Say Anything Blog

Jan 30 11:46 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP)—The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government’s response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly “to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming.”

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

“The committee isn’t trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security,” said Waxman, opening the hearing. “We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House’s political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists.”

“We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger,” Waxman said…

...The survey involved scientists across the government from NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency to the department’s of Agriculture, Energy, Commerce, Defense and Interior. In all the government employees more than 2,000 scientists who spend at least some of their time on climate issues, the report said.

If anything is unclear, it is the impartiality of what Waxman calls “impartial government scientists.” Is there anything impartial about being employed by the government?

What about the government scientists who don’t buy into the global warming emergency?  Are they “impartial government scientists”?  Waxman implies only “government scientists” who buy into global warming are “impartial”. 

It seems to me that only scientists who do not profit from politicizing global warming are potentially impartial.  The fact that the “government scientists"… “spend at least some of their time on climate issues”, means some portion of their employment is directly related to global warming.  The relationship is not clear, but then again, until it is, neither is their impartiality.