Yesterday we wrote about Environmental Protection Agency economist Al Carlin, the author of a report that casts doubt on climate change. Carlin's study wasn't taken as seriously by the agency as he'd been hoping -- perhaps because he's not a scientist, and because his bosses never asked him to produce it.

But his cause has become a favorite of right-wingers, who suddenly believe science to be sacred, and are charging that the Obama administration is "suppressing" a report whose conclusions it dislikes. The anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute first publicized Carlin's report last week. Since then, Carlin has discussed his "findings" with Glenn Beck on Fox News, and on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for a criminal investigation into the issue.

Read more »

Conservatives are jumping up and down over a report by an EPA analyst expressing skepticism about climate change, which, they claim, was suppressed by agency brass because it didn't conform to Obama administration orthodoxy on global warming. The story has sparked explosive claims, on Fox News and other right-wing outlets, that the EPA censored scientific data for political reasons. And Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for an outright criminal investigation into the matter.

But it's hard to blame EPA for not paying much attention to the study. And it's more than a little ironic that DC Republicans have chosen its author as their new standard-bearer in the defense of pure science against politics. Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist. EPA says no one at the agency solicited the report. And Carlin appears to have taken up the global warming topic largely as a hobby on his own time. In fact, a NASA climatologist has called the report -- whose existence was first publicized last week by the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -- "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."

Read more »

Fred Hiatt has waded back into the debate over George Will's global warming distortions -- a debate that only makes Hiatt look more out of touch than ever.

During an online chat with readers that was supposed to be about President Obama's first 100 days, Hiatt, the editor of the Washington Post's editorial page, had the following exchange with a reader:

Read more »

Remember Marc Morano?

He's the staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who's turned himself into the go-to guy for climate change denialism, sending out an email barrage to activists, journalists, Hill aides and others, in which he aggregates every misleading and flat-out false piece of "evidence" he can find to support the notion that, despite what scientists say, global warming really isn't something to worry about.

Read more »

Add Eugene Robinson to the rapidly growing list of Washington Posties who are sick of George Will's efforts to mislead readers about global warming science.

Via Mathew Yglesias, Asked by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about the increase in "made up stuff" in the news lately, Robinson brought up his fellow Post columnist's string of distortions on climate change.

Read more »

Is there an anti-George-Will critical mass building at the Washington Post?

Just in the last few days, we've seen three separate efforts, from three separate sections of the paper, to push back against the bow-tied columnist's well-chronicled deceptions on global warming.

Read more »

It looks like some members of the Washington Post's news section are fighting back against George Will's efforts -- aided by the paper's editorial page -- to mislead readers about global warming.

Via Grist's Dave Roberts: Deep down in a story about the alarming thinning of Arctic sea ice, triggered by global warming, Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan write:

Read more »

We kind of figured George Will would leave the issue of global warming well enough alone after what happened the last time he tried to tackle it.

Guess we were wrong. Today, Will waded back into the mire, with a Washington Post column about the folly of requiring flourescent lightbulbs as an energy saver. In setting up his argument, Will wrote:

Read more »

Fred, what gives? You'll return Columbia Journalism Review's calls, but not ours? Where did we go wrong?

Fred Hiatt has broken his silence on that George Will global warming denialist column that set off such a hulabaloo. In an interview with CJR published last night, Hiatt defended the decision to run Will's column, despite several clear misrepresentations of science that have been thoroughly documented.

Hiatt argued that, rather than trying to prevent Will from expressing his point of view, Will's critics should take him on.

"Do I think it's somehow dangerous to have one of our many columnists casting doubt on this consensus?" Hiatt asked. "No, I think it's healthy. And let the other ones come in and slam him, if they think it's irresponsible. That's what an opinion page is for."

But nowhere in the interview does Hiatt appear to grapple with the actual argument of Will's numerous critics, which is that the column at issue contained outright misrepresentations of scientific data, on a level that goes far beyond honest differences of opinion.

Here's the relevant excerpt from CJR's report, so you can judge for yourself:

"We looked into these allegations, and I have a different interpretation than [those who signed the letter] about what George Will is and is not entitled to," said the paper's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt. "If you want to start telling me that columnists can't make inferences which you disagree with--and, you know, they want to run a campaign online to pressure newspapers into suppressing minority views on this subject--I think that's really inappropriate. It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him."

