VII. Conclusion After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the scientific information within the particular media over which that office had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change.

We also conclude that inappropriate political posturing or advantage was the proximate cause in at least some of these actions. While we did not find that all Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ adjustments to climate change news releases were politically motivated, the preponderance of the evidence does, however, point to politics inextricably interwoven into the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ news dissemination process at that time. Climate change scientists and affected career Public Affairs Officers believed that, as a result of their proposed media releases being altered, delayed, or converted to other (lesser) media, their work was in fact compromised for political advantage—especially when it conflicted with the Administration’s policies or priorities. We uncovered no direct evidence to substantiate their beliefs, but the circumstantial evidence (to include the apparent mendacity of one or more senior Public Affairs officials) gives far more credence to the position of the climate change scientists than it does to the argument set forth by NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs
47
(that the changes and delays were due to the heavy volume and poor quality of the news releases drafted by the scientists). We maintain this opinion even while recognizing that some of the complaining scientists may have had their own political or pecuniary agendas as well.

We also note that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ unilateral actions in editing or downgrading press releases or denying media access on a known controversial topic—and doing so without collaborating with the submitting scientists (as then required by NASA policy)—minimizes, in our view, the persuasive weight of their arguments as to volume or quality as the cause. Moreover, their failure to adhere to a prescribed process—where the goal was transparency and “consensus”—resulted in complaints, negative media attention, Congressional oversight, and, ultimately, this investigation.

The actions of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs also had an impact on many levels of Agency operations. News releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution. Some scientists claimed to have self-censored; others simply gave up. Worse, trust was lost, at least temporarily, between an Agency and some of its key employees and perhaps the public it serves. Congressional relations, at least at the staff level, were also strained. Finally, these allegations proved to be an unnecessary but significant distraction to an Agency that was otherwise fully engaged in other areas of science, exploration, aeronautics, and space operations, each with its own breathless operational pace, in which safety was paramount. Certainly, all those actions and effects were inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Space Act and other NASA regulations requiring the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA’s activities and research, especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest. In sum, when it pertains to dissemination of the Nation’s hard science, none of this course of conduct was in the public’s best interest.

Furthermore, to the extent that these allegations transpired for more than 1 year, the Agency as a whole (particularly the Science Mission Directorate and the Office of Public Affairs) bears responsibility for not appropriately elevating these matters to senior management for resolution.

Also, the speed with which NASA changed its policies is evidence of the importance the Agency attributed to the real or perceived political interference problems within the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and climate change science communities. Once the conflict between the scientists and the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs became a focus of the leadership within the Office of the Administrator, aggressive steps were taken to study the problem and take corrective action. The revised policies clearly improved NASA’s processes pertaining to their public dissemination of science and science-related information; and their yet-to-be-tested dispute resolution mechanism between the science and Public Affairs communities seems to be a significant step in transparency and open communications. So far, the new policies have been well received by the various constituencies affected, and we have yet to learn of a complaint since their implementation.

POLITICAL appointees tried to alter and spin what was put out from NASA - ESPECIALLY global warming and climate news- in ways that would spin it in the administration's favor.