PDA

View Full Version : Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him



Qtec
01-29-2006, 10:52 AM
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.







Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.way to go George.

pooltchr
01-29-2006, 12:25 PM
Global Warming is nothing more than a big hoax to support the environmentalist movement. If it's really getting warmer, can you explain why there are glaciers that are actually getting BIGGER???
Just wondering...
Steve

Fran Crimi
01-29-2006, 12:58 PM
Now wait a minute...there's a lot of things wrong with this editorial.

First, look at this. Is there an inconsistency here?

[ QUOTE ]
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him <hr /></blockquote>


NASA is now the Bush administration? When did that happen?


Second, When you're an employee of ANY organization, you are bound by their rules of confidentiality and decorum until you are no longer an employee, and in many cases, for years afterwards, if you sign an agreement upon getting hired.

In his case, if he feels such a need to speak-out, then at the least, he should quit first rather than balk about what his employer is allowing him or not allowing him to say publicly. Is he really speaking out of a sense of duty or is he posturing himself for something else?

Global warming? Maybe...maybe not. Anyone who lived through the winter of 2004 here in NYC will remember that it was one of the most frigid winters we ever had. In fact, I remember that Al Gore was scheduled to give a talk in NYC that winter on Global Warming, and decided to postphone it to a warmer time, since he would have been laughed out of the box, talking about warming trends during one of the coldest winters we've ever had.

Maybe NASA has a reason to silence this guy. Maybe they don't have absolute answers yet either. But whatever the reason, he is an employee of a company and he is bound by their rules as an employee.

Fran

JPB
01-29-2006, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Now wait a minute...there's a lot of things wrong with this editorial.

First, look at this. Is there an inconsistency here?

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him <hr /></blockquote>


NASA is now the Bush administration? When did that happen?


Second, When you're an employee of ANY organization, you are bound by their rules of confidentiality and decorum until you are no longer an employee, and in many cases, for years afterwards, if you sign an agreement upon getting hired.

In his case, if he feels such a need to speak-out, then at the least, he should quit first rather than balk about what his employer is allowing him or not allowing him to say publicly. Is he really speaking out of a sense of duty or is he posturing himself for something else?

Global warming? Maybe...maybe not. Anyone who lived through the winter of 2004 here in NYC will remember that it was one of the most frigid winters we ever had. In fact, I remember that Al Gore was scheduled to give a talk in NYC that winter on Global Warming, and decided to postphone it to a warmer time, since he would have been laughed out of the box, talking about warming trends during one of the coldest winters we've ever had.

Maybe NASA has a reason to silence this guy. Maybe they don't have absolute answers yet either. But whatever the reason, he is an employee of a company and he is bound by their rules as an employee.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

The article made it clear there is pressure from above. Also, he is not an employee of a company. He is a government employee funded by our tax dollars. We want government employees to be free to speak about waste, corruption, etc.... Sure, there are exceptions, but this is a much different situation than an employee of a private company.

This article highlights some of the problems of government funded science. There is an inherent danger when scientists take government money. Some recognize it, some don't. It is also tough when the government funding leads to the discovery of a fact that hurts the government's position. Whether it is a clear benefit of stem cell research or global warming, politicians aren't motivated by facts. Scientists must be. So there is conflict. Same thing when companies exert so much interest that government agencies pass off bad advice - say on the recommended food intake when they have been pressured by subsidized grain growers or whatever.

Of course, this topic isn't complete without a rereading of Atlas Shrugged for the parts about the science institute and harmonizer etc... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Fran Crimi
01-29-2006, 02:32 PM
When you accept a paycheck from an organization, you are also agreeing to abide by their rules. That's a contract. They pay you, and in return, you perform a service for them.

That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't work for them and don't accept the paycheck.

You don't care what the possible consequences are for allowing people to ignore company policies, because that's not your issue. Your issue is total freedom to do whatever the hell you please and whenever the hell you feel like it. And if they're stupid enough to pay you, that's their problem and not yours.

Well, guess what? This ain't Atlas Shrugged and it never will be.

Qtec
01-29-2006, 03:41 PM
The hoax is that there is nothing to worry about.

