How High Up Goes Climate Change Censorship?

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


In September the journal Nature reported that a government agency was suppressing science on links between global warming and hurricanes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength the storms, Nature said. At the time, NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher disputed the story, saying the report was only an internal document and that the agency could not take an official position on the issue. But new evidence has turned up that contradicts his claim.

According an update released by the Society of Environmental Journalists:

House Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) on Oct. 4 released the text of a NOAA internal e-mail that seemed to directly contradict that assertion, since it said that the document had been cleared for publication by NOAA top brass. . .Gordon’s letter outlines a detailed sequence of events that seems to indicate that the disputed (report) had passed clearance for publication all the way up to Lautenbacher’s level, and that it was stopped when clearance was sought from political appointees at the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA.

We should soon see who at Commerce was responsible; NOAA must comply with Gordon’s request for more info by Monday.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest