If there is one area of government where Bush admin political staff absolutely have to be rooted out, it is in those departments responsible for matters scientific. Bush has done untold damage to American science and science is too important to this nation's well being to let that damage continue.

This is one that journos (and progressives in general) need to keep an eye on. Light of day & all that. Her every official move ought to be tracked and reported. The new guy says he's all about transparency, right?

"Senior Advisor" doesn't immediately sound like a job with civil-service protections. But it probably pays pretty nicely, which is a good deal if you intend to loaf at taxpayer expense.

On the flip side, those that were demoted during the Bush years because they stood up to corruption etc (a woman who tried to blow the whistle on no-bid contracts in Iraq comes to mind) should be advanced to higher positions or at least to their original spot.

If she's not forced to resign or shitcanned, she'll be tasked to write reports on the effects of metals in paperclips on the office environment - hopefully.

I have heard that they pretty much remove any responsibility from burrowers.

I keep harking back to the movie Office Space and the character Milton Waddams, an incompetent, spacey underachiever who was finally put in a basement area , with no lights, air conditioning or phone in an effort to make him leave of his own accord. Any Bushy that cant' or won't do his or her job to minimum standards and is protected by civil (?) service, should be sent to Coventry similarly.

Ohh but she can be RIF'd. That is right folks Reduction in Force, she is brand new to the position and that means she can be the first to go. Especially after they review her so-called credentials.

Too bad we the citizens continue to vote in opportunists who have absolutely no desire to protect us from those same people.

If anyone out there actually believe anything systemic has changed in Washington with the new regime, lets just see if any laws are passed which will protect us from this type of scenario in this and/or future administrations. Won't happen because the citizens of this country have taken a back seat to the Washington cronies for a couple of generation now... all that will be done in this and future admimistrations is cosmetic makeovers. they will refuse to actually limit their own power... IMHO

Working inside a federal department, please let me assure you that like in any other workplace in America, there are many, many ways to deal with someone who has burrowed in. Titles and pay mean nothing to public policy when you are given routine and mundane things to do onto which you can never stamp your ideological impramatur.

We have our Dwight Schrutes, too. And we contain them.

Excuse me, but if she ignores scientific evidence in her work, then why could she not be fired FOR CAUSE (incompetence)?

Just a suggestion.

They can also make her working life a living Hell (quite legally).

Obama could pull a "Bushie": issue an Executive Order changing the rules and then kick her the fuck out. After all, he's the Commander in Chief Decider. Throw it right back at 'em and say "TAKE THAT, mofo's!"

Aslong as there is strong, motivated leadership at that particular agency, she can and will be contained.

Unfortunately, this is a big problem across the Government right now, it's not just political appointees burrowing in...OMB had a policy of hiring SES executives off the street, at a higher rate of pay, on 3+ year contracts and placing them in different agencies...we were lucky enough to get a friend of John Ashcroft's, an evangelical minister as our Director of IT for a year...thankfully, I work at a large, powerful agency that quickly had him removed when they realized he did not have the qualifications to do the job - still it took over a year.

These are the ones we need to worry about burrowing in - they are true believers and didn't have confirmation scrutiny.

She should be stationed in Antarctica, directly atop one of the now unstable ice shelves. As you sow, so shal ye reap.

I say leave her alone, but assign her to keep a very close on-the-scene watch for temperature changes in the artic, in a rowboat.

Thanks Rusty, I looked her up too and found that she is a quite respectable scientist and has done very interesting work. She deserves a place at NSF. To all you "believers" in anthropogenic global warming (as opposed to "deniers" of same), there is nothing wrong with being skeptical in science, in fact it is required! I find Kathie Olsen's being pilloried by tpm agw "believers" to be insulting, to me and to her, especially since most of these critics are just following political leaders like Gore and have no idea where the scientific debate is now (hint: it is far from settled).

