Baalzamon said:
Just because they are paid for by taxpayers doesn't mean they can say whatever the hell they choose to and represent it as the opinion/fact of the government. This is in no way limiting their freedom of speech on a personal level. My tax dollars pay for lots of things that I don't have access to, including I'm certain tons of studies the government has performed and not released to the public. And how you can say global warming isn't political is astonishing to me (Keep in mind, big difference between something being a political issue and something being false). There are absolutely enormous tax complications that can come out of global warming, such as emission taxes. Numerous industries have been given mandates (such as MPG standards) that ultimately arise from global warming issues. The fact of the matter is, even if global warming is 100% legit (and to take it a step further, it is indeed caused by humans which is the important matter), there are a buttload of enormous political issues involved with it. |
The point of research in public agencies like the EPA is that they should be politically neutral and report the data and facts as they are, not the opinion of the Government. Unless the data has legal (IP) issues or their are security concerns, there is no valid reason for the Government to prevent them from speaking on it. The follow up decisions and policies are for the administration of the day.
The only reason it's on the political agenda is because of vested interests make politicians put it on the political agenda to hide and misinform the public as to the evidence available. The bolded suggests they're at least somewhat successful if you even need to make that statement.