Read on Twitter
David Bernhardt set the tone early on at USGS when he forced the agency to turn over pre-publication data from a resource assessment of the North Slope, a violation of USGS fundamental science practices. This led to the resignation of a top scientist. 1/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/usgs-interior-zinke-alaska/
Bernhardt's defense? Those internal policies are basically meaningless.
"We are legally entitled to see anything," he wrote. 2/
"We are legally entitled to see anything," he wrote. 2/
Fast forward to Jim Reilly's confirmation hearing as director of the USGS. Reilly said he was "fully committed to scientific integrity." At the hearing, Sen. Murkowski stated: "My hope, my ask, is that you maintain that integrity within the agency." 3/ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/usgs-nominee-vows-insulate-science-political-pressure-0
But yesterday the @washingtonpost reported that Reilly is refusing to make public a research paper on polar bears that could have implications for oil and gas development on the North Slope. One former employee said Reilly's conduct was "unprecedented." 4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/30/usgs-polar-bears/
And as I recently reported for @WIRED, Reilly has been pushing to change the way the agency uses climate modeling in its research, despite objections from his own career scientists. His tenure, according to one scientist, has been "morale-crushing." End. https://www.wired.com/story/the-trump-team-has-a-plan-to-not-fight-climate-change/
