U.S. accused of silencing experts on polar bears, climate change

You're only allowed to say what you want in the basement of your home in a very low voice.

I am a PolarBaer (white, and last name Baer); it is still cold heer in Portland OR. Ain't got no dog's muzzle...

They can fire their employees for speaking out. In the case of civil service employees, if they run into trouble firing them they can move their offices into basement furnace rooms or other rooms not much better, transfer them to locations inconvenient to commute to, restrict their access to resources in some ways or others, and give them only non-meaningful work and strictly enforce requirements of attendance and showing up on time and not goofing off and while giving such punished employees little to do but stay awake while sitting at their desks. The US Constitution only protects employees from being tried and jailed by the government for speaking out, and does not otherwise prohibit punishment of employees by employers, even when the employer is the government.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Have you got a Baer arse, though?

Good post.

I love the statement

When asked for the administration's position with which the Alaska scientists would have to be familiar, Hall said, "The Earth is warming, and we have to understand how to deal with that and to slow down greenhouse gases and manage the changes that will occur,'' he said.

Oh yeah, the same administration that knows how to win the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the war on (insert flavor of the month) shouldn't have a problem with a minor inconvenience like global warming.

ice

Yep. That's where the leftist weenies excel...leaving out the part that is was only government employees that were muzzled.

Actually, ALL government employees should be muzzled... then have the heads lopped off ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I'd start with GWB

martin

The citizens are the employer. They should not expect bungling middle managers to prevent the experts telling the truth to them.

Nothing in his head. Lop off Cheney.

hmm, should have said, "Start with G.W.B and work my way up"

Happy now?

martin

Historically, scientists have depended on peer review to confirm the findings of their research. Since, by definition, supervisors are superior to peers, it is obvious that supervisor review is superior to peer review.

And a lawyer who was an oil company lobbyist is naturally the perfect 'peer' for reviewing the work of scientists - and not merely reviewing but altering them. Oddly, all of the alterations were to the effect that things aren't as bad as the scientists claim.

Scientists who work for the government are.... (fill in your choice of depredations ;-)

...Jim Thompson

ice

Hmm. There are no rules against the misappropriation of public funds? After all, we (the taxpayers) pay this person's wages. We should expect to get some productive work out of them. If their supervisor intentionally creates a situation where the employees time is being misused, they should be charged with the same crime they would be had they loaded gov't property of the same value into the trunk of their car.

ice

They shouldn't be able to control access to work product by the owner of the enterprise. In this case, we (the public) own that work product and have a right to see it.

Actually, no. The reason its called 'peer' review is to eliminate the obvious superior-subordinate power imbalance when reviewing material for technical purposes. Even if the boss is an expert in the field, they excuse themselves from peer reviews of their own employees findings.

Depending on the conditions of your employment, you may not be able to publish without the employer's consent... and usually the consent of the employer's legal department.

This current global-whatever has turned into a political football. Mouthings by paisanos may seriously jeopardize the economy of the US.

...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Scientists who work for the Repugnican government are boned.

Oh heck, there are supposed to be rules and things against waste, fraud and abuse. I think we all know how well that at least some slips through. See what happens to whistleblowers!

And I think more so if on orders by a political appointee or an elected official than if on orders by a civil servant. Political appointees are not subject to discipline, checks, balances, whatever by the civil service system. And politicians themselves can only be disciplined, checked and balanced by the voters. Don't sit out primary elections and presidential caucuses - that is where there are some opportunities for the voters to make hiring/firing decisions!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)