Government Scientist Gets Fired for Telling the Truth
aerial
Posts: 2,319
Something’s amiss at the Department of Interior. Eight government scientists were recently fired or reassigned after voicing concerns to their superiors about faulty environmental science used for policy decisions. Which begs the question, “Are some government agencies manipulating science to advance political agendas?”
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/01/18/government-scientist-gets-fired-for-telling-the-truth-n1492207/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/01/18/government-scientist-gets-fired-for-telling-the-truth-n1492207/page/full/
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"The antithesis of works of fiction are scientific findings solely based on provable facts and experience."
This statement shows a gross misunderstanding of science. Science does not provide proofs- only mathematics does that. Science formulates theories based on hypotheses confirmed through observation and experimentation and gathers evidence to test their accuracy for the purpose of predicting and explaining phenomena.
"The purpose of fictional environmental science is to sway public opinion through what amounts to propaganda. Intransigent purveyors of 'green' propaganda know their greatest enemy is truth."
This is where I have to restrain myself from bursting out into laughter. For example, are we to believe that between 97% and 99% of all published scientists believe climate science is "fictional environmentalism"?
If at this point anyone needs further evidence that this article is absolute hogwash I invite you to proceed as you wish. It's just not worth my time.
Can you explain why these people were fired or sent to other projects? does the Government want intelligence from all perspectives or only facts they want to hear?
Maybe if you posted links to articles, news, and information from reliable and believable sources you might have more people open to your side of things.
This is yet another conservative blog/newsletter that bases everything they say and do on one point of view and only one view. A lot of what they say is just wrong and very misleading.
:corn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edwm3YFGO-4
Since you are making this charge it is up to you to provide RELIABLE and BELIEVABLE PROOF and EVIDENCE
this source is neither reliable nor believable.
The ball is in your court
And while we are here Aerial maybe you should tell us why you are on a Pearl Jam fan site when you are NOT a Pearl Jam fan as evidenced by you having made exactly %99.88 of your posts on the poloitical section of the board.
Explain please
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edwm3YFGO-4
I repeat... NOT A RELIABLE AND NOT A BELIEVABLE NEWS SOURCE
Check this out:
http://www.klamathriver.org/coho.html
"Coho historically occurred throughout the Klamath and its tributaries, though locations above the California-Oregon border are poorly documented due to the inability of early observers to distinguish between coho and the more common Chinook (NRC 2004)."
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence that coho are indigenous to the Klamath River basin, the fact is the river is one of three waterways that pass through the Cascades to the Pacific and is historically an outstanding habitat for anadromous* salmonids like Chinook, coho and steelhead.
Dam removal is almost never a bad thing. Dam are damaging to the environment. For further education on the subject I would refer you to Derrick Jensen's outstanding two volume Endgame (at a combined length of 931 pages it's quite a tome but well worth the effort) and Richard Manning's excellent Inside Passage: A Journey Beyond Borders.
Or ask any Northwest American Indian.
*Andronomous: "Relating to fish, such as salmon or shad, that migrate up rivers from the sea to breed in fresh water."
PURGED SCIENCE ADVISOR TESTS INTERIOR’S INTEGRITY POLICIES
Salazar’s Press Office Wanted No Traceable Trail on Scientific Accuracy Protests
Posted on Aug 08, 2012 | Tags: DOI, Scientific Integrity
Washington, DC — One of the Interior Department’s first Scientific Integrity Officers hired to apply new rules to prevent political manipulation of science was removed from his position earlier this year after he questioned the political spin in press summaries of scientific studies on the effects of dam removal. How his case is handled will be a litmus test of whether new agency scientific integrity rules are real reforms or mere window dressing, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
In 2011, Dr. Paul Houser, a hydro-meteorologist, took leave from his university position to become a Science Advisor to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and to serve as the Bureau’s Scientific Integrity Officer. That September, he was asked to look over a draft press release summarizing environmental analyses on expected effects of removing for dams from Klamath River. Dr. Houser noticed the release described only the positive aspects, omitting a number of major contingencies and possible negative effects. He elevated his concerns ultimately to the Interior Secretary’s Press Secretary, Adam Fetcher.
Although Reclamation’s technical staff seconded Dr. Houser’s objections and the release was ultimately changed, two weeks later he was put on probationary status. In February 2012, his position was abolished with the non-explanation that he was “not a good fit.” Dr. Houser filed a complaint that the actions against him violated the core tenets of the Interior Scientific Integrity Policy that he was formerly administering.
For several weeks, his complaint sat untouched. Ultimately, Interior engaged a consultant firm that is doing a paper review and will write a report, scheduled for completion at the end of this month. That report “will then be provided to Dr. Suzette Kimball, DOI Scientific Integrity Officer for her review and determination of next steps,” according to the contracting officer.
“If Interior’s own Scientific Integrity Officers are not shielded from reprisal for doing their jobs, how in heaven’s name could one expect a staff scientist to push back against political shenanigans?” asked PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization is legally representing Dr. Houser. “Dr. Houser’s case suggests that spin still carries far more clout than science at Interior.”