Since she's changing over her status from a Schedule C to Career, I'm curious if that means her status changes, too. New hires from out of government are generally hired on a career-conditional basis. Through the first year, they aren't afforded anywhere near the kind of protections career permanent feds are. It's only after 3 years in that their status changes to career permanent, and then the full 5 CFR protections kick in). At least, that's the way my limited General Schedule brain comprehends it.

In our agency, I've seen 2 people shitcanned within a year because it was clear that they were either way out of their league, or just real "problem children" (like, had problems showing up AT ALL for work). One of these was a SES.

I agree with the other folks about the meaninglessness of titles and the reference to Office Space. I've know people who've gotten excellent or outstanding evals every rating period just so it would be easier for them to find a job elsewhere. OTOH, I've also known people who were so PNG'ed in their home agency after a detail that they were effectively assigned to a GS-15 job which consisted of watching paint dry on a wall.

In a previous administration, I recall a Deputy Assistant Secretary (career SES) really pissing off the (appointee, Senate confirmed) Assistant Secretary to whom he was subordinate. They were REALLY oil and water. I think because SES'ers are Departmental appointments, it's a lot easier to switch around their duty station than lower level feds (if you can believe it). In any event, I heard some time after I left the agency that he had been reassigned from a nice big office in main HQ near the WH to a little office in Suitland, Maryland. I suspect the new assignment had something to do with whatever his next career moves were.

No fuzz, science isn't verified by consensus. Check out Bill Bryson's History of Just About Everything for many examples of this. Evolution happened and happens, but agw is still just a position among its many adherents, and a political one for a lot of them.

They should make her the spokesperson for the agency. Make her get out there and loudly speak about the Obama administration's view of global warming. Tweak her job title and make her job responsibilities include the defense of global warming. The President sets the agenda. She is now just one small cog in the wheel.

Open an office in Wasilla, Alaska, and send her ass up there. If she gets bored, she can use her "scientific knowledge" to open a meth lab.

Promote her to management and fire the broad.

God, I love reading the global warming trolls. Some of them, like rozinabq, can dish out some pretty sophisticated bull with such earnestness that the unaware might start taking them seriously. Or a fellow commentator might take the bait and argue. But to argue is merely a lure to allow more bull to be served.

rozinabq does not appear to have a prior history of commenting at TPM, so it's harder to speculate as to his/her agenda. Of course, my comment might lead rozinabq to offer some kind of explanation. Which, of course, may or may not be true.

Now that Obama's been sworn in I'm sure we'll be seeing the return of the trolls. Respect their sometimes quite artful handiwork, but by and large it's best to leave them alone.

As for Kathie L. Olsen, her bio shows that, on one hand, she's an educated and accomplished person, but with no training in physical science or climatology, or any field directly or indirectly related to the issues involved in climate change. Her training is in psychology, neuroscience, genetics and behavior. Great stuff, and if she's a man made climate change skeptic she's entitled to her opinion but I'd suspect her critique lacks much technical heft.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/olsen/olsen_bio.jsp

WineDarkSea: "It's always possible that we both might learn something from an honest exchange."

Absolutely -- that's what I cultivate in my classes. The trouble with discussing global warming is that the right has heavily exploited its technical complexities in a largely successful effort to avoid federal action. A well-oiled propaganda machine pumps out talking points that argue on behalf of theories that, simply put, have little if any credence in mainstream scholarly circles. These theories are often presented by people whose scholarly credentials are decidedly questionable (at least in climate-related disciplines), but who have strong skills in media manipulation.

To get a sense of how this plays out, take a look at the discussion regarding a recent debate on global warming where credible scholars were pitted against the anti-warming noise machine. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/23/132854/806

I have found that it's very hard to substantively debate global warming on general-interest blogs. Thus, my tendency has been to make a quick comment and pass along the link (see below) to a web site that may be one of the best sources of scientifically credible analysis on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/

Any talk of Dr. Olsen's academic and scientific qualifications is beside the point. When Dr. Olsen was in a policy making position, she acted as a partisan hack. She promoted a scientifically dubious report funded by oil companies that cast doubt on climate change. And she angered Senator McCain when she refused to comment in a hearing about a respected report that supported climate change. She either lacks the scientific ability to adequately judge (which I doubt), or more likely and more damning, she compromises her scientific integrity to please her political masters.

