Post by spacemonkey2 on Jan 6, 2008 9:18:47 GMT -5
Hey there (I had to make a new account, my old one wouldn't work for the longest time Kahlessa) I thought I might share with you an email exchange I am having with NASA. The deal is this, on the NASA "Information about Global warming" page they use the website "RealClimate.org" as a reference for "further reading" for the "public" to go to for more information.
Realclimate.org if you are not familiar with it, is a private blog run by the scientists who created the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. Any way, here's the exchange I am having with a NASA director. (ugh) order of events is bottom to top. The top is the last email I sent this morning.
David Herring
NASA Earth Observatory Project Manager
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Dear Mr. Herring,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my concerns.
However I think you take me for a fool! ; you say:
"In your note, you said that we linked to RealClimate to answer a global warming question. Not true. Please visit our site for yourself, at
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
...and there you will see that we provided our own clear, concise answers to each question. My team answered these questions based on a variety of reference materials, including relevant science papers, synthesis reports such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Reports, and discussions with knowledgeable scientists within and outside of NASA.
[But sir, Gavin Schmidt, of "NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies” (as well as Dr. Michael Mann) are thanked for assisting with this NASA webpage, thereby adding another layer of conflict to the entire matter. Apparently your "team" needed their help answering those Global warming questions. Why?]
You go on to say:
We also provided links to a variety of places on the Web where people can go if they want to read more about the subject, including, in some cases, articles written by climate scientists and published on RealClimate. There is no policy that I'm aware of that prohibits such a link. To paraphrase NASA's policy governing Web links, we must take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete. In my view, RealClimate meets these requirements."
[what are these requirements exactly please?]
Explain how this pertains to what you've said above because at:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
the following question is asked:
"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?"
The answer includes at the end "further reading" links and Real Climate is one of only two references given. The Real Climate page link takes the reader straight to " Articles and Disscussions on Paleoclimate" which is a list of topics found discussed on Real Climate. The second on the list, and then another couple links down are these two topics related to the Hockey Stick graph:
* False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
* On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
Ironically, these two claims were NOT found to be false when reviewed by the NAS Panel or the Wegman Panel held before Congress. Perhaps you are out of the loop? Do you still claim to "take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete"? And believe RealClimate meets these requirements?
Shortly thereafter,your page asks:
Haven’t satellites actually observed cooling temperatures in the lower atmosphere?
Again, a realclimate thread by Gavin Schmidt is one of only four references:
Schmidt, G. (2005). Et Tu LT? Real Climate. Accessed June 6, 2007
Then :
What if global warming isn’t as severe as predicted?
Again, a realclimate thread, this time by Pierrehumbert is one of only three references:
Pierrehumbert, R. (2005). Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity. Real Climate. Accessed June 14, 2007.
Certainly there is more information laid out other places on the internet besides a " private blog"? NASA can't find any???
If you believe as you say:
the RealClimate site is a healthy public forum in which citizens can interact firsthand with leading climate scientists from a variety of agencies and universities, discussing many facets of climate change, occasionally including the causes and consequences of climate change."
I think you are sadly mistaken. "Citizens" can only interact at the whim of Gavin Schmidt and the "powers that be" on a blog. It is NOT a democracy. The owners can censor and or edit comments, so "freedom of speech" is relative isn't it? Opposing views are even known to be held in limbo and not added to the conversation. Inline comments are made by Gavin, Mike Mann, and moderators. The conversation isn't free flowing at all. The conversation is molded by Gavin and the other powers the be on that site in accordance with what they feel is "ok". Freedom of speech run a muck is more apt way to look at it. Mis-information is the greatest threat to our society, not Global Warming!
Tell, me does NASA know and does NASA approve of censorship, bias or prejudices like who is or is not allowed to speak on this forum run by people advertising as NASA scientists?
My husband , a published earth scientist himself, would like to know if NASA believes it is healthy to hear other points of view since it is such a heavy matter for all of us concerned? If so, why does NASA only link to Real Climate? Why not link to one of the many other websites other prominent scientists run that do not agree exactly with Gavin Schimdt, Mann, or even the IPCC assesements?