Hiatt said that he has invited both the World Meteorological Organization and the Arctic Ice Center at the University of Illinois to write a letter for publication taking issue with anything that George wrote, but neither organization has taken him up on the offer. Hiatt added that he doesn't think Will has an obligation to point out, "in every column he writes about climate change," that such organizations disagree with his interpretation of their data.

"If you're concerned that readers of The Washington Post don't get a sense that most of the world thinks climate change is real, I think that's a misplaced concern," he said. "And I can tell you: I don't share George's view. If you read our editorial pages you would know that we believe that the evidence of climate change is sufficiently alarming to justify major changes in public policy. But, you know what? I think it's kind of healthy, given how, in so many areas--not just climatology, but medicine, and everything else--there is a tendency on the part of the lay public at times to ascribe certainty to things which are uncertain. I believe, and this me personally speaking, that there is a lot more we don't know about climatology and there's a lot more we have to learn in terms of our ability to predict climatological phenomena and how what's happening in the oceans is going to interact with what's happening in the atmosphere. And do I think it's somehow dangerous to have one of our many columnists casting doubt on this consensus? No, I think it's healthy. And let the other ones come in and slam him, if they think it's irresponsible. That's what an opinion page is for."

Separately, yesterday we got a sneek peak at Will's latest column, in which he digs in his heels on the issue of global warming. (It's now up on the Washington Post site.)

We decided to leave the debunking of Will's self-defense to others more expert in the subject. And Carl Zimmer, who writes frequently about science for the New York Times, has now done so, in a detailed rebuttal to Will posted on the website of Discover magazine, that concludes:

In trying to justify an old error, Will can't help making new ones. But at this point, I'm not expecting any corrections.

Late Update:
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has added his own detailed rebuttal of Will's latest column, which itself was framed as a response to a piece by Revkin earlier this week that criticized Will's original column.

We await Will's response to Revkin's response to Will's response to Revkin's response to Will.

Just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in.

We thought we were done with the topic of George Will and climate change. But now we've gotten an advanced look at Will's latest column, set to run tomorrow in the Washington Post and in syndication. And it amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother -- including us.

Will's new effort is framed as a response to a New York Times story, by science reporter Andrew Revkin, from earlier this week, which asserted that Will's earlier column, published February 15, was guilty of "inaccuracies and overstatements," in the view of experts. (That Revkin story itself provoked some blogospheric ire by equating Will's out-and-out distortions with some minor exaggerations on the other side by Al Gore -- but that's a whole other story.)

In the new column, Will makes two central claims, one directed narrowly at Revkin, the other more broadly at critics of the February 15 column.

First, he suggests that Revkin is guilty of sloppy journalism, noting that the Times writer doesn't name the experts who judged the February 15 column inaccurate, and adding that Revkin contacted him for comment only late in the afternoon of the day before his story ran.

Revkin didn't immediately respond to an email from TPMmuckraker seeking a response to those charges.

Second, Will stands by the substance of the February 15 column, maintaining, in the case of the key factual dispute, that he had accurately reported the findings of a respected climate research center on the question of sea-ice levels. Though the center has since put out a statement disavowing Will's use of its data, Will claims that last month it posted confirmation of that very data on its web site -- and, getting all bloggy, includes a link.

We'll leave it to others to parse the finer points of this defense -- though it's immediately noticeable that Will doesn't mention that the center's confirmation of its findings notes that the data concerns global sea ice levels, rather than northern hemispheric levels. Global levels, it says, "may not be the most relevant indicator."

But after Will and Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt declined to answer TPMmuckraker's questions about the column -- leaving that task to the paper's ombudsman, who cited the paper's "multi-layer editing process" -- it's certainly intriguing that Will has chosen to wade back into the muck.

After days of radio silence from the Washington Post, the paper's ombudsman, Andy Alexander, has sent out the following statement (via Think Progress) about the George Will column that misrepresented the facts on global warming:

Thank you for your e-mail. The Post's ombudsman typically deals with issues involving the news pages. But I understand the point you and many e-mailers are making, and for that reason I sought clarification from the editorial page editors. Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will's column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors. The University of Illinois center that Will cited has now said it doesn't agree with his conclusion, but earlier this year it put out a statement (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that was among several sources for this column and that notes in part that "Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979."

Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

Hilzoy at the Washington Monthly shows that the statement Alexander cites in fact points to the opposite conclusion from the one Will drew from it.

But engaging at this level of detail is sort of beside the point. As the Post knows, every reputable scientific organization that has studied the issue has confirmed that global warming is occurring. Will's column was intended to mislead readers into believing that not to be true. That's the case whether or not it contained a statement that meets the Post's criteria for factual inaccuracy.

