personal and professional lives of NASA scientists, the personal should be kept separate. RC should not serve as a resource for NASA, unless, of course, RC is prepared to comply with the data quality and dissemination requirements of NASA.
Susann, that’s where the citation of realclimate articles by NASA becomes relevant: if the realclimate articles are formal enough for citation at NASA, then they are external publications. realclimate is hardly “personal and private”; it is public and more widely read than professional climate journals. The policy does not exclude websites and other NASA policies make it clear that websites are viewed as a form of information dissemination.
Steve: I co-author papers for publication at the AIAA and other professional venues. Every NASA employee that is a co-author is required to get approval not only for the content but also for an ITAR reading to guarantee that the paper is within the guidlines. It is interesting that as far as I know there are no similar guidlines for websites done by NASA employees outside of work. I guess that this goes to the definition of publication. However, there are supposedly standards for linking from external websites to NASA websites. I will post a question to a friend who does a lot of NASA’s web policy.
Also, did not find the paper at UAH today, the library was closed.
This is the first line of G Schmidts Bio at “realclimate”
“Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies in New York”
He also has a link to his home page at NASA in his bio.
The inclusion of this sentence in his bio makes it very
hard for Dr Schmidt to claim that he is speaking in a
private capacity should any hard questions be put to him.
Susann in #87 take note.
A random thought,
I would start getting screenshots or other archival
evidence of slabs of Real-Climate where government
employees denigrate their colleagues and violate the
rules that bind their public utterances. This does not
affect people that work at Universities.
I do not visit real-climate, but if some of the selected
quotes here are any guide, the RC bloggers there have
probably used the blog to make derogatory insults about any
number of people. These people might be very interested
in the point raised in this thread and taking the matter
further.
Second, there are many organizations in the USA that
are very interested in the issues that affect the
interface between the public and private behaviour of
civil servants. I think they might be interested, and
they have the capacity and knowledge to apply the
pressure where it have the most impact.
With respect to the data quality act, I think “good
intentions” will not help. The defence, “well, I thought
I was right at the time”, is not tenable. You are in
violation and its goodnight. This is only a surmise,
and someone else make be able to give a more expert
opinion. In certain circunmstances, believing you
are correct is a defence, is it a defence against
the data quality act?
Dr. Schmidt is a NASA contractor and is bound by rules that govern contractors, which are pretty close to the same as for NASA employees, if any data that they are disseminating was paid for by a NASA contract/grant. Here is a link to those guidlines for publication of data.
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_2200_002B_&page_name=Chapter5
There are several chapters worth of stuff here. You should be able to file a FOIA related to the contracts that his organization operates under to get the incorporated FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) requirements.
#91. I don’t think that he is a “contractor”; I thought that he was an employee.
BTW if one browses back through the posting times of Gavin’s posts (and those of other realclimate authors), many of his posts (though not all) have been made between 9 am and 5 pm - odd timing for posts supposedly prepared during Gavin’s “spare time”.
Google “Arthur Smith climate”, and get this. One then understands the anguished and accusatory hand wringing over an audit of Gavin Schmidt’s convolution of self with NASA.
Re: #93
This is getting better and better!
Dr Schmidt identifies himself as a climate modeller at NASA GISS
at RC.
Dr Schmidt makes many contributions to RC during normal business
hours.
Yet it is all private activity.
If I recall, one reason Dr. Roy Spencer left NASA is because he was bound by it’s internal policies to keep his personal opinions apart from his job. That is what honorable individuals do.
Re: Sussan #89 and #54
“I resist any attempts to restrict what civil servants can do in their free
time, but I admit that this whole issue is quite tricky.”
Yep, the whole issue of the public/private interface is quite tricky.
I work at a university, (I am a physicist) and there is one restriction
on my outside activities. I am allowed to drive cabs, work in a
video store, flog muffins in the street, but I am not allowed to
take other employment as a physicist without clearing with it with
my employer. The minute my outside activity is physics, the line
between public and private is blurred.
So when it comes to civil servants acting publicly, one issue is
whether the topic is one that would directly relate to their
duties as a civil servant. As a rule, public activity in this
area is proscribed and in my opinion it should be proscribed.
If government funded civil service climate scientists wish to
lobby of behalf of gun control, abolish the death penalty,
plant more trees, etc, no-one has a problem unless they do it
during working hours. But the minute the activity becomes
climate science, then there are many potentials problems.
Here is an example,
(1) Paper is reviewed at RC.
(2) Paper gets really slagged.
(3) Author of paper applies for NSF grant.
(4) Reviewer remembers RC slagging, gives proposal low marks.
No grant.
(5) Now here is an important point, the slagging
at RC is done by someone who is a NASA staff scientist
so its gets taken quite seriously. But the RC commentary
by the commentators is completely unmoderated and it
might be a case of shooting from the hip (e.g. the paper
might not have necessarily deserved the slagging).