As for policy, I guess I'll have to point it out to you:
NASA has several manuals and policies setting out its own procedures for ensuring compliance with such policies. NASA guidelines specify far-reaching obligations on data quality for information disseminated by NASA. It notes the wide use of NASA information:
NASA’s information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy; NASA’s scientists and others cooperating with NASA to pursue their important work; the media in describing to the public the importance and advances of research; the educational community to educate a new generation of citizens in science, math, and engineering; and members of the public to enable them to be knowledgeable and inspired about NASA’s goals and accomplishments.
It states that the policies apply to NASA Centers as well as to headquarters:
These guidelines are applicable to NASA Headquarters and Centers, …
It states that NASA will ensure the quality of its disseminated information:
NASA will ensure and maximize the quality, including the utility, objectivity, and integrity, of its disseminated information, except where specifically exempted. Categories of information that are exempt from these guidelines are detailed in Section C.3….
Information products disseminated by NASA will be based on reliable, accurate data that has been validated.
NASA policy NPR 2200.2B Chapter 3 states that the policy applies to all “information” prepared by NASA employees and then sets out an approval process:
3.1.1 This chapter presents the standards and responsibilities that apply when NASA employees prepare papers for or participate in scientific and technical symposia and when they prepare and submit information, e.g., monographs or journal articles, for external (non-NASA) publication. ….
3.2.2 Approvals. Dissemination of information in symposium presentations or in external publications is approved in accordance with procedures included in Chapter 4 [which describes an elaborate review process]
The manual contains a header stating: COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY yet does not contain any mechanism whereby a NASA employee can sometimes be a “private citizen” and sometimes be a “NASA employee”, anymore than a company insider can purport to be a “private citizen” in his relationships with a company.
Also sir, you missed the point of my letter here and did not answer:
"Does NASA support ALL these other postings they [realclimate.org] make as well? And I gave an example: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l%e2
%80%99ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
"Prelude: It's the physics, stupid"
What you failed to see is that in this topic on realclimate.org, the author/scientist representing Real Climate finds fault with this paper from France and French scientists in which he lays out all these faults to the readers of Real Climate point by point. What you failed to see is that they are many of the same problems and data handling errors found by the NAS and Wegman Reports regarding Mann's Hockey Stick papers. Look at your NASA policy again!
You also state: " As such, please note there is no formal relationship between NASA's Earth Observatory and RealClimate."
How is ANYBODY reading earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/ going to know this when RealClimate is offered over and over for "further reading"? NASA says that it “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”. It has plenty of opportunity to use product from those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of doing so, NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own employees as a “private citizen” at a “personal” website where his contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control procedures.
You say: I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns.
I say, no sir, sorry, I do not think you have at all.
You say: Gavin enjoys and exercises his freedom of speech. I'm sure we both agree that freedom of speech is a good thing.
I think I will also contact my district representative in Congress, show him your email and express my concerns. With all do respect, I do not think realclimate and the foggy NASA relationship with realclimate, has anything to do with free speech. Like I said, its freedom of speech run amuck being presented as "real science".
Again, thank you for your time, however as you can see I am disappointed (along with many other's I've shared this with) I will have to find other means of voicing my concerns and getting some real answers. Here's a message to you : We are very disappointed that NASA, an organization many of us have grown up in awe of must engage in this sort of foggy bottom information campaign and call it "science", you are scaring our young people about their future , and distorting the very foundations of the scientific method and turning it into some kind of a social network with a political agenda.
Yours truly,
me (my name) aka SpaceMonkey
__________________________________
From: David Herring <dherring@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> [Add to Address Book]
To: my email
Subject: RE: Global Warming, RealClimate website
Date: Jan 3, 2008 11:44 AM
Dear (me),
Thank you for your note, and for taking the time to express your concerns.
