WASHINGTON, May 21, 2007
Did Smithsonian Alter Climate Change Show?
Ex-Administrator Says Museum Toned Down Global Warming Text Due To Fear Of Political Heat
-
A Smithsonian exhibit on climate forces at work in the Arctic was a victim of self-censorship, according to a former Smithsonian director. He said evidence of human contributions to climate changed was toned down to avoid repercussions from Congress and the Bush administration. (Smithsonian Institute)
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
Among other things, the script, or official text, of last year's exhibit was rewritten to minimize and inject more uncertainty into the relationship between global warming and humans, said Robert Sullivan, who was associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
Also, officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data, he said. In addition, graphs were altered "to show that global warming could go either way," Sullivan said.
"It just became tooth-pulling to get solid science out without toning it down," said Sullivan, who resigned last fall after 16 years at the museum. He said he left after higher-ups tried to reassign him.
Smithsonian officials denied that political concerns influenced the exhibit, saying the changes were made for reasons of objectivity. Some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted.
Sullivan said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian, whose $1.1 billion budget is mostly taxpayer-funded.
Rather, he said, Smithsonian leaders acted on their own. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully," he said.
The White House had no immediate comment Monday.
In recent months, the White House has been accused of trying to muzzle scientists researching global warming at NASA and other agencies.
The exhibit, "Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely," based partly on a report by federal scientists, opened in April 2006 — six months late, because of the Smithsonian's review — and closed in November, but its content remains available online. Among other things, it highlighted the Arctic's shrinking ice and snow and concerns about the effect on people and wildlife.
This is not the first time the Smithsonian has been accused of taking politics into consideration.
The congressionally chartered institution scaled down a 1995 exhibit of the restored Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, after veterans complained it focused too much on the damage and deaths. Amid the oil-drilling debate in 2003, a photo exhibit of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was moved to a less prominent space.
Sullivan said the changes in the climate-change exhibit were requested by executives who included then-museum Director Cristian Samper and his boss, former Undersecretary for Science David Evans. He said several scientists whose work was used in the exhibit objected to the changes.
Samper, now acting Smithsonian secretary, said he was not aware of scientists' objections, and he emphasized there was no political pressure to change the script. "Our role as a museum is to present the facts but not advocate a particular point of view," Samper said in an e-mail.
Evans refused to comment.
Some curators and scientists involved in the project said they believed nothing important was omitted. But they also said it was apparent that science was not the only concern.
"I remember them telling me there was an attempt to make sure there was nothing in there that would be upsetting to any politicians," said John Calder, a lead climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who consulted on the project. "They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."
One consultant, University of Maryland scientist Louis Codispoti, said he would have been less cautious. "I've been going to the Arctic since 1963, and I find some of the changes alarming," he said.
Randall Kremer, a spokesman for the natural history museum, said atmospheric science was outside the Smithsonian's expertise, so the museum avoided the issue of what is causing the Arctic changes.
Speaking to a Washington Post reporter at the time of the exhibit's opening last year, exhibit designer Barbara Stauffer said the reason more discussion about humans' role in climate change wasn't included was because "I think it undermines what we do in the exhibit if we start pointing fingers."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
It is a fact of physics that certain gases have a greenhouse effect.
It is a fact of physics that human activity is increasing the amount of these gases.
At least one scientist who has studied the record of the past has concluded that without the manmade increase in greenhouse gases over the last few thousand years, we would indeed be going into an ice age.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14281
This shows how strong an effect we have had already. So it might have had a positive effect up to a point, but that doesn't mean that continued warming will be positive. If you have hypothermia, you need a certain amount of warming, but that doesn't mean that being boiled would be healthy! Look at Venus, with its runaway greenhouse effect.
They are currently finding warming in planets far past ours and yet the media continues to whip the sheep into a frenzy about how it is ALL our fault...
Come on people, research involves using ALL the facts when submitting a report, not just those to prove your point. That kind of reporting is very biased and incredibly ignorant. It just shows the mentality of those who corroborate to install false facts.
I remember distinctly in the 70's when some of the very same scientists were preaching the next ice age....
They don't include all the facts and they should not opine about what they know until they include all the facts... period!
in the meantime google and check out the BBC Panorama doco from June 2006.
------------------
A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.
And Panorama reporter Hilary Andersson visits some of the first refugees of global warming who come from an island in Arctic Alaska which has been inhabited for 4,000 years ago but is now melting into the sea.
This programme was first broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 4 June 2006 at 2215 BST on BBC One.
---
Point fingers is optional-- the issue is telling us the truth as scientists discover it. The injection of a debate about "scientific uncertainty" serves politics, not science.
This is the saddest aspect of recent news from the Smithsonian-- not the personality cult around its former Secretary-- but the willingness to kiss any political object, no matter how loathsome and unprincipled.
---
Your opinion runs counter to most of the global scientific community. While you are free to have any misconception you like, don't try to call it "science" (with or without exclamation marks).
Denial of global warming is a pet GOP cause, because taking responsible measures against climate change threatens the GOP cash cow of Big Oil. Ultimately, the GOP argument against global warming is about money, not science.
Ironically enough, any postponement of climate measures will be even more costly for all of us, GOP bozos included.
Iraq will be a cake walk and Iraqi oil will pay for the whole thing......right?
- by hawksprings May 21, 2007 9:25 PM EDT
- Reply to this comment
See all 17 CommentsThe Smithsonian has alwasy been politically liberal.
The Hiroshima atomic exhibit tried to make it sound like the Japanese were just trying to protect their way of life, not mentioning attacks Pearl Harbor or Manchuria and China.
This article seems to conveniently ignore that fact of history.