Part of what the IG found was that the Office of Public Affairs refused to allow media to talk to Dr. Hansen after he gave a presentation, which is why the investigation was launched.

"Maybe Dr. Hansen will have something to say about this in the near future"

You will have to catch him in between conferences, seminars, interviews, and appearances on the Today Show and Good Morning America. We all know that AGW is a seldom discussed topic, and that NASA rarely publicizes its findings.

First of all, NASA has no credibilty left after they were caught re-writing historical climate data in 2007. Then there is the case of Dr. James Hansen who joined Friends of the Earth in their campaign to force Houghton Mifflin to re-write a texbook on American Government because it didn't declare the science of AGW settled. Hansen has misused his authority and NASA letterhead by joining them in their environmental extremism.

Where were the watchdogs when all this was occurring?

NASA is a joke!

For being 'muzzled' Dr. Hansen certainly seems to spend a lot of time giving speeches.

The following story was published in The Washington Post on May 29:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802947_pf.html

"Some of the nation's leading scientists, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top science adviser, today sharply criticized the diminished role of science in the United States and the shortage of federal funding for research, even as science becomes increasingly important to combating problems such as climate change and the global food shortage."

"Speaking at a science summit that opens this week's first World Science Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for science."

Here is a quote from Nina Federoff, Condoleeza Rice's science adviser:
"...science in the United States has really kind of died over a quarter of a century, even as the importance of science has grown."

Let's see, which political party was in control for most of the past 25 years? Even during the 8 Clinton years, the Republican Congress controlled this country's political policies regarding science.

"I think there's a loss of American power and prestige that came about as a result of our anti-science policies," said David Baltimore, a biologist and Nobel laureate and board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Raising questions about the science of evolution, he said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence." He added, "What we need is leadership that respects science."

and Michael Bloomberg is quoted:
"...a tendency toward "political science," which he called "the willingness to disregard or suppress scientific findings when they don't conform to a predetermined political agenda."

There was another Washington Post story published on April 24 on the political interference reported by the employees at EPA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303074_pf.html

This conservative political agenda has been indoctrinated in all governmental agencies because of this Administration's political agenda. This is the reason why all scientific debate in this country is stuck in this paralysis of indecision (through the creation of confusion) and why our international stature in the world has faded to non-existent.

Good to see some progress being made by the good people working to expose this scandalous state of affairs. Thanks for posting it, Brett.

Hansen blathers endlessly, and gets more PR than the rest of NASA combined. Gavin Schmidt does his deeds for Real Climate on the NASA clock using NASA equipment. Please, spare us the sob story here. NASA are a leading figure in "killer AGW" hype. They might be considered the root cause of the hype.

"marginalized; or mischaracterized"

This will teach them: 'You can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear'.

"Maybe Dr. Hansen will have something to say about this in the near future."

Maybe? Do bear's sit in the woods?

In the near future? Like today, after a few mouthpieces pontificate on the impropriety of "political appointees" in 'science'.

Where's my wastebasket? I feel ill.

NASA is not a joke, the climate research section is a joke. I suppose you could make the argument though that as a giant beaucracy, they are a joke. But really, EVERY government agency and program, from the FEDS down to nearly your local level has become a joke.

Typical AGW response to anything though by Hansen et al, claim they are being restricted, make up evidence to support your claim, and then attempt to silence any opposition to your "truths".

I STILL want to know who the "US" is in his diatribe PDF pointed out on this blog a week or so ago. He seems to be very predisposed to a certain way of thinking in lieu of open to real scientific analysis.

Remember, AGW is an agenda driven discussion.

The US has about as many Nobel Prize winners as the rest of the world combined. We have less than 1/20th of the world's population, which means that we are about 10X better than the world average.
http://www.aneki.com/nobel.html

China has zero Nobel Prizes.

The main thing hurting US science is Congressional oversight. In the 1950s politics was removed from the process, but over time creeping political influence has hurt us. Hansen is probably the worst violator - as he appears completely incapable of separating his science from his politics.