Perhaps I should first elaborate on NASA's Earth sciences research to put the objectives of NASA's Earth Observatory into proper context. NASA is a world leader in Earth system science research -- in terms of our agency's current capacity for space-based observations and measurements of Earth's environment; in terms of the contributions made by scientists within our agency to the body of knowledge about our home planet; and in terms of improving the science community's ability to model and predict the workings of Earth's climate system. In addition to being tasked and funded by the President and by Congress to advance understanding about how our world works, NASA is also mandated to share that new knowledge with the public. NASA's Earth Observatory is an Internet publication by which we help to fulfill that mandate. The Earth Observatory is based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, under my management. We have no other motive nor outside influence other than what I've just stated.
In your note, you said that we linked to RealClimate to answer a global warming question. Not true. Please visit our site for yourself, at earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
...and there you will see that we provided our own clear, concise answers to each question. My team answered these questions based on a variety of reference materials, including relevant science papers, synthesis reports such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Reports, and discussions with knowledgeable scientists within and outside of NASA.
We also provided links to a variety of places on the Web where people can go if they want to read more about the subject, including, in some cases, articles written by climate scientists and published on RealClimate. There is no policy that I'm aware of that prohibits such a link. To paraphrase NASA's policy governing Web links, we must take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete. In my view, RealClimate meets these requirements.
My team and I are fully aware that global warming is a controversial subject in political contexts. Indeed, I feel that the politics of the subject only *heighten* the need for good, effective science communication about Earth's current warming trend, to help people discuss this important issue in an informed way. NASA's Earth Observatory confines the scope of its articles to science. We do not advocate for or against a given policy, nor do we lobby anyone in any way. The Earth science articles published on NASA's Earth Observatory are intended to clarify the science behind climate change research, which in my view is also the purpose of RealClimate.
In your note, you pointed out the political and/or policy-related nature of some of the discussions on the RealClimate Website. Quoting from the site itself:
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and ***will not get involved in any political or economic implications*** of the science."
[Note, I inserted the asterisks to flag the phrase that is particularly relevant to your concern.]
In short, I believe the RealClimate site is a healthy public forum in which citizens can interact firsthand with leading climate scientists from a variety of agencies and universities, discussing many facets of climate change, occasionally including the causes and consequences of climate change. I hope we can agree that there are important differences between communication of scientific information (that may or may not have policy implications) and political activism. And that discussion of the scientific basis or implications of climate policy do not automatically constitute advocacy.
Such interaction and dialogue between scientists and the public is crucial, and after all, what democracies are all about. As such, I believe RealClimate is a useful and recommended resource.
That said, NASA does not "back" or "support" the RealClimate site in terms of funding or manpower support. As such, please note there is no formal relationship between NASA's Earth Observatory and RealClimate.
Gavin Schmidt (a NASA employee at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York) donates his own free time to sharing his expertise and opinions on RealClimate. There is nothing illegal, unethical, or unusual about his doing so. Like everyone in the United States, Gavin enjoys and exercises his freedom of speech. I'm sure we both agree that freedom of speech is a good thing.
I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns.
With best regards,
David Herring
NASA Earth Observatory Project Manager
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
-----Original Message-----
From: noreply@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov [mailto:noreply@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:31 AM
To: eoeditor@yahoo.com
Subject: EO Comment: Global Warming, RealClimate website.
From:
Space Monkey
Topic: ContentFeedback
Subject: Global Warming, RealClimate website.
Comment/Question:
To the Director of NASA:
That NASA publicly links to "realclimate.org" for answers to global warming
question, in which realclimate.org has unknown sources of support and
funding, and takes very specific positions on a very political issues
within their website dialog is very outside the bounds of what I think would be your policy. Outlined here: NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures
www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536. It is stunning actually. Why is this
happening?
As a citizen of this country and a wife of a working Earth Scientist myself,
I am stunned. I've been following the "realclimate" website for over a
year. Does NASA support all these other postings they make as well? Such
as:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l%e2
%80%99ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
"Prelude: It's the physics, stupid"
you might want to read what others think about this here:
www.climateaudit.org/?p=2531#comment-183884
Is this what science has come to be with the help of people such as these,
backed by NASA?
