Union of Concerned Scientists survey of climate scientists
hydr...@aol.com
This is summary from the Union of Concerned Scientists survey
specifically on climate scientists. If nothing else is read, please
note the bullet items. The freedom of speech of the GOP. The UCS also
has surveys of other scientists with the same bleak results.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions
www.ucsusa.org
Evidence of Political Interference
Voices of Federal Climate Scientists
Political Interference is Harming Federal Climate Science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate scientists in the U.S. government are the world's leading
experts on global climate change. They are entrusted to observe,
analyze, and model our changing planet and convey their findings to
other scientists, policy makers, and the public. Unfortunately,
scientists report that their findings are being tailored to reflect
political goals rather than scientific fact. They are concerned that,
while federal climate scientists are providing a solid basis for
understanding climate change and crafting solutions, our government
has been obscuring the state of our knowledge by exaggerating the
level of uncertainty in global warming science.
In the summer of 2006, the Union of Concerned Scientists distributed
surveys to more than 1,600 climate scientists working at seven federal
agencies and the independent National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), asking for information about the state of climate research at
federal agencies. Scientists' responses indicated a high regard for
the quality and integrity of federal climate research itself, but also
identified broad and substantial interference in their work.
The reality of global warming, including the role of heat-trapping
gases from human activities in driving climate change, has been
repeatedly affirmed by scientific experts. Every day the government
stifles climate science is a day we fail to protect future generations
from the consequences of global warming. It is crucial that climate
scientists be allowed to accurately inform government decisions. For
this to occur, the federal government must pursue reforms that
prohibit political interference and misrepresentation of federal
climate science research, and affirm the right of scientists to
communicate freely with the media and the public.
UCS Senior Scientist Francesca Grifo testified about the report in
front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Find her
written testimony in the "related links" box on this page.
I. Political Interference with Climate Science
Large numbers of federal climate scientists reported various types of
interference, both subtle and explicit:
73 percent of all respondents* perceived inappropriate interference
with climate science research in the past five years.
58 percent of all respondents personally experienced interference with
climate science research in the past five years. This number increased
to 78 percent among scientists whose work always or frequently touches
upon sensitive or controversial topics. In contrast, only 22 percent
of NCAR scientists personally experienced interference with climate
science research.
Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally
experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global
warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications.
This number increased to nearly three in five (58 percent) among
respondents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
46 percent of all respondents perceived or personally experienced new
or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate related
work.
II. Scientific Findings Misrepresented
Federal climate scientists reported that their research findings have
been changed by non-scientists in ways that compromise accuracy:
Two in five respondents (43 percent) perceived or personally
experienced changes or edits to documents during review processes that
changed the meaning of scientific findings.
25 percent perceived or personally experienced situations in which
scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed
themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific
findings.
37 percent of respondents perceived or personally experienced
instances in which their agency misrepresented scientists' findings.
III. Barriers to Communication
Agency scientists are not free to communicate their research findings
to the media or the public:
52 percent of respondents said their agency's public affairs officials
always or frequently monitor scientists' communications with the
media. In contrast, only seven percent of NCAR respondents reported
that same level of monitoring.
Two in five respondents (39 percent) have perceived or personally
experienced "fear of retaliation for openly expressing concerns about
climate change outside their agency."
38 percent of respondents perceived or personally experienced
"disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-
based materials relating to climate."
A majority of NASA respondents (61 percent) agreed with the statement,
"Recent changes to policies pertaining to scientific openness at my
agency have improved the environment for climate research," in sharp
contrast to the 12 percent of non-NASA respondents who agreed with the
statement. The high percentage among NASA respondents is most likely
the result of a recent policy implemented at the agency that affirmed
that the role of public affairs officers was not "to alter, filter or
adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical
staff."
IV. Climate Scientists are Disheartened
While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed with the
statement, "U.S. federal government climate research is of generally
excellent quality," respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction
and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies:
Two-thirds of respondents said that today's environment for federal
government climate research is worse compared to five years ago (67
percent) and 10 years ago (64 percent). Among scientists at NASA,
these numbers were nearly four in five (79 percent and 77 percent,
respectively).
45 percent of all respondents said that their personal job
satisfaction has decreased over the past few years. At NASA, three in
five (61 percent) reported decreased job satisfaction.