Because of the position that civil servant scientists hold,
and the prestige and privilege that goes with those positions,
there is an incumbent responsibility to be careful with their
public pronouncements. When the civil service scientist
identifies him(her)self as such, any statements are generally
given greater credibility. Ergo the vetting and the rules that
bind their public activities outsde their civil service duties.
There is also the matter of keeping the civil servants as
servants of the public and not masters of the public.
But I will leave that matter to those who can articulate
this issues better than I can.
Eric McFarland….Sheesh! Are you ever behind! Better get caught up on your readin’. You’ve got a long way to go.
Cheers….theoldhogger
From NASA’s Q @ A section
[snip - policy]
Steve,
Can you, or is there, a “delete” function for our own comments, as on reflection I often think “Twat” when reading my own efforts. Or is this site just like life, you have to live with your failings!
Steve: try asking for a delete in a subsequent comment.
Andrew H, I noticed that Jet propulsion and space shuttles is left off the list of emitters and as a place where efficiency and cut backs could take place. Nimby.
I suppose now that RC has become such a place of moral high ground when it comes to climate change, if the conflicted posters that work at Nasa, discovered something that pointed to a reduced role of A in AGW, would they publish it, since it would kinda the soapbox from under the feet of RC, and many of its supporters.. Or do you pull a it was just bad intelligence ripcord?
Ankle surgery today. Arrgghhh. Can’t get comfortable; can’t sleep, and I’m the every 10th person that Vicodin keeps awake(in case anyone should wonder why I’m blogging at this ungodly hour).
Huh?! Do I understand this correctly? Do you really mean that since he hasn’t been fired, he has therefore done nothing improper, etc? Please tell us you didn’t mean it that way.
Susann - I too once shared your naive belief in the inherent skepticism of scientists. The AGW debacle has purged me of this silliness, especially when it comes to Climate Science. I have several scientist friends and a scientist brother, and it is disheartening, to say the least, to see how willing some of them are to accept Argument from Scientific Authority. Earth scientists in particular seem prone to religionism & missionary zeal; macro-biologists can be downright insufferable. Keep reading; in time, you too will see the truth of CA’s informal slogan, “But hey, it’s just Climate Science.”
But onward to topic: I read the NASA guides linked here, and I re-read the bio’s over at RC, and I don’t see how anyone could not find the NASA/RC relationship stinkingly incestuous. Not only does NASA flout its own guidelines, I bet it’s flouting several Federal regulations as well. How the agency that was set up strictly to get payloads off the planet morphed into the Church of Climatology is another can of worms, but someone, some day, needs to aim a searchlight at it (but hey, it’s NASA (and anyone who questions my cynicism should (re)read Mr. Feynman Goes To Washington)).
#85 eric mcfarland: You’re funny. Now run along and play.
#85 eric mcfarland
Can you cite one independent replication of the hockey stick?
[Hint: It’s a trick question. There are none that are mathematically “independent”. All rely on one of the California bristlecone pine series. This is why Craig Loehle published his reconstruction excluding all the tree-ring proxies. And although his result is not completely “independent” of Moberg et al (2005) (they share many series, look fairly similar in many ways), it is independent enough that it demonstrates a warmer MWP than today’s temperature.]
Eric’s line at #85 is exactly the same story I hear from otherwise bright people at non climate blogs; it is a peculiarly local phenomenon to believe the Piltdown Mann has been exposed. Young minds are directing their bright eyes at that Crook’t Stick on the silver screen, as we speak.
========================================
#104 Intelligence and experience are orthogonal. Many intelligent people have still not been exposed to the true facts.
The broken hockey stick is a very important point that needs to be understood by all - even though it is far OT for this thread. To summarize: there is zero probability that we can say with confidence that current temperatures exceed those of the (some would say non-existent) MWP. The word “unprecedented” gets thrown around a lot by uncertainty denialists - people without proper statistical training.
Let me know if and when Gavin Schmidt or Raymond Pierrehumbert ever argue (as individuals) otherwise. My bet is they’re smarter and wiser than that. (Why they allow -mike to set RC party policy is beyond me.)
Steve,
If you want to challenge NASA there is a procedure for doing so. Write me and I will help.
RBB
#76 Steve Mo, that’s a very good question. (Wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole? RC is the canary for their coal mine?) this is interesting.
104 & 105, bender and kim,
folks I’ve talked to think the Hockey Stick measures temp rise from “pollution”. We are polluting the earth so they can’t understand why anyone would disagree and not want to do something about that. (which is understandable)
>> I don’t think Gunnar really gets it. Governments typically have rules about these things that are aimed at protecting the tax payer.
Don’t project your country’s typical rules onto the US.
>> employees shall not use public office for private gain
The point is that it’s not private gain. NASA goals are aided by RC. It’s naive to think otherwise.
>> but the system by which NASA’s website uses product from its own employees supposedly produced in a “personal capacity”.