Sincerely,
(me spacemonkey...)
Realclimate.org if you are not familiar with it, is a private blog run by the scientists who created the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. Any way, here's the exchange I am having with a NASA director. (ugh) order of events is bottom to top. The top is the last email I sent this morning.
David Herring
NASA Earth Observatory Project Manager
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Dear Mr. Herring,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my concerns.
However I think you take me for a fool! ; you say:
"In your note, you said that we linked to RealClimate to answer a global warming question. Not true. Please visit our site for yourself, at
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
...and there you will see that we provided our own clear, concise answers to each question. My team answered these questions based on a variety of reference materials, including relevant science papers, synthesis reports such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Reports, and discussions with knowledgeable scientists within and outside of NASA.
[But sir, Gavin Schmidt, of "NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies” (as well as Dr. Michael Mann) are thanked for assisting with this NASA webpage, thereby adding another layer of conflict to the entire matter. Apparently your "team" needed their help answering those Global warming questions. Why?]
You go on to say:
We also provided links to a variety of places on the Web where people can go if they want to read more about the subject, including, in some cases, articles written by climate scientists and published on RealClimate. There is no policy that I'm aware of that prohibits such a link. To paraphrase NASA's policy governing Web links, we must take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete. In my view, RealClimate meets these requirements."
[what are these requirements exactly please?]
Explain how this pertains to what you've said above because at:
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
the following question is asked:
"If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now?"
The answer includes at the end "further reading" links and Real Climate is one of only two references given. The Real Climate page link takes the reader straight to " Articles and Disscussions on Paleoclimate" which is a list of topics found discussed on Real Climate. The second on the list, and then another couple links down are these two topics related to the Hockey Stick graph:
* False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
* On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
Ironically, these two claims were NOT found to be false when reviewed by the NAS Panel or the Wegman Panel held before Congress. Perhaps you are out of the loop? Do you still claim to "take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete"? And believe RealClimate meets these requirements?
Shortly thereafter,your page asks:
Haven’t satellites actually observed cooling temperatures in the lower atmosphere?
Again, a realclimate thread by Gavin Schmidt is one of only four references:
Schmidt, G. (2005). Et Tu LT? Real Climate. Accessed June 6, 2007
Then :
What if global warming isn’t as severe as predicted?
Again, a realclimate thread, this time by Pierrehumbert is one of only three references:
Pierrehumbert, R. (2005). Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity. Real Climate. Accessed June 14, 2007.
Certainly there is more information laid out other places on the internet besides a " private blog"? NASA can't find any???
If you believe as you say:
the RealClimate site is a healthy public forum in which citizens can interact firsthand with leading climate scientists from a variety of agencies and universities, discussing many facets of climate change, occasionally including the causes and consequences of climate change."
I think you are sadly mistaken. "Citizens" can only interact at the whim of Gavin Schmidt and the "powers that be" on a blog. It is NOT a democracy. The owners can censor and or edit comments, so "freedom of speech" is relative isn't it? Opposing views are even known to be held in limbo and not added to the conversation. Inline comments are made by Gavin, Mike Mann, and moderators. The conversation isn't free flowing at all. The conversation is molded by Gavin and the other powers the be on that site in accordance with what they feel is "ok". Freedom of speech run a muck is more apt way to look at it. Mis-information is the greatest threat to our society, not Global Warming!
Tell, me does NASA know and does NASA approve of censorship, bias or prejudices like who is or is not allowed to speak on this forum run by people advertising as NASA scientists?
My husband , a published earth scientist himself, would like to know if NASA believes it is healthy to hear other points of view since it is such a heavy matter for all of us concerned? If so, why does NASA only link to Real Climate? Why not link to one of the many other websites other prominent scientists run that do not agree exactly with Gavin Schimdt, Mann, or even the IPCC assesements?