I am confused. the articles talk about possible political interference, but I did not see any of this in the report Brett linked us to. what I did find was the following on page 12...

No Evidence to Support Suppression of Scientific Research within the STI Review Process:

We found no evidence that the STI review process at Goddard, Johnson, Langley, or Marshall was used as a means to suppress the results of scientific research, and therefore, the report contains no recommendations concerning this issue. Because the STI reviewing authorities could use the review process to suppress the results of scientific research by rejecting certain STI for public release, we surveyed 287 NASA STI authors concerning rejected STI. We also conducted further analysis of the 19 STI that we identified as having been rejected in FY 2005 and FY 2006 to consider whether STI on a specific topic or by an individual author had been disproportionately rejected.

STI Author Survey. Our survey results did not indicate that the reviewing authorities were using the STI review process as a means to suppress the release of NASA�s scientific research....

Is ther another report that was issued? Page 15 makes reference to an administrative report that was separately issued addressing allegations that scientists were not allowed to express their views. Was that report made public as well?

Interesting to note that there is a big difference between being allowed to publicaly express your views, versus having your scientific research supressed....

Reply: How I read it is that they did not find any evidence of supression by NASA officials or administration officials, but that the problems are within the NASA public affairs office from political appointees.

James Hansen is so out of touch with reality he has lost much of his credibility. Last year he called for a moratorium on all new coal power plants and a complete phaseout of all existing coal plants in two decades. Even the "cap and trade" advocates now debating this issue on the Senate floor today concede that coal will be one of the solutions for an energy starved world. Hansen is living in his own fantasy world and is only hurting his own cause.

The Bush Administration's appointed climate panel just published their final report about climate change. They reach the same conclusions as the IPCC. Our resident Deniers can't use their usual retort of saying that the authors are just looking for funding, or that Bush just wants to raise taxes, so it will be interesting what excuse they will give this time.

Keep in mind that, at 271 pages, it's about 270 pages longer than most Deniers' attention spans. But I still encourage them to read it.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-assessment/Scientific-AssessmentFINAL.pdf

Mark,

If group A gets funding for coming out and saying something, and gets a lot of attention as well, why would Group B not be inclined to have the same result?

Once again Mark, you sling insults at "deniers" and the rest of your post was just unsubstantiated garbage that I easily debunked one of.

Here is the little zinger that I debunked of yours

"Our resident Deniers can't use their usual retort of saying that the authors are just looking for funding."

But let us move on from that and look at the insult you decided to fling at "deniers" about their attention span. Kind of a desperate little dig there, made me think, why would someone make such low-blow in a debate like this. Then it hit me, he had nothing else to say, nothing with substance. Kind of like Oiznop's posts. Then I thought well, if Mark believes the science is so painstakingly and obviously settled, why would he have nothing with meat on its bones to say. Then it hit me, he knew that the science was not settled, but was trying to ride the trane a little logner for some reason. Perhaps financial gain, perhaps he has something vested in this. There are not many reason to make a desperate low-blow like that. It is equivocable to what a cornerered animal would do, why do you feel so cornered? If your science was settled, you should not be the one in the corner. Very curious behavior for you, for telling actually.

Of course the climate panel reached the same conclusions as the IPCC, they USED IPCC references over the first 10 pages or so.

See, I made it past 1 page, HA!

Interesting that the sea ice extent noted 2007 is incorrectly stated, I wonder, will they fix that?

How much was paid for this study? And what's the point? I thought that AGW had already been proven.

I'll read the rest later when I have time though I am not sure I can get through the condescending tenor and crappy diplospeakish writing.

Mark you are grasping at straws now. It is over. 10 years and counting. Even your own people have been waving the white flag saying it should continue for another 10 years minimum. Time to move on to another religion that is not riddled with so many holes.

I have a question for the professionals: If climate change is occurring, would one of the results be an increase in the number of record-setting weather events?