Steve M, there is nothing wrong with this. Supervisors can even authorize him to work on this web site during work hours.
>> Huh?! Do I understand this correctly? Do you really mean that since he hasn’t been fired, he has therefore done nothing improper, etc? Please tell us you didn’t mean it that way.
That’s exactly right. All of this is based on department policy, which is at the discretion of the immediate supervisors.
Steve: Gunnar, you’re wrong here. Mosher sent the following link
http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/NDG03_TableofPenalties.pdf which precludes the following:
If realclimate is done in a “personal capacity”, then Hansen cannot allow Schmidt to work on it during business hours.
As we reflect on these policies, try looking at Gavin’s role in the Hansen-1934 affair and try to figure out whether the line between NASA employee and “personal capacity” an be drawn. Gavin’s post at RC on 1934 was widely relied on by the media (google schmidt hansen 1934). Gavin, identified as a NASA climate modeler, was quoted all over the place.
In the post, dated Aug 10, 2007 at 5:33 pm (was any of this done during business hours?), Gavin says:
As I’ve observed elsewhere, my original post contained an accurate diagnosis of the problem, although Gavin here and elsewhere has purported to deny me even this modest credit by saying that NASA, rather than myself, ultimately diagnosed the problem.
My point here is different: in this account, Gavin is talking about internal NASA events and timelines based on the knowledge that he has a NASA employee working for Hansen.
Gavin was front and center as a NASA spokesman on 1934. Hansen was undoubtedly happy to use realclimate as an “off-balance sheet” way of putting their spin on things.
Gunner
If the supervisor authorizes an employee on government time
to do stuff on RC that violates federal regulations, then
its the supervisor who will have to take responsibility.
And of course, someone will ask the question, maybe the
NASA budget has a bit of flab if employees can spend
parts of their working day on private matters.
The buck will have to stop with someone and supervisors
cannot disregard federal regulations on their own authority.
I suspect those higher up the administrative chain of
command will disavow all responsibilty anything unpleasant
looks like happening.
SM #110
Was there ever an official response from NASA, or was
the sole response the RC outlet?
And one assumes that RC taken by the media as the
official NASA response?
The line between RC/NASA is getting increasingly fudged.
92, my understanding is that he (and Gavin) are at the Goddard center at Columbia University in NYC. The most logical way for that to be set up is for he and Gavin to be in the employ of Columbia, and Columbia, in turn, contracts with NASA. But I can’t verify that. If that’s the case, it’s unlikely that the same Columbia University that hosted Ahmedinijad would discipline either of them, but NASA could find the University in violation of contract.
105,
My understanding is that MM was the mover and shaker in getting the site established in the first place, and the ops came along later. Gavin doesn’t own the site, EMS does. As long as EMS stays loyal to MM, he’ll be calling the shots there.
#112
“The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at Columbia University in New York City, is a laboratory of the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute. Research at GISS emphasizes a broad study of global climate change.”
sorry Steve, but this is getting disgusting.
is this attempt to silence real climate and damage Gavin’s career part of the “climateaudit” process?
wouldn t it be the SINGLE logical way, to discuss this privately with him, if you have some objections to what he is doing?
114, does that shine any light on their employment status? I would thing that they would have to be Columbia professors and NASA contractors second.
Also
“GISS works cooperatively with area universities and research organizations, most especially with Columbia University. Close to half of our personnel are members of Columbia’s Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR) and we also work with researchers at Columbia’s Earth Institute and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.”
My guess is GISS has some affiliation with the University, but most
of the staff are federal employees.
115, “silencing” has nothing to fo with it. It’s about making them do it on their time, as they claim that they’re doing. There’s no NASA mandate to support RC.
The only thing that’s disgusting is your attitude.
>> Requiring/allowing subordinates to perform non-official work.
And who decides what is non-official? The supervisors. If these 2 have the approval and support of their supervisors, who exactly is going to say different?
>> Hansen cannot allow Schmidt to work on it during business hours
Obviously, he can. The table you linked to is just an internal document that they can use at their discretion to discipline and/or fire people. It’s purpose is to prevent lawsuits. In this case, there is no evidence that they want to fire anyone for any of this. This document does not provide an outsider with any leverage.
This whole line of thought is a dead end. As the griffin incident shows, even the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, has no apparent political leverage over this.
>> If the supervisor authorizes an employee on government time to do stuff on RC that violates federal regulations
No federal regulations have been violated. However, we’re not talking about federal regulations. This is an internal deperatment guideline. They have complete discretion here folks, let’s move on.
The NASA policy allows its scientists to discuss their work, including in the form of web postings, with the press and the public. That is very plainly stated. I don’t see a violation. Griffin directed the creation of the policy. For it to violate the peer review policy, it would have to be NASA work that had not yet been peer reviewed.
I don’t think there is a single thing here.
sod is right. This appears to attacking the messenger, not the message.