Late Update: Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress says it better than we could:

As for why it's okay for Will to write stuff that isn't true, the Post didn't have much of substance to say. They picked one of debunked subsidiary claims, and said they think Will is right, though they acknowledge that the very organization Will was citing as an authority says Will is wrong. One could say that on this subsidiary point, Will perhaps made an honest mistake that the Arctic Climate Research Center has since corrected. But the Post instead says that Will is right and the Arctic Climate Research Center wrong about what the ACRC's own research says. Meanwhile, they have nothing whatsoever to say about the other problems with the column.

These problems, it should be said, include Will's overarching thesis. Will wrote, and is trying to get readers of The Washington Post to believe, that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. This is false. Post readers are being deceived. And the Post is standing by the deceivers.

This started as a problem for Will, his direct supervisors, and the Post's ombudsman. But now that the Post as a paper is standing behind Will's deceptions, I think it's a problem for all the other people who work at the Post. Some of those people do bad work, which is too bad. And some of those people do good work. And unfortunately, that's worse. It means that when good work appears in the Post it bolsters the reputation of the Post as an institution. And the Post, as an institution, has taken a stand that says it's okay to claim that up is down. It's okay to claim that day is night. It's okay to claim that hot is cold. It's okay to claim that a consensus existed when it didn't. It's okay to claim that George Will is a better source of authority on interpreting the ACRC's scientific research than is the ACRC. Everyone who works at the Post, has, I think, a serious problem.

Late Late Update: Carl Zimmer, who writes frequently about science for the New York Times, goes into more devastating detail to show that the very statement the Post cites rebuts Will's point.

If someone from the Post's crackerjack multi-layer squad of fact-checkers had bothered to pick up the phone, they could have simply asked, "Is it indeed true that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979?"

And they would have probably gotten an answer like this: "Well, what do you mean by now? Today? And what do you mean by 1979? Exactly thirty years ago today? If that's what you mean, the answer is no."

A good fact-checker would then say, "Well, it seems this claim is based on an article that came out January 1."

To which the scientist would say something along the lines of, "At that point it was near or slightly lower what was observed in late 1979."

At the very least, that discrepancy would have to be corrected. But a good fact-checker would see a deeper problem, saying, "Whoa, that changed a lot in a month and a half."

Which would then lead to a discussion of the fact ice cover is such a noisy process that picking out a single day to compare these numbers does not say a lot about how it is affected by climate change. Climatologists look over longer time scales.

A good fact-checker would also learn that almost all climate models project that increasing greenhouse gases will cause a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades, but the response of the southern hemisphere is less certain. In fact, evaporation caused by the warming might lead to more snowfall onto the sea ice. If the southern ice expands, it cancels out some of the retreat of the northern ice. And lo and behold, the northern hemisphere ice is almost a million square kilometers smaller than it was in late 1979, and the Southern Hemisphere ice is about half a million square kilometers bigger than in late 1979. So not only is Will wrong on the particulars of his statement, but he's wrong on what it means about climate change. A good fact-checker would make sure that this was fixed too.

How can I be so confident that a good fact-checker would learn this? Because it is in that same January statement from the Center that the Post cited as "evidence" that Will was correct.

Mum's the word for George Will and the Washington Post when it comes to explaining how misinformation on global warming got into Will's most recent column.

Yesterday morning we called Will to ask him about the misrepresentations in his Sunday column. We also called Fred Hiatt, the editor of the paper's editorial page, to ask about the editing process that the Post's editorial page employs. Neither chose to answer our questions.

As we reported yesterday, Will twice misrepresented the facts in his Sunday column, to make it appear that there's no expert consensus that warming is happening.

In one case, Will wrote that the respected Arctic Climate Research Center had found that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979. But within hours, the ACRC had put up a statement saying those levels have in fact significantly decreased, and adding: "We do not know where George Will is getting his information."

In the second, Will, apparently seizing on a year-old (and since corrected) BBC story, wrote: "[A]ccording to the World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." That's technically true, since 1998 was a particularly hot year. But the implication was that the organization doesn't believe warming is occurring. Will didn't tell readers that the WMO had followed up by confirming its uncontroversial view that global warming is continuing, and making clear that gauging climate change by looking only at one year is all but useless.

So there's no question that, whatever Will's intention, his column misinformed readers. But here's what happened when we tried to talk about all this yesterday morning with Will and Hiatt:

Will's assistant told us that Will might get back to us later in the day to talk about the column. And Hiatt said he was too busy to talk about it just then, but that he'd try to respond to emailed questions. So we emailed him yesterday's post, with several questions about the editing process, then followed up with another email late yesterday afternoon.

