Bush Extends Censorship to USGS

The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.


Shown below is correspondence I had with Thomas Huntington (USGS) in 2005. See comment at end.

From: “Thomas G. Huntington”
February , 2005
To: Pat Neuman
Subject: regional hydrologic response to warming

Patrick J. Neuman
North Central River Forecast Center
National Weather Service
1733 Lake Drive West
Chanhassen, MN 55317

I saw your recent posting on the RealClimate web page and I was
interested in what you showed about the timing of snowmelt and flow in the upper midwest. Has that work been published?

In reply to your request for more information of this type I wanted to share the attached list of publications with you regarding an example of a regional hydrologic response to warming that we are studying here in New England.


(attached list of publications not included)


Thomas G. Huntington, PhD
U. S. Geological Survey
196 Whitten Rd.
Augusta, Maine 04330,
email [email protected]
(P) 207-622-8201 X110; (F) 207-622-8204


From Pat Neuman
Date Monday, February 7, 2005 10:22 am
To “Thomas G. Huntington”
Subject Re: regional hydrologic response to warming

Thomas G. Huntington:

Hi Tom,

Thank you for sharing your list of publications with me.

I read your 2003 press release awhile ago, …

Regarding my work, the link at mnforsustain.org contains the data that I used for Figure 1. Please let me know if you would like additional information. There is no formal published paper on my work.

NWS has not been supportive of my efforts. For correspondence with me, regarding climate change, it would be best if you or others would use my non-work email address ( [email protected] ).


Thank you for making contact with me on this.


Pat Neuman

Comment: Saying that NWS and NOAA were not supportive of my efforts was putting it mildly. Intimidation by NWS and NOAA supervisors ended my communications with the USGS on climate change and streamflow in 2005.

Censorship? No. The government sets policy, not the USGS or any other agency.

It might help if you spell out what you think are differences when government sets policy, censors or intimates it’s employees.

Governments refuse to let reports air which contradict their ideological bent. If one managed to be publicised which was contrary to what a government’s position was, the government would be worse off the next time an election came around.

Paul, if you do not believe this, you must really be naive.

I disagree Stephen.

Government employees are subject to the conditions of employment as determined by their employer. If employees are attempting to advocate beyond what their terms of employment allow, then the government, who pays their wages, can set conditions upon that.

A person, government employee or not, can advocate for any cause they want on their own free time, but are not allowed to advocate from their position as a government employee. Regards,

ENN article:
New Controls on Publishing Research Worry USGS Scientists
December 14, 2006 — By John Heilprin, Associated Press

“Democrats about to take control of Congress have investigations into reports by The New York Times and other news organizations that the Bush administration tried to censor government scientists researching global warming at NASA and the Commerce Department.” …

BBC News article:
US scientists reject interference
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

“Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.”


Both articles are misleading by failing to address that there was interference by the U.S. government against it’s own government scientists on climate change even before G.W. Bush became President in 2001. Interference on climate change before 2001 was just as bad as during and after 2001 - at NOAA’s National Weather Service.

I believe you, Pat. Clinton received almost as much money from oil as Bush Sr did. And I never heard Clinton talk about GW. Need I say more? I did happen to catch an article (by doing a search for GW in the Chi Tribune for 1995 – 2 articles came up). It was buried in the paper, about Al Gore making the gov energy efficient (& reducing xxx tons of CO2) to the tune of saving us tax-payers over $1 billion per year. The other article was in the travel section – about Swiss villages drowning due to glacier melt (it mentioned the “GW” words). 1995 was the year the 1st studies came out finding a 95% certainty re AGW.

NOAA and NWS in 2000 - opposing views on global warming

Hi Lynn,

Thanks. Clinton did talk a little about global warming - at his Jan 2000 State of the Union Address. His words were serious but the way he presented them wasn’t.

I got in a mess of trouble at work (NWS) in 2000 by trying to research and talk about climate change already having an influence on Upper Midwest snowmelt runoff hydrology.

Although Jim Baker, director of NOAA in 2000, came on strong about global warming consequences in Jan of 2000 on CBS, it seemed like he had no authority over NWS on global warming concerns even though NWS was under NOAA then, as now. Jim Baker and Clinton/Gore had no real authority over the director of NWS Jack Kelly (Ret. Br. Gen.). Perhaps Jack Kelly had authority to say no to Baker by his military connections. Another possibility for NWS having pooh poohed global warming in 2000 even though Jim Baker in NOAA came on strong about global warming is that in 2000 Jack Kelly and Commerce Secretary Richard Daley were car pooling together. I I heard that from the owner of AviationWatch yahoo group (Chicago O’Hare). I suppose the Daley family would not have supported any effort that might have led to clamping down on GHG emissions. I also suppose that that NWS supervisors voted for Bush in Nov. of 2000. Once Bush got in, the new NOAA director and Jack Kelly had the same views on global warming.

More background information on my experiences in 2000 is in comments to blog 11 Dec 2006 [Climate change” and “Kyoto” deemed no, no’s for government scientists].

The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a Periodic Table of Scientific Abuses.

This table can be viewed at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html