This is their strategy. Hide the truth.
Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
The lie has to be maintained but the truth stands on its own.
Well, that would certainly be wrong if it were true. However, it is hardly be the first time something like this has happened. When the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded soon after lift-off, it was because upper level management went against the advice of engineers and scientists that went under them. When George W. Bush was president, the administration tried to squelch James Hansen, and edited a report he had written.
However if an employee is insubordinate (be it the guy in the link or James Hansen), then that may be grounds for dismissal. We don't know the details of why this guy was terminated, but clearly the ultimate responsibility for making decisions (such as to remove the dams) lies at the top, and not at the level of Dr. Houser. The Interior Secretary may have had twenty scientists telling him the dam removal was a good idea, and one telling him that it was a bad idea--in that case it might be a reasonable executive opinion to go ahead with the dam removal and to ask Houser not to publicly disagree with the department's website.
One thing I'm quite sure of is that the guy writing the column is biased--that's clear from the very first sentence of his column. It clearly is an opinion piece, not a factual reporting of what actually happened. There's nothing wrong with opinion pieces, but they should not be used as primary sources in any argument.
EDIT: I don't blame Bush for the Challenger disaster, I never said anything like that. I was using the disaster as an example of the failings of bureaucracies to heed the advice of professionals. But now that you bring it up, I do blame Ronald Reagan for getting the teacher, Christa McAuliffe blown up. The whole idea of putting a teacher in space is something that he used as a gimmick in a campaign speech to teachers. There was no good reason for her to be on that flight and many good reasons for her not to be.
I also thought that my answer was pretty clear that Houser and Hansen would be expected to play by the same sorts of rules. I never heard you defending Hansen against interference from the Bush Administration--why do you expect things should be different for Houser?
Any source of studies on anything can potentially manipulate their findings. Gov't agencies do it under pressure from whatever group of people threaten them - usually pressure comes from industries whose products or services might be hurt by truthful findings, who put pressure on Congress or other gov't leaders & threaten to stop contributing $$ to their campaigns if those studies aren't suppressed.
(just read today abt how gun-lobbyist got the gov't to end funding for the CDC to study gun-related violence & its causes/effects, back in the 90s. that's what Obama wants to start up again)
Private companies, of course, do that all the time. They fund studies and only release ones, or parts of the ones, that make their product look good. Unfortunately, they use shell companies to hide their real title & real industry so the studies can appear to be un-biased, and even get them published by consumer groups and FDA publications - anywhere they can, esp if the publisher is supposedly 'un-biased."
Tobacco whistle-blowers got fired for years before the industry was finally forced to admit that smoking is bad for health - as if we hadn't known that for decades, but their legal maneuvering & manipulations of private & gov't powers postponed that 'officially' for a long time.
It happens everywhere, all the time, the gov't isn't any guiltier than anyone else - maybe less effective since fewer people trust gov't info than some other source with a nice & cozy rep.
I generally agree with pegminer. Although, I see no reason the government cannot just state that they made a decision based on 21 reports of which one was contrary. Nobody needs to get fired and honesty can be followed.
Interesting, but this is the only real link to any info regarding this. I searched the web and there is not even a single news story regarding the firing, and this would be news so this is suspicious and not believable to me.
This is not proof of manipulation since it is impossible to verify the story. I believe townhall got some bogus info from a denier source or other stories would be around.
Again until you DA deniers come up with some real climate science conducted by reaal climatologists supoorting your views, you are just wasting peoples time with BS
Anyone who thinks they can predict the weather more than 2 days out is a narcissist.
Really, you are such a dirt loving hippie that you think you can tell people how to live on how you think the weather is changing? Narcissist.
Yes. They always have done that and always will. They had email for many years before the public was introduced to it. Some of the government has been swron into secrecy for they have seen something or heard something that they do not want us to know.
But were they fired for telling the truth? We only have the word of townhall.com that they were.
I'd say that's a given.
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
Will alarmists ever admit that any government agency might manipulate "science"?