But still nothing from either of them, over twenty-four hours after the first contact was made. Nor has the online version of Will's column been updated, even to reflect the fact that the ACRC has utterly disavowed the claim Will attributes to it.

We're hearing that the Post's editing process for opinion pieces is virtually non-existent. Maybe that makes sense in some cases -- it certainly seems reasonable to give most columnists a freer hand than straight news reporters get. But it's difficult to know for sure when the Post won't talk about it. And that approach sure didn't serve the paper well here.

As for Will, it's not hard to understand why he wouldn't want to discuss a column as misleading as Sunday's.

Looks like Fred Barnes isn't the only high-profile conservative columnist still arguing that climate change doesn't really exist.

Over the weekend, the Washington Post's George Will, got in on the act. And it took us about ten minutes -- longer, it appears, than the Post's editors spent -- to figure out that Will, like Barnes, was essentially making stuff up.

Both of Will's major "data points" fall apart after a moment's scrutiny.

Here's the first:

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

But within hours of Will's column appearing, the ACRC had posted the following statement on its website:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

So, nevermind then.

As for Will's second claim, he writes:

[A]ccording to the World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.

This one is a little more complicated. But only a little.

Will's claim appears to come from a BBC News article from way back in April 2008, whose first version reported:

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

It's true that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, because that year was a particularly hot one. But as anyone with a high-school level grasp of statistics understands, you need to look at data over a broad period to get a realistic assessment of what's going on. In fact, the WMO itself made that very point in an "information note" that confirmed that the organization believes global warming is continuing, and pointed out that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

The WMO wrote:

The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] "For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".

Indeed, the BBC soon changed the third paragraph of its report to read:

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

That changed prompted climate change deniers to see a nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth. But given that additional information from the WMO, it's pretty clear that the revised version better reflects reality.

Will, of course, doesn't appear to have been interested in any of this. He saw (perhaps via Rush Limbaugh?) a report that appeared to confirm what he believes ... and straight into the Washington Post it went. Neither did Will's editors at the Post seem to care enough about not misinforming their readers to take ten minutes to delve into any of this.

An assistant for Will said the columnist might be able to return TPMmuckraker's call about the column this afternoon. Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor told TPMmuckraker he'd try to respond to questions about the editing process later today. We'll update this post if we hear back.

Thanks to reader C.P. for the catch.

Yesterday, we told you about how Fred Barnes has learned that global warming isn't man made -- but won't tell us where he got this startling information.

But luckily, it looks like Dave Roberts of the environmental news site Grist knows the answer. Roberts writes:

Barnes gets his information on climate change the same place everyone in the right-wing media world gets it: from Marc Morano, the in-house blogger/agitator for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Apparently, Morano is the point man for the fringe movement of global warming deniers.

Morano's entire job is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts that get echoed throughout the right-wing blog world and eventually find their way into places like Fox News and the Weekly Standard. From there they go, via columnists like George Will and Charles Krauthammer, into mainstream outlets like Newsweek and the Washington Post.

That's where Barnes gets it. That's where Glenn Beck gets it, and Lou Dobbs, and Will, and Krauthammer, and all the rest of them.

We've written about Morano -- a former producer for the Rush Limbaugh show -- before. In November 2006, he attended a UN conference on global warming on Inhofe's behalf, prompting the senator to label the confab a "brain-washing session."

Thank God we've found Barnes' source! With any luck, Morano will be able to pass his findings on to policy-makers in time to make sure they don't do anything to address global warming, since it turns out to be all a big mistake. That was close though!

Paging Obama's new environmental team: Fred Barnes has some crucial new information about global warming -- it's not man-made, apparently!

Problem is, Barnes won't tell us how he knows that -- but maybe he'll tell you.

Check out this passage from Barnes' latest column for the Weekly Standard:

Democrats couldn't hide their self-consciousness about the excesses of their own bill. Supporters made few TV appearances to defend it and rarely talked about specific spending items. Obama sounded like Al Gore on global warming. The more the case for man-made warming falls apart, the more hysterical Gore gets about an imminent catastrophe. The more public support his bill loses, the more Obama embraces fear-mongering. (our itals.)

We hadn't heard anything lately about the case for man-made global warming falling apart. In fact, just the opposite. So we called Barnes and asked him what he was referring to.

