Muzzle management

Oh no, not another danged global warming story. Well, yes. In the midst of several recent mainstream media reports screaming that man-induced warming is close to ending the world, it seems appropriate to talk some about 'the muzzle'.

I'm referring to allegations the administration is keeping some government climate scientists from carrying out what they believe is their primary mission--to warn the population about the evils of Bush-induced, uh, human-induced global warming. This same story was covered a few months ago right here.

But the charges are being refreshed, this time by the Providence Journal (registration required) in a more forceful manner, probably bolstered by the recent MSM stories:

Many climate scientists at the NOAA may no longer take calls from reporters, the story went on to say, unless the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, D.C., and is conducted with a public-affairs officer present. But where scientists' views on climate change align with those of the administration, The Times said, there are few restrictions on speaking or writing.

There's a difference between muzzling and message control. It may sound like censorship (or nazism if you're on the far left) to suggest government agencies have a right to control their message, but it's a necessary evil.

E.G., on highly charged issues such as global warming's effect on hurricane strength, how is Joe Public supposed to understand an agency’s position if their own scientists contradict each other in the press? They can't, therefore, some level of message control is needed just to reduce confusion. Will that message sometimes swing towards the president in power? You bet.

Yet the Prov Journal article tries to suggest that science and politics have never shared the same bed, and leaves the assertion completely unchallenged:

"I'm all for honest exchanges, but we've got science and politics co-mingled here," Piltz said. "What happens when the world of science collides with the world of politics? I know that world."

Piltz should know--it happened during the previous administration, but in reverse. Clinton had several global warming summits and packed them with human-induced global warming advocates.

Don't forget the touchy subject of personal politics. The scientists barking the loudest certainly have their own political views, if you get my drift.

The story mentions a memo sent to NOAA scientists from their leader, Conrad Lautenbacher, addressing this issue. I've seen it, but will not leak it here. For those who might trust me I'll paraphrase it's contents....Mr. Lautenbacher told his people they were free to discuss peer-reviewed science with the media, and could also provide personal opinion IF they stipulated it was such. There were no references to jack-booted thugs.

This is pretty simple. A group of scientists, probably a fair number being ideologically driven towards the left, have decided their theories about hurricanes and global warming are beyond reproach and therefore anyone disagreeing, including agencies of the government, are intolerant fascists. Speaking of jack-booted thugs.