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change
Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 29, 2006; A01



Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer, who also advises the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said one of the greatest dangers lies in the disintegration of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold about 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet. If either of the two sheets disintegrates, sea level could rise nearly 20 feet in the course of a couple of centuries, swamping the southern third of Florida and Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.

While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future, Oppenheimer said. Greenland's current net ice loss is equivalent to an annual 0.008 inch sea level rise.

The effects of the collapse of either ice sheet would be "huge," Oppenheimer said. "Once you lost one of these ice sheets, there's really no putting it back for thousands of years, if ever."

Last year, the British government sponsored a scientific symposium on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," which examined a number of possible tipping points. A book based on that conference, due to be published Tuesday, suggests that disintegration of the two ice sheets becomes more likely if average temperatures rise by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit, a prospect "well within the range of climate change projections for this century."

The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

Some scientists, including President Bush's chief science adviser, John H. Marburger III, emphasize there is still much uncertainty about when abrupt global warming might occur.

"There's no agreement on what it is that constitutes a dangerous climate change," said Marburger, adding that the U.S. government spends $2 billion a year on researching this and other climate change questions. "We know things like this are possible, but we don't have enough information to quantify the level of risk."

This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen said senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.

When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.

"They're trying to control what's getting out to the public," Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. "They're not willing to say much, because they've been pressured and they're afraid they'll get into trouble."

But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with scientists to ensure they are not misquoted.

"People could see it as a constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."



Q

pooltchr
01-29-2006, 03:59 PM
Data can be manipulated to back up most anything. If you measure surface temperatures, this is probably true. Air temperatures might give a completely different picture. Also, 30 years is hardly a trend for a planet that has been around for thousands of years. You might as well say it was 10 degrees warmer today than yesterday, so it's definitely getting warmer. But it's 5 degrees colder this week than it was last week, so it's definitely cooling. 30 years in not a valid indicator for a trend like this. Look back to the 1800s when we had "dustbowls" caused by high temperatures and lower rainfall. Is it any warmer now than it was then?
Natural occurences such as increased volcanic activity can also cause fluctuations in temperatures. There is an agenda associated with convincing everyone that "global warming" exists. Buy into it if you like. I will not be manipulated like that.
Steve

JPB
01-29-2006, 06:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> When you accept a paycheck from an organization, you are also agreeing to abide by their rules. That's a contract. They pay you, and in return, you perform a service for them.

That's the way it works. If you don't like it, don't work for them and don't accept the paycheck.

You don't care what the possible consequences are for allowing people to ignore company policies, because that's not your issue. Your issue is total freedom to do whatever the hell you please and whenever the hell you feel like it. And if they're stupid enough to pay you, that's their problem and not yours.

Well, guess what? This ain't Atlas Shrugged and it never will be. <hr /></blockquote>


The tone of your post is getting a little angry and personal. Why? Also you are assuming what my issue is. You are partially correct, but are jumping about 3 extra steps. Yes, I do care a lot about freedom. I also make big distictions between private companies and publically funded agencies.


edited to add: I re-read my first response to your post. I wanted to make sure I dodn't address the issue in a personal way. I don't think I did, I believe I stuck to the issue. If I am incorrect, please advise.

wolfdancer
01-30-2006, 10:16 AM
Q, while the U.S. will not sign the Kyoto Pact, they did admit in 2002:
"In a report just released, the US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming. But it has refused to shift its position on Kyoto."


"IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL?

A report issued earlier this year by a United Nations scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said it was very likely that the 1990s were the hottest decade in history and 1998 the warmest year since reliable records began in 1861.

Global average temperatures in the 20th century rose by 0.6 degree Celsius plus or minus 0.2 degrees, mostly between the years 1910-1945 and 1976-2000.

Since 1950, according to the IPCC, minimum nighttime air temperatures over land have increased by 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, and the average maximum daytime temperatures by 0.1 degree Celsius per decade. The increase in sea surface temperatures is roughly half those levels.

DO ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE?

No. Reliable long-term records of temperature change are hard to find.

Some critics of the IPCC report say the temperature changes from the 20th century are within the bounds of normal variability. Others cite faulty research data, and believe surface temperatures alone do not provide the best gauge of climate change.

WHAT IS "THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT"?