At first, he cited the fact that it's been cold lately.

Perhaps sensing this was less than convincing, Barnes then asserted that there had been a "cooling spell" in recent years. "Haven't you noticed?" he asked.

Asked for firmer evidence of such cooling, Barnes demurred, telling TPMmuckraker he was too busy to track it down.

We pressed Barnes again: surely he could tell us where he had found this vital new information, which could upend the current debate over how to address global warming.

In response, Barnes said only that he knew where he had found it, but would not tell us, apparently as a matter of principle. "I'm not going to do your research for you," he eventually said, before hurriedly ending the call.

So we came up empty. Let's hope the Obama policy-makers have more luck getting this out of Barnes -- after all, our future could depend on it.

It may seem like President Bush has all but stopped doing his job lately. But his White House is still working as hard as ever at blocking efforts to fight global warming.

Case in point -- the Washington Post reported Wednesday:

Last week, the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs sent an e-mail to mayors reminding them that time was running out if they wanted to comment on the proposal the administration issued in July, which laid out how the government might curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A 2007 Supreme Court decision required the Environmental Protection Agency to issue such a ruling, but the White House made it clear in its e-mail that it does not think that is a good idea.

The email, sent by Jeremy Broggi, the office's associate director, clearly encourages the mayors to express opposition to limits on greenhouse gases. It says:

At the time, President Bush warned that this was the wrong way to regulate emissions. [House Energy and Commerce Committee] Chairman John D. Dingell called it 'a glorious mess. And many of you contacted us to let us know how harmful this rule would be to the economies of the cities and counties you serve.

It then links to a blog post by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a staunch opponent of efforts to regulate emissions, arguing that caps on greenhouse gases "will operate as a de facto moratorium on major construction and infrastructure projects." And it reminds recipients that the comment period for the rule-making closes November 28th.

"It appears there is no bottom to the administration's pit of disdain for regulating greenhouse gases," William Becker, of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, told the Post.

Hard to put it better than that.

The Bush Administration's newest tactic for policymaking is to ignore emails.

The New York Times reports today that White House officials simply refused to open an email from the EPA last year because they knew it contained a policy recommendation they didn't like -- part of the Administration's on-going battle with scientists at the EPA over global warming issues.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

Instead of officially acknowledging the email and responding to it in a normal bureaucratic manner, the White House instead launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to pressure the EPA to drop the recommendation's essential conclusions.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

The White House lost its battle in the Supreme Court. It's stonewalling efforts by lawmakers on Capitol Hill to investigate the policy-making process. And now there's evidence that it is not only rejecting but even ignoring efforts by the EPA to adhere to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

At least one EPA official quit over the email incident.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.'s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" on the agency's response to the Supreme Court.

He added, "The next administration will have to face what this one did not."

Before he left for Washington for the first time, former President Harry Truman got a piece of memorable advice: "Work hard, keep your mouth shut, and answer your mail."

Maybe President Bush never got that same advice.

Remember that young Bush campaign worker who landed a job in the NASA public affairs office, where he was accused of blocking the country's top scientists from talking publicly about global warming?

His name was George C. Deutsch and he was one of several officials accused a couple years ago of manipulating the public disclosure of scientific research about climate change.

Well, NASA's own inspector general looked into the matter and -- whaddya know -- the Bush administration's critics were right.

A 48-page report from the agency's own watchdog, released yesterday, concluded that political appointees in the NASA press office were downplaying scientific conclusions about global warming by withholding certain press releases and limiting reporters' access to top scientists who might veer off message.

"Our investigation," the report said, "found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public."

The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was "inextricably interwoven" into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, "especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest."

The NASA press office came under scrutiny a couple years ago after the agency's leading climate scientist, James E. Hansen, and other agency employees, publicly complained about restrictions imposed on their public comments and distortions of their scientific conclusions.

What today's story leaves out are some great details about the characters involved in shielding the public from the taxpayer-funded science.

Deutsch, who got his job at age 23 and once told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned after revelations the he had lied on his resume and did not, in fact, graduate from Texas A&M University.

How'd he get such a prominent position? According to the Times:

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé.

Another political appointee, Dean Acosta, who was NASA's deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and now works in the private sector of the aerospace industry, criticized the IG's report about his former office.

"My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications," Mr. Acosta, who now is director of communications for the Boeing space-exploration business, wrote in an e-mail message. "The inspector general's assertions are patently false. The report itself does nothing but raise questions about a three-year investigation that has yielded nothing but flimsy allegations aimed at hard-working public servants."

