The scientists’ letter, published in the May 7th issue of the journal Science (subscription req’d), says:

“We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”

The scientists note that the fundamental science of climate change is sound, despite the extensive campaign by deniers and skeptics to confuse politicians and the general public:

“There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”

Noting that denier attacks are “typically driven by special interests or dogma,” the scientists rail against the overblown attacks on the IPCC for its minor mistakes:

“Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change…”

In a clear rebuke of the efforts of GOP climate deniers like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK to deny reality), the scientists call for an end to the harassment of climate scientists:

“We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

As Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute and one of the co-signers of the letter, notes:

“It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial.”

The scientists conclude with an appeal for action to address climate change:

“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.”

The letter is available at Science (subscription required), and reprinted at The Guardian and Climate Progress for open access.

via Brendan Demelle | Esteemed Scientists Hit Back at Climate Denier Campaign In Science Letter.

Now a survey of EPA scientists on this very subject just came out, and it isn’t pretty!

Political Manipulation of EPA Science, by the Numbers

Here’s the whole cynical breakdown of the sad report, in the words of the Union of Concerned Scientists. (Note that not all respondents answered all questions, so response percentages are derived from different total respondents.)

• 889 (60%) scientists said they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the last five years.
• 783 (51%) said EPA policies do not let scientists speak freely to the news media about their findings. Scientists also shared anecdotes about being barred from presenting their research at conferences and their difficulties clearing research publication articles with EPA managers.
• 492 (31%) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency about concerns about the EPA’s work without fear of retribution, and 382 (24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.
• 409 (43%) of the 969 agency veterans with more than 10 years of EPA experience, said interference has occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period. Only 43 scientists (4%) said interference occurred less often.
• 394 (31%) scientists personally experienced frequent or occasional “statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists’ findings.”
• 285 (22%) scientists said they frequently or occasionally personally experienced “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”
• 224 (17%) scientists said they had been “directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document.”
• Nearly 100 scientists identified the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the primary culprit. In scientists’ responses to an essay question, “How could the integrity of scientific work produced by the EPA best be improved?,” OMB took center stage.

(Source: The Daily Green)