Now that she has left her policy making position, she cannot be allowed to retain a career position in the same agency where she formerly set policy. It is simply the risk that people in policy-setting positions assume as part of the job. It isn't fair to the other career professionals whom she oversaw and now will have to work with (probably many of whom saw their own careers at risk when their own scientific conclusions disagreed with the Bush administration's climate policy).

Yes yes of course it is weather that is chaotic not climate, sorry for the goof. But it is hubris to assert that one knows for certain that people's activities are the primary cause or even a major cause of either weather or climate variations.

If the update to the post is correct, and Dr. Olsen is protected by civil service, then getting her out of the NSF will be extremely difficult. I'm no expert on civil service rules, but just being a partisan hack probably isn't grounds for dismissal of a civil servant. If this is correct, then it would seem like the best course is to put her where she administers funding for research where she has expertise and training, like neuroscience, and keep her away from making policy or funding decisions about climate science, where she has no training and apparently has political axes to grind.

A SES is not what I would consider burrowing into an agency.

If I were her and wanted to burrow in, I'd take a PAYCUT and get a GS-15 position. I think she's made a mistake by not stepping down into a GS position if she wants to burrow into the NSF.

People turn down SES because it's a more vulnerable position. SES requires the employee sign a statement allowing the gov't to transfer at will by the agency to just about anywhere.

WDS said
By analogy, not being absolutely certain about AGW, its exact magnitude, or its precise effects and consequences does not mean it is smart to conduct public policy as if there were no risks in continue to run up atmospheric CO2 concentrations to levels way above those anytime in human history.

You seem to equate the reliability of QM with AGW, now that's a stretch by any measure. The risks you refer to are quite unknown. Please, more humility.

WDS, Yes, I do call for more humility in the face of vast uncertainty in how the climate system works. Those catastropic impacts you refer to are the most extreme estimates of what might happen. You fault me for not betting money on a silly challenge, as if money is the measure of one's intellectual committment and call me a name, responses hardly befitting a rational discussion. Why don't you expand your information horizon and look at Tony Watts' science website: wattsupwiththat.com?

First time comment on here and it looks like WineDarkSea is fighting the good fight for us all. It's people like this 'Dr.' Kathie Olsen that helped the prior administration create the atmosphere of lies and deceit that has led to a world where people will buy any story you want to sell them as long as it allows them to continue living comfortably, ignoring the warning signs. The argument isn't about whether or not climate change is occurring or if its man-made, the point is we have the opportunity to do something to change the vicious cycle of paying to import energy and thereby supporting the enemy that wants to destroy you. It's quite simple really.
In Case You Missed It

WDS, Ad hominem gets you nowhere in rational argument, nor does taunting, except perhaps on comment areas like this one. This isn't the place to debate a complex issue anyhow but I think we can agree that we are talking about complex matters, i.e., processes in the real world that are imperfectly understood, and that there are highly qualified people on all "sides" of the global warming issue (it does have more than two "sides," even among the IPCC list). Ultimately the question of contemporary human contribution to climate can and will be resolved by relevant data either confirming or disconfirming predictions. Right now I know of one interesting prediction, by Don Easterbrook, a glacial geologist (emeritus) at Western Washington U. who doesn't buy AGW: that there will be a cooling trend for the next 20-30 years. Let's watch, shall we?

The scientists that doubt the validity of climate change/global warming, despite the overwhelming evidence, remind me of the so-called scientists who, while employed by the tobacco industry, denied any connection between cigarette smoking and chronic lung/cardiovascular disease.

Most of these scientists have personal political or economic agendas, and as such, their credibility is somewhat suspect.

