The Washington Post (e.g., see here, here, and here) and the Miami Herald, among others, have recently reported on Florida Governor Rick Scott's administration's unwritten policy of forbidding the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employees from using the words "climate change" and "global warming" in any official documents, studies, or reports.
Governor Scott denies any wrongdoing, pointing instead to his administration's record on the environment. "I’m into solutions, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do."
While the Herald's report contains multiple sources all describing similar pressure and instructions from administration officials, proving the existence of a policy of censorship may be difficult as administration officials seem unwilling to discuss the specifics of the issue or to communicate about it in writing. As such, the only available evidence as of yet appears to be hearsay.
Regardless of whether Scott's administration is pressuring DEP employees to avoid usage and discussion of certain terms, as the Washington Post points out, this is hardly the first time a Republican-led administration has interfered with scientific communication. The Post goes so far as to call this a play "straight out of the Bush playbook," referring the Bush 43's administration's "edit[ing] scientific reports to minimize the link between human activity and climate change."
In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, University of Miami professor Harold Wanless finds the practice of censoring DEP officials unconscionable, perhaps worse: "It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change. It’s criminal at this point."
Professor Wanless raises a point worthy of further exploration: assuming the Scott administration does have an unwritten policy censoring scientific reports, in what ways would this policy be "criminal?" Would it be a violation of DEP employees' first amendment rights? Would it also make the administration guilty of gross negligence, given the overwhelming scientific evidence linking human activities to serious global climatic changes? And finally, would it be evidence of corruption, suggesting the administration has been captured by private interests benefitting from the status quo of limited or no action to mitigate and adapt to climate change?
Governor Scott, along with other prominent Republicans, has adopted the "I'm not a scientist" mantra in an attempt to exonerate himself of responsibility for any negative effects his state and its citizens might suffer from climate change. Governor Scott should not be faulted for not being a climate scientist. A healthy society needs elected officials with a variety of backgrounds. But not trusting input from experts, and even going so far as to attempt to silence them, is indeed inexcusable. It might even be criminal.