More than a third of respondents from NASA, and more than one in five
(22 percent) of all respondents, reported that morale in their office
was "poor" or "extremely poor." Among NCAR respondents, only seven
percent reported such low levels of morale.
Insufficient resources are a source of concern among respondents. More
than half (53 percent) disagreed with the statement, "The U.S.
government has done a good job funding climate research."
Survey Demographics
Surveys were sent to 1,630 scientists at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
Department of Defense, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the independent (non-federal) National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Responses came from 279 federal scientists and 29 NCAR scientists. One
hundred forty-four scientists provided narrative responses. The
response rate (19 percent) was fairly consistent across agencies.
Eighty percent of the scientists who responded had earned a Ph.D. and
40 percent had completed some post-doctoral research work. A
significant number of respondents (44 percent) had been with their
agency for more than 15 years, and more than half had been there for
more than 10 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Unless otherwise stated, the numbers cited in this report reflect
only the responses of federal climate scientists, and do not include
the responses from NCAR scientists (who are not federal employees).
Patrick
--
As a federal scientist (Hydrologist) for NOAA's National Weather
Service (NWS) at the North Central River Forecast Center, I did
research work in hydrologic model development and calibration of
models used in flood prediction for rivers in the Upper Midwest.
I knew in that climate change was occurring in the Upper Midwest
before I learned that global warming was happening (earlier snowmelt
runoff in recent decades).
I learned by my personal experience that our government
intentionally ... "has been obscuring the state of our knowledge by
exaggerating the level of uncertainty in global warming science".
However, the Union of Concerned Scientists did not include me in their
"surveys to more than 1,600 climate scientists working at seven
federal agencies" - because I was removed from federal service by DOC
NOAA NWS in July of 2005 because of my research and speaking out about
climate and hydrologic change which I demonstrated was happening in
the Upper Midwest in at paper and poster which I presented at the NOAA
NWS Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Workshop in Reno, Nevada.
My paper presented at the NWS CPC workshop can be viewed at:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman.htm
A related link to my work in hydrology, climate change, prairies and
other volunteer efforts, which I became involved in after my removal
by NWS, is at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew
Patrick
>
> A related link to my work in hydrology, climate change, prairies and
> other volunteer efforts, which I became involved in after my removal
> by NWS, is at:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew
--
--
Contrary to what was said (above), the main reason that the Union of
Concerned Scientists and House Committee chose not to include NOAA NWS
documentation on the retaliation by NOAA NWS against a NWS career
hydrologist was described in an e-mail from a Government
Accountability Office spokesman who said on March 28, 2007 that:
..."Once we stepped back and looked at the report from a bird's eye
perspective a detailed story from 2000 about interference with the
conduct of climate change research did not fit into the report's
investigatory scope, which looked at incidents beginning in 2001 and
was limited purely to the communication of scientific research. So
unfortunately, it didn't make it into the final draft.
That said, I hope that you do not take any of this to be a judgment on
the merits of your story or your character. It just wasn't the right
time and place."
...
It is fact that retaliation took place against the hydrologist for
doing climate change work took from Jan 2000-July 2005, during both
the Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney administrations.
Is now the right time to release the NOAA NWS documentation?
Or do I need to forget about what happened and try to just put all of
this behind me?
Some official documentation is now at:
Patrick
Concerned Scientists and House Committee chose not to include NOAA NWS
hydrologist was described in an e-mail from a Government
that:
..."Once we stepped back and looked at the report from a bird's eye
perspective a detailed story from 2000 about interference with the
conduct of climate change research did not fit into the report's
investigatory scope, which looked at incidents beginning in 2001 and
was limited purely to the communication of scientific research. So
unfortunately, it didn't make it into the final draft.
That said, I hope that you do not take any of this to be a judgment on
the merits of your story or your character. It just wasn't the right
time and place."
...
It is fact that the retaliation which took place against the
hydrologist for doing climate change research work from Jan 2000 -
July 2005 occurred during both the Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney
administrations.
Is now the right time to release the NOAA NWS documentation?
Official DOC NOAA NWS documentation now at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/npatnew
Also see:
What's wrong with NOAA's NWS CPC Workshop agenda? Official DOC NOAA?
at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/4638
----------