MOVE HER OFFICE TO DAUBI !!
LET HER EXPERIENCE GLOBAL WARMING FIRST HAND.
GIVE HER A SMALL BONUS TO MOVE, OR ELSE.
USE THE SYSTEM.

Time for a new cabinet office
The "Endangered Republican Jobs Core"

I never thought I would hear of Dr. Olsen described as a loyal Bushie. As several have pointed out, she has a published record in science that has nothing to do with climate change and she was never responsible for policy on climate change. Instead she has been a career administrative scientist working as a program officer at NSF where she promoted funding of young researchers in neuroscience, her area of training.

Sometime she made the decision not to return to academia (NSF program officers are typically several year appointments where the scientist takes a leave from their university) and to become a professional science administrator. So she went to NASA, where again she had nothing to do with climate change, but instead worked to establish biological research, both for space missions, but also for understanding in greater detail that psychological and biological effects of space travel, something that we will need to understand if we ever pursue years long space missions.

So how did she end up in the Bush Science and Technology Council. One may fault her for being in the Bush administration at all, I doubt I could have done that, but it was a choice to raise her profile so that she could eventually move to a Science administration job, such as the number 2 spot at NSF where she ended up when she left the President's office of Science and Technology. Again while in the POST she had no responsibility for climate change. To call her a climate change denier strikes me as decidedly odd. I can find no statement on her part one way or another about climate change. It's not her area of expertise and I know of now public statements on her part about climate change.

What I think we are seeing here is a person who made the choice for a career in government science administration and ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. So she resigned her NSF position to allow her to take a different science administration position and now she is caught in the efforts to ferret out the Bush loyalists hidden in our government. I could be wrong, but I know of no evidence that Dr. Olsen is a Bush loyalist. I imagine that she is as surprised with this claim as are many of the people who have known her over the years.

There are many ways to rid this woman out of NSF:
1. Abolish her position. That would put her on the street.
2. Review her Resume and see if it meets the minimum professional scientific requirements of the of the position that she is assigned to. For example, a person who supports the propostion that the earth is flat, would not be considered suitable for a position responsible for supporting the NSF position that the earth is round.
3. Don't give her SES level assignments. This will lead to a review that downgrades or abolishes her position.

Elana: I appreciate very much TPM's focus on this issue. Olsen has been a political hack masquerading in the realm of federal science agencies for too long. I honestly don't know why she wants to hang around a group of people who despise her. Maybe she's close to retirement or an early out. Quite craven.

Seems to me that if she's a "senior adviser", WTF? Just ignore her "advice". Don't include her in any memo lists, except agency-wide ones of course. Don't invite her to any meetings. Give her a tiny office back by the janitor's closet.

If nobody talks to her, she'll eventually leave.

Even better, if everyone turns their back to her whenever she walks by, she'll leave even faster. I'm big on shunning for the Bushies.

Ok, so she burrowed in as a "senior advisor" in the NSF's Office of Information and Resource Management. I only wish I could get a job myself.


The National Science Foundation could use her as a sounding board for the clunk of really badly thought out policies that the Republicans would actually be right to object to... if it were possible to distinguish valid criticism from dreck.

"Uncertainty" is just an excuse for continuing to wallow in our appalling overconsumption of carbon energy.

What I tell every global warming denier is simple Even if there is no anthropomorphic global warming, what we are being asked to do (i.e. reduce our use and wastage of carbon energy) is something that we should do anyway for at least a dozen other good reasons.

Of course the science is very clear that there is AGW, but even if you doubt it or deny it, we still should reduce carbon energy use. What possible argument is there in favor of our continuing to burn up the planet's resources?

Selected intelligence led us to war, is anyone surprised they were glad to get that phony study, because it matched their needs, not the truth?

Ministry of Truth, ala Dick Cheney.

I say no computer, no phone for this Bush hag.

Just a big-screen TV tuned only to MSNBC.