Today, PEER transmitted Dr. Houser’s critique of the gaps and contradictions in Interior’s Scientific Integrity Policy to both Secretary Ken Salazar and Dr. Gilmore. Among key problems he highlights are –
Lack of independence for the Scientific Integrity Officer and confusion about whether serving the “Departmental mission” trumps all other concerns;
Lack of transparency or consistency in handling of cases. Complaints are handled on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, he has not been contacted by the firm reviewing his case and it is unclear whether he will be allowed to see, let alone comment upon, their report; and
Lack of whistleblower protection for both those who filed complaints as well as scientists whose work is perceived as undercutting an agency’s policy agenda.
PEER is also assisting Dr. Houser pursue a Whistleblower Protection Act case now before the Office of Special Counsel to reverse the termination of his position. His case is thought to be the first application of the federal whistleblower law to science integrity rules.
Ironically, one month after Dr. Houser left Reclamation, Interior issued “Public Communication” rules which, among other things, forbid public affairs staff from altering “the substance of scientific, scholarly and technical information.” The rules promise “Scientists, scholars, engineers and other subject matter experts will be provided the opportunity to conduct a factual review of news releases concerning their work prior to publication to the extent practicable.” These rules could have averted the Houser situation.
“Incredibly, Interior vows that it will never do precisely what it did to Dr. Houser,” Ruch added, noting that Press Secretary Fetcher was insistent that Dr. Houser create no email trail documenting technical concerns. “We are still waiting for Interior to back up the rhetoric of its rules with concrete action.”
###
Read Dr. Houser’s scientific integrity complaint
Scan email outlining status of his complaint
See Dr. Houser’s critique of scientific integrity policy
Examine 2012 policy against public affairs altering substance
Look at ragged start for Interior science misconduct investigations
View systematic lack of whistleblower protection in scientific integrity polices
Malena Marvin
Communications Director ....a community organizer...ring a bell?
Aerial maybe you should tell us why you are on a Pearl Jam fan site when you are NOT a Pearl Jam fan as evidenced by you having made exactly %99.88 of your posts on the political section of the board.
Explain please
Yeah, somewhere in my reading. What are you asking/getting at?
Just saying that aerial has every right to be here and post away like the rest of us schlubs
(most of my posts are on this particular forum too, by the way
He does have that right absolutely
just makes no sense
Just like it would make no sense for me to pay to be on the Ted Nugent boards and only go on there and post unreliable posts from liberal blogs.
either way - it wouldn't shock me to hear that this is happening ...
to answer your question I'll quote Fletch...."no no no no never never never!"
I AM a Pearl Jam Fan....just because I thought it may be interesting to others that a scientist that was in charge of integrity was let go because he wanted the public to know BOTH sides of scientific research, makes you think I am not a Pearl Jam Fan?
Scientific Integrity Officer
Through a quirk of fate, Houser was hired in April 2011 by DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation to help update its scientific integrity policy. In the course of his work there, Houser began to question how data was being reported.
He complained that the organization withheld scientific data that contradicted Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s political position.
According to the LA Times the dam removal plan, which still must be approved by Congress, is expected to cost taxpayers $1.4 billion. Houser is concerned about spending that much without accomplishing the goal, or even causing harm.
What could be wrong with showing ALL scientific data?
I totally agree, aerial. I think all of the scientific data should be made available. Regarding climate change, doing so would provide further strong evidence that climate change is real, is anthropogenic and is serious business. Actually, I that is the case anyway. There is little if any verifiable, quantifiable, legitimate scientific data suggesting otherwise.
In the case of Dr. Paul Houser, he wasn't fired for his opinions but the way that he broke protocol in how communication is carried out. That isn't to hide information from the general public but it's done because any time a scientist speculates without having sound proof, those communications can be (and often are) used to sew seeds of doubt and paranoia.
Like in the case of this thread.
You don't understand the science behind what he said but you're SURE the government is out to get you.
They don't go into the specifics of why those people were fired or reassigned... some of them maybe because they were trying to push discredited theories... like Global Climate Change is caused by Radio Waves or that green house gases are GOOD for the ozone layer... Maybe because some of them were jerks.
Without actually knowing the whole stories of why they are no longer in those positions... framing it with "Is the government out to get you?" Is... kinda Fox "news" like.
The guy was head of ethics.....he went against what they wanted to hear....he went against what a senator wanted to do......why they picked him to be head of ethics in the scientific department I don't know....because he has always been a champion for ethics...he was a whistle blower in the unethical way that scientific data was being presented......I know this because he won his case in court....
You know that 'Big Government' you are always bitching about? Well, it just got smaller by one.
Hail, Hail!!!
I really hoped we could weed out the liars , crooks and cheats and maybe keep the honest people.....Guess I'm just a DREAMER........ :(
Well no... he was the head of "ethics" who was telling scientists what to find. And using improper channels to do it.
Look... Global Climate change is real and it's caused by humans. No amount of fudging data or running around like a chicken with your head cut off will change that the only "scientists" who don't agree are on the payroll of the Koch brothers or big oil.
And THAT is what is going on.
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!