After House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called Rep. Henry Waxman's gavel-banging outburst "outrageous threats and intimidation" and demanded an apology, the diminutive Waxman laughed and had this to say: "Just look at me," he said. "How can you not quake in my presence?"

From the AP:

A Senate panel voted narrowly Wednesday to overturn EPA's decision blocking California and more than a dozen other states from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The bill by California Democrat Barbara Boxer passed the Environment and Public Works committee 10 to 9, sending it to the full Senate.

One committee Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, broke with others on his side of the aisle and voted "no." A Republican, John Warner of Virginia, voted "yes," allowing the bill to pass.

In December, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver that would have allowed the state to require automakers to cut global warming emissions by 30% in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

Boxer's bill would deem the waiver approved.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has reacted angrily to Chairman Howard Waxman's gaveling down of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) yesterday during a hearing with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Here's the statement from Boehner:

"Chairman Waxman's behavior in the Oversight & Government Reform Committee yesterday was appalling and beneath the dignity of the House. His abuse of power is further proof that House Democrats have broken their promise to run the most open and honest Congress in history. Moreover, his outrageous threats and intimidation against a fellow Committee colleague were not only unbecoming for a Member of Congress, but frankly, unbecoming for anyone who hopes to be treated as a professional. Chairman Waxman owes an apology to Mr. Issa, his Committee colleagues, and anyone who witnessed his shameful behavior. But more importantly, he owes the American people an apology because these types of heavy-handed threats have no place in the people's House."

In a showdown between irresistible force and immovable object, the immovable object won.

Under withering questioning this afternoon from exasperated House government oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson held his ground, repeating the same non-responsive answers until the usually unflappable Waxman finally lost his temper.

Waxman was asking Johnson whether he had ever discussed two ozone rulings with the President. Johnson has previously testified that he had discussed California's emissions waiver, but now refused to say whether he had discussed the ozone rulings. The White House's involvement in overruling science-based recommendations from EPA staff in favor of more politically expedient alternatives is now the focus of Waxman's investigation.

As Waxman continued to press this line of questioning, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the highest ranking Republican present at the hearing, protested that Waxman was asking questions out of turn, prompting Waxman to threaten to have Issa removed from the hearing room.

This sort of song and dance from Johnson is now routine. He's managed to skate through multiple Senate and House hearings now, confirming his critics' impressions that he's a deceptive political hack, but avoiding actually answering the questions.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, perhaps the Administration's most accomplished stonewaller, goes before the House government oversight committee today to testify -- again -- about his refusal to grant a waiver for California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions despite unanimous staff support for such a waiver.

So far, Johnson has been a most reluctant witness, going so far as to schedule overseas trips to avoid attending congressional hearings. But Rep. Henry Waxman's committee staff has continued digging, reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing witnesses outside the public eye. Yesterday, in advance of Johnson's appearance, Waxman released a 20-page memo and supporting documents on what his committee has found so far.

The headliner of the memo is that a top EPA official conceded in sworn testimony that he believed that Johnson changed his mind about supporting the waiver after he talked to the White House:

In one deposition, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett told congressional investigators that Johnson in August and September was "very interested in a full grant of the waiver," then said he thought a partial grant of the waiver "was the best course of action."

California has the right to enact tougher air pollution laws under the Clean Air Act but must secure a waiver from the EPA.

Johnson denied California's request in December. When asked whether the administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision, Burnett said, "I believe the answer is yes."

With a flourish, the EPA dismissed the news that Johnson has initially supported the waiver. "I equate this to deciding whether to wear a red tie or a blue tie in the morning," an EPA spokesperson told Reuters. "It doesn't make much difference until I put the tie on. To go through and suggest that maybe (Johnson) had a different opinion during the process -- none of that matters."

As the Post's Juliet Eilperin notes, the details of the White House involvement remain murky:

It remains unclear how exactly senior Bush officials intervened in the decision. Burnett said he was instructed not to answer questions about the White House's involvement, and the White House maintains that Johnson was not influenced by his talks with White House officials.

"As Administrator Johnson said in his statement, he made an independent decision and his decision was based on the facts and the law," said Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Given Johnson's previous refusals to divulge what he and the White House discussed, don't expect Waxman to make much progress with Johnson in today's hearing. The real fireworks may be between committee Democrats and Republicans. Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) called yesterday's majority memo "a knee-jerk conclusion of nefarious intent by the White House derived from a manifestly incomplete investigation."