Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]]] ONE REALITY, TWO `TRUTHS' [[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Assembled and uploaded by Oleg Panczenko (5/10/1989)
(Freeman 10602PANC)
Every Tuesday, the New York Times has a `Science Times' section.
Many consider it a detailed and authoritative source of
scientific information. How deserved is this assessment? I
present, in parallel, two articles covering the same topic.
Readers of AtE have a familiarity with the matters here touched
upon. Which presents a truer picture of things as they are?
Which is more `objective'.
[From The New York Times [From The Wall Street Journal
9 May 1989, p. C1:1] 9 May 1989, p. A10:1]
White House Admits Censoring NASA Aide Says White House
Testimony Made Him Dilute Testimony on
------------------------------ Greenhouse Effect
Climate Expert says changes
involved more than policy.
------------------------------
By Philip Shabecoff By Bob Davis And Adam Wessel
Special to The New York Times Staff Reporters of The Wall
Street Journal
[731 words] [635 words]
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The WASHINGTON -- A prominent
White House confirmed today NASA scientist told Congress
that it had censored that the administration forced
Congressional testimony on the him to tone down his testimony
effects of global warming by a about the greenhouse effect by
top Government scientist, but incorporating ideas he
it insisted that the changes considered wrong.
reflected policy decisions,
not scientific conclusions. James Hansen, director of
NASA's Goddard Institute for
Marlin Fitzwater, the White Space Science, said the Office
House press secretary, said of Management and Budget
the Office of Management and insisted he add a paragraph
Budget had changed conclusions and a sentence to his written
about global warming data testimony casting doubt on his
contained in the testimony of prediction that droughts would
Dr. James T. Hansen, director worsen because of planetary
of the space agency's Goddard warming. The additions
Institute for Space Studies. required by the OMB say ``the
He said the action was taken scientific conclusions I
because the ideas presented suggest aren't reliable, and I
were ``not necessarily those don't agree with that,'' Mr.
of all scientists who have Hansen said.
considered this matter.''
Sen. Albert Gore [D.,
In his original text, Tenn.], chairman of the Senate
before it was changed, Dr. science subcommittee, accused
Hansen asserted that computer OMB of ``scientific fraud.''
projections showed that global But White House spokesman
warming caused by pollution Marlin Fitzwater defended the
from human activity would action, saying ``The changes
cause upheavals in the earth's were made to reflect the fact
climate. He warned of that his conclusions represent
substantial increases in his ideas, but not necessarily
temperature, droughts in those of all scientists.''
mid-latitudes, severe storms
and other stresses. The budget agency reviews
congressional testimony to
But his testimony was make sure that it's consistent
changed to make his with administration policy.
conclusions seem less certain. ``We don't have the right to
alter facts, but the
In response to questions at conclusion from those facts is
the regular White House something that is subject to
briefing this morning, Mr. coordination from OMB,'' said
Fitzwater said that an William Diefenderfer, who has
official of the Office of been nominated to be deputy
Management and Budget ``five director of the OMB.
levels down from the top'' had
changed Dr. Hansen's testimony The distinction between
to reflect that ``there are fact and conclusion drawn by
many points of view on the Mr. Diefenderfer, however, is
global warming issue and many hard to apply to global
of them conflict with those warming. Even the most basic
stated by Dr. Hansen.'' fact -- that the Earth has
warmed significantly in the
But Dr. Hansen, appearing past century -- is in doubt,
today before the Senate and scientists say they need
Subcommittee on Science, the broadest latitude to draw
Technology and Space, said conclusions. Atmospheric
that the testimony he had scientists base their theories
submitted specifically stated about the future of the
that the conclusions climate on intricate computer
represented his own scientific analyses of the effects of
opinion, not Government policy fossil-fuel burning, economic
or a scientific consensus. growth and nature's recycling
abilities.