As for policy, I guess I'll have to point it out to you:
NASA has several manuals and policies setting out its own procedures for ensuring compliance with such policies. NASA guidelines specify far-reaching obligations on data quality for information disseminated by NASA. It notes the wide use of NASA information:
NASA’s information from its missions and programs is used by: government and national and international policymakers to enable sound and better public policy; NASA’s scientists and others cooperating with NASA to pursue their important work; the media in describing to the public the importance and advances of research; the educational community to educate a new generation of citizens in science, math, and engineering; and members of the public to enable them to be knowledgeable and inspired about NASA’s goals and accomplishments.
It states that the policies apply to NASA Centers as well as to headquarters:
These guidelines are applicable to NASA Headquarters and Centers, …
It states that NASA will ensure the quality of its disseminated information:
NASA will ensure and maximize the quality, including the utility, objectivity, and integrity, of its disseminated information, except where specifically exempted. Categories of information that are exempt from these guidelines are detailed in Section C.3….
Information products disseminated by NASA will be based on reliable, accurate data that has been validated.
NASA policy NPR 2200.2B Chapter 3 states that the policy applies to all “information” prepared by NASA employees and then sets out an approval process:
3.1.1 This chapter presents the standards and responsibilities that apply when NASA employees prepare papers for or participate in scientific and technical symposia and when they prepare and submit information, e.g., monographs or journal articles, for external (non-NASA) publication. ….
3.2.2 Approvals. Dissemination of information in symposium presentations or in external publications is approved in accordance with procedures included in Chapter 4 [which describes an elaborate review process]
The manual contains a header stating: COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY yet does not contain any mechanism whereby a NASA employee can sometimes be a “private citizen” and sometimes be a “NASA employee”, anymore than a company insider can purport to be a “private citizen” in his relationships with a company.
Also sir, you missed the point of my letter here and did not answer:
"Does NASA support ALL these other postings they [realclimate.org] make as well? And I gave an example: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l%e2
%80%99ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
"Prelude: It's the physics, stupid"
What you failed to see is that in this topic on realclimate.org, the author/scientist representing Real Climate finds fault with this paper from France and French scientists in which he lays out all these faults to the readers of Real Climate point by point. What you failed to see is that they are many of the same problems and data handling errors found by the NAS and Wegman Reports regarding Mann's Hockey Stick papers. Look at your NASA policy again!
You also state: " As such, please note there is no formal relationship between NASA's Earth Observatory and RealClimate."
How is ANYBODY reading earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/ going to know this when RealClimate is offered over and over for "further reading"? NASA says that it “employs the world’s largest concentration of climate scientists”. It has plenty of opportunity to use product from those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of doing so, NASA’s webpage on global warming relies on non-peer reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own employees as a “private citizen” at a “personal” website where his contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control procedures.
You say: I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns.
I say, no sir, sorry, I do not think you have at all.
You say: Gavin enjoys and exercises his freedom of speech. I'm sure we both agree that freedom of speech is a good thing.
I think I will also contact my district representative in Congress, show him your email and express my concerns. With all do respect, I do not think realclimate and the foggy NASA relationship with realclimate, has anything to do with free speech. Like I said, its freedom of speech run amuck being presented as "real science".
Again, thank you for your time, however as you can see I am disappointed (along with many other's I've shared this with) I will have to find other means of voicing my concerns and getting some real answers. Here's a message to you : We are very disappointed that NASA, an organization many of us have grown up in awe of must engage in this sort of foggy bottom information campaign and call it "science", you are scaring our young people about their future , and distorting the very foundations of the scientific method and turning it into some kind of a social network with a political agenda.
Yours truly,
me (my name) aka SpaceMonkey
__________________________________
From: David Herring <dherring@climate.gsfc.nasa.gov> [Add to Address Book]
To: my email
Subject: RE: Global Warming, RealClimate website
Date: Jan 3, 2008 11:44 AM
Dear (me),
Thank you for your note, and for taking the time to express your concerns.