If the climate were stable, would one expect the number of records set at any given station (high/low temperatures, precipitation, wind speed, etc.) to decrease with time? For example, the high temperature on a given date in the first year of a station's data will be a record. The temperature for the second year will likely be either higher (a record high) or lower (a record low). Over the years, more and more temperatures will fall between the extremes. This seems intuitive to me, but I'm not a professional meteorologist or statistician and I might be mistaken.

Would it be worthwhile to research this? I haven't seen any studies, and the sheer volume of data to be analyzed is staggering. However, it might produce evidence as to what the climate is (or is not) doing.

One of these days people will understand what NASA really stands for: Never A Straight Answer.

Veets: You hit the nail on the head. To take it one step further, those that believe and with every breath they take jam their views down our throats, are the very same people that have the Bush derangement syndrome because they perceive that Bush never allowed discussion about Iraq, only believing "facts" that suited his beliefs. So when the deniers continue to ask more questions, frequently exposing holes in many of the theories, we are being branded as being stupid, if not un-American by refusing to join-up and get behind the cause. The crazy thing about all this global debate is that we can tweak the "facts" all we want, but weather/climate holds all the cards and in the end mother nature will either prove the alarmists to be fools, or prove them to be ahead of the curve and pro-active.

FYI. At this moment, temps in the midwest have been so cold this spring that the harvest in the fall will not come close to meeting demands for both food and fuel. We cut hay last Monday and it never dried due to excessive rains and really cold temps. Even if it had not rained the hay would never have dried. We have had little sun and really cold, windy days just like our fall days in Oct. The forecast for this week is more of the same. Folks, the midwest only has so many days for crops to mature. Corn, the much sought after crop, needs hot weather to mature.

Reply: Thanks for the update on your crop situation Kricki.

Global cooling has a huge downside.

Dear Mark, I'm a denier, slurring me doesn not in any way advance your cause...excuse me I mean CULT.
Your attempts to constantly diminish and denounce opposition viewpoints does not help persuade.
It is not science to shout down skeptics with slogans.
And I am still waiting for Exxon/Mobile to send me that first check, so far they are too busy robbing me at the gas pump while both political parties do nothing but keep taking their share in donations.

This is a great day, the end is near for this pathetic hoax. Global warming is dead, now lets get on with real science. What is poor Al Gore going to come up with now?

ok brett,

what am i missing? the only mention of the inspection general finding marginalization and mischaracterization is thats what the USA today article link said...i cannot find in the actual audit the words marginalization or mischaracterization...is it just me or doesnt something stink here?...peace bros!!

Reply: I scrolled through the long report and I did not see that use of words either, but I could of easily missed them as well.

As temperatures plummet everywhere NASA, NCDC, HD people get scared methinks LOL. Whats the temp guess on May 08?

An interesting Slate article that suggests that the recent observed increase in Antarctic sea ice can be linked to a warming in antarctica.

http://www.slate.com/id/2192730/

I can't help but notice that the article seems to paoint a picture of an easily observable significant warming in the continent. From previous posts on this blog, I was under the impression that the recent temperature history of antarctica was by no means settled, with some evidence showing warming and some showing cooling. So my first instinct is that the author may be exaggerating.

Ed Lulie:
Buy an old volkswagon,and plant a tree.
KIPP

I read the New York Times artical relative to this thread today. I was left very confused at the nature of the doublespeak that the artical was peppered with. I was left thinking ..."What? Politically driven public relations and suppression of science? Wait? Which way, the fact that the Earth has been cooling tremendously the past three years or the science of AGW is phoney? What are they saying here? " That was my impression about this new audit of NASA... a bunch of double speak. REGARDLESS, NASA does run a website devoted to "Contrails" I mentioned in earlier threads. What I actually see every day there are Cirrus clouds in my sky, is insessant Chemtrail spaying. Every single Cirrus cloud gets spayed with some kind of weather modifying chemicals or worse. It is obvious. It is global. And it is a crime against nature. I want to start a "Save the Cirrus Clouds" organization to stop this chemtrail program as soon as possible.
Mark, insulting smart people who challenge the AGW satus quo shows that you are not willing to examine global cooling facts. Geo Engineering is here folks. And it aint pretty!