He said he had been forced
by the budget office to make Mr. Hansen testified that
changes that raised questions droughts would increase with
about the reliability of global warming at middle and
scientific evidence on low latitudes because surface
expected climate changes. heating would drive away
Another change imposed by the rain-bearing clouds. He added
budget office made it seem as that this ``overall
if there was some doubt that conclusion'' probably wouldn't
human activity was chiefly change even if computer models
responsible for the pollution improved.
that, it is now widely agreed,
will cause a global warming But then, at the behest of
trend. This would occur as OMB, Mr. Hansen added the
carbon dioxide and other contradictory sentence, that
manmade pollutants trap and his conclusions ``should be
retain heat from the sun in a viewed as estimates from
process similar to what evolving computer models and
happens in a greenhouse. not as reliable predictions.''
The New York Times reported on
``I don't think the science the OMB's demands yesterday.
should be altered,'' he said
in response to a question by The controversy has been
Senator Albert Gore, the especially embarrassing to the
Tennessee Democrat who is White House, which is
chairman of the subcommittee. sensitive to criticism that it
``As a Government employee, I is backtracking on an
can and certainly do support environmental issue.
Government policy. My only President Bush, during the
objection is changing the presidential campaign, pledged
science.'' to sponsor a conference on
global warming. But he has
Similar Complaint Reported yet to follow through on that
promise.
Another Government
scientist testified at today's The publicity has been a
hearing that the budget office bonanza for Sen. Gore, who has
had tried to change his been making the global
testimony on scientific issues environment a top priority.
earlier this year. And it puts Mr. Hansen at the
center stage of environmental
The scientist, Dr. Jerry D. politics for the second year
Mahlman, director of the in a row. Last summer, during
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics the height of the drought, his
Laboratory of the National congressional testimony that
Oceanic and Atmospheric he was ``99%'' certain that
Administration, said that the the planet was warming set off
changes proposed for his a spate of written articles
testimony on issues related to and television reports.
global warming were
``objectionable and Mr. Hansen is a
unscientific'' and that the well-respected atmospheric
testimony would have been scientist who first developed
``embarrassing.'' his theories about greenhouse
warming by studying the
Dr. Mahlman said that he atmospheres of Mars and Venus.
had refused to accept the But he has a reputation of
changes in his testimony. drawing more radical
``We in the scientific conclusions from scientific
community demand the right to data than other researchers.
be wrong,'' he said. Dr. Indeed, Joseph Alexander, a
Mahlman said he prevailed in National Aeronautics and Space
his effort to prevent the Administration assistant
budget office from changing associate administrator for
his testimony. Dr. Hansen space science, said the OMB
said, however, that the budget was correct to add a caveat to
office insisted on editing his Mr. Hansen's testimony.
testimony despite his strong
objections. ``It's a reminder that
among the community of
Gore Assails Administration experts, there isn't a
monolithic opinion,'' Mr.
Senator Gore said Dr. Alexander said.
Hansen's testimony was changed
because the Bush For his part, Mr. Hansen
Administration did not want to said he had agreed to make the
take action to cope with the written changes sought by the
expected global warming trend. OMB because the agency agreed
He said United States that he could make any point
officials now meeting in he wanted to orally. In 1987,
Geneva with delegations from Mr. Hansen said, the OMB
other countries were arguing demanded so many changes in
that more study was needed congressional testimony that
before beginning work on an he decided to testify as a
international treaty aimed at private citizen rather than
reducing the impact and accede.
mitigating the effects of
climate change. Jerry Mahlman, an
atmospheric scientist at the
``President Bush, only National Oceanic and
months ago, told us he was an Atmospheric Administration,
environmentalist,'' Mr. Gore said he also had similar
said. ``Yet, in the past few problems with the OMB. ``We
days alone, we've seen his in the science community
Administration back away from demand the right to be
a critical diplomatic wrong,'' he said.
initiative on global
warming.''
Mr. Fitzwater said
President Bush's ``personal
view is that this is a serious
problem that America needs to
show and take leadership.''
``But the science is
something that still has to be
sorted out,'' he said.
``Obviously, the President
hasn't made a judgment about
scientific assessments.''
The White House spokesman
said that Dr. Hansen had a
right to voice his opinion and
that no punitive action would
be taken against him for
objecting to the changing of
his testimony.
Mr. Gore said that if there
was any retribution against
Dr. Hansen, the Bush
Administration would face
``the equivalent of World War
III'' with Congress.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page