Perhaps I should first elaborate on NASA's Earth sciences research to put the objectives of NASA's Earth Observatory into proper context. NASA is a world leader in Earth system science research -- in terms of our agency's current capacity for space-based observations and measurements of Earth's environment; in terms of the contributions made by scientists within our agency to the body of knowledge about our home planet; and in terms of improving the science community's ability to model and predict the workings of Earth's climate system. In addition to being tasked and funded by the President and by Congress to advance understanding about how our world works, NASA is also mandated to share that new knowledge with the public. NASA's Earth Observatory is an Internet publication by which we help to fulfill that mandate. The Earth Observatory is based at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, under my management. We have no other motive nor outside influence other than what I've just stated.
In your note, you said that we linked to RealClimate to answer a global warming question. Not true. Please visit our site for yourself, at earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
...and there you will see that we provided our own clear, concise answers to each question. My team answered these questions based on a variety of reference materials, including relevant science papers, synthesis reports such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Reports, and discussions with knowledgeable scientists within and outside of NASA.
We also provided links to a variety of places on the Web where people can go if they want to read more about the subject, including, in some cases, articles written by climate scientists and published on RealClimate. There is no policy that I'm aware of that prohibits such a link. To paraphrase NASA's policy governing Web links, we must take steps to ensure that the information we link to is relevant, accurate, timely, and complete. In my view, RealClimate meets these requirements.
My team and I are fully aware that global warming is a controversial subject in political contexts. Indeed, I feel that the politics of the subject only *heighten* the need for good, effective science communication about Earth's current warming trend, to help people discuss this important issue in an informed way. NASA's Earth Observatory confines the scope of its articles to science. We do not advocate for or against a given policy, nor do we lobby anyone in any way. The Earth science articles published on NASA's Earth Observatory are intended to clarify the science behind climate change research, which in my view is also the purpose of RealClimate.
In your note, you pointed out the political and/or policy-related nature of some of the discussions on the RealClimate Website. Quoting from the site itself:
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and ***will not get involved in any political or economic implications*** of the science."
[Note, I inserted the asterisks to flag the phrase that is particularly relevant to your concern.]
In short, I believe the RealClimate site is a healthy public forum in which citizens can interact firsthand with leading climate scientists from a variety of agencies and universities, discussing many facets of climate change, occasionally including the causes and consequences of climate change. I hope we can agree that there are important differences between communication of scientific information (that may or may not have policy implications) and political activism. And that discussion of the scientific basis or implications of climate policy do not automatically constitute advocacy.
Such interaction and dialogue between scientists and the public is crucial, and after all, what democracies are all about. As such, I believe RealClimate is a useful and recommended resource.
That said, NASA does not "back" or "support" the RealClimate site in terms of funding or manpower support. As such, please note there is no formal relationship between NASA's Earth Observatory and RealClimate.
Gavin Schmidt (a NASA employee at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York) donates his own free time to sharing his expertise and opinions on RealClimate. There is nothing illegal, unethical, or unusual about his doing so. Like everyone in the United States, Gavin enjoys and exercises his freedom of speech. I'm sure we both agree that freedom of speech is a good thing.
I hope I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns.
With best regards,
David Herring
NASA Earth Observatory Project Manager
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
-----Original Message-----
From: noreply@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov [mailto:noreply@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:31 AM
To: eoeditor@yahoo.com
Subject: EO Comment: Global Warming, RealClimate website.
From:
Space Monkey
Topic: ContentFeedback
Subject: Global Warming, RealClimate website.
Comment/Question:
To the Director of NASA:
That NASA publicly links to "realclimate.org" for answers to global warming
question, in which realclimate.org has unknown sources of support and
funding, and takes very specific positions on a very political issues
within their website dialog is very outside the bounds of what I think would be your policy. Outlined here: NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures
www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536. It is stunning actually. Why is this
happening?
As a citizen of this country and a wife of a working Earth Scientist myself,
I am stunned. I've been following the "realclimate" website for over a
year. Does NASA support all these other postings they make as well? Such
as:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l%e2
%80%99ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/
"Prelude: It's the physics, stupid"
you might want to read what others think about this here:
www.climateaudit.org/?p=2531#comment-183884
Is this what science has come to be with the help of people such as these,
backed by NASA?
Sincerely,
(me spacemonkey...)