The greenhouse effect is based on physics models showing that concentrations of certain gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), help trap the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere. The IPCC has said that all carbon dioxide emissions, some natural and some caused by mankind's burning of fossil fuels, are increasing and will heighten the greenhouse effect.

Critics say the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is unproven.

WILL TEMPERATURES CONTINUE TO RISE?

The IPCC predicts the global average surface temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in the period from 1990 to 2100. Those projections are based on estimated growth in greenhouse gas concentrations and computer climate models.

However, researchers point out that climate modelling is an inexact science, since many aspects of weather are not fully understood, including the impact of clouds, which can have both warming and cooling effects.

Also unclear is the role of ocean currents, as well as the reflective nature of ground cover, since dark ground cover such as forests absorbs more of the sun's heat than snow or ice cover, which reflect it back into space. Critics point to the wide range of temperature estimates as a sign of the inexactitude of the science, as well as to probability studies that indicate the temperature change will likely be at the low end of the range.

ARE OTHER CHANGES EXPECTED?

The IPCC also expects sea levels to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 metres by 2100, as ice caps and glaciers melt and increasing temperatures cause water to expand. Rising sea levels will put numerous small island states at risk and threaten heavily-populated coastal areas.

Incidence of severe weather is expected to rise sharply, making hurricanes and monsoons more devastating and raising the threat of heavy flooding.

The change in climate is also expected to hit agricultural production near the equator as water supplies come under increased strain. But more northern countries, including the United States, Canada and Russia, could see farm output rise.

Climate change is also expected to increase the extinction of animal species as the Earth's biodiversity suffers.

CAN WE PREVENT THE CHANGES?

The Kyoto Protocol is an attempt to rein in human-related carbon dioxide output, although even supporters of the pact acknowledge that it will have little impact on climate change, and that carbon dioxide output might have to fall by as much as 60 percent to stabilise global warming.

But proponents say the protocol is a first step toward reducing pollution and decoupling economic growth from the use of fossil fuels and moving towards renewable energy sources.

Scientists also say use of natural depositories, or "sinks", such as forests and farmlands, could at least temporarily store atmospheric carbon, although the long-term viability of these sinks remains in question.

Opponents say the treaty is an overly expensive insurance policy that will damage the international economy, still heavily dependent upon coal and crude oil, and that renewable energy technology is not advanced enough to support global needs."

To be fair, there is a group of scientists that oppose the greenhouse gases/global warming theory
and
the White house worrys that their original agrrement
to cut emissions by 7%, before Bush pulled out of
the pact, will hurt the economy.
and
there is another group of oil/energy executives that
claim there is no proof linking emissions to global
warming ( I wonder if they used to work in the tobacco
industry)
Seems to me with a majority of concerned scientists,
alarmed over global warming, 140 nations, signing
the Kyoto Pact..........it can't just be a left wing, liberal, environmantalist....agenda.
And keeping employees from "blowing the whistle" ain't
going to make the reality of it, go away.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3091/eq543frcescqq2ohrq1v7pad3ztt8i.jpg

Deeman3
01-30-2006, 11:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Q, while the U.S. will not sign the Kyoto Pact, they did admit in 2002:
"In a report just released, the US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming. But it has refused to shift its position on Kyoto." <font color="blue"> Wolfdancer,

When the U.S. voted on the Kyoto Accord, I beleive during the Clinton Adminsistration I remember the vote as being 98-0 agasin radification. Why was this? I mean, the senate was not filled with Republicans back then. Why did not a single U.S. Democratic Senator vote for the bill?? </font color>


"IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL?

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3091/eq543frcescqq2ohrq1v7pad3ztt8i.jpg <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-30-2006, 12:34 PM
Dee, I don't really know why...as I understand it....only China and the U.S. among the superpowers have not signed the pact.
I'd guess that for both countries...the reason is economics.
I'm sure that meeting those standards would have a negative impact on the economy.
Was that decision though, "carved in stone"? Does that make it correct, or that we need not be concerned about Global warming?

Deeman3
01-30-2006, 01:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dee, I don't really know why...as I understand it....only China and the U.S. among the superpowers have not signed the pact.
I'd guess that for both countries...the reason is economics. <font color="blue"> It's still the old, "the west willl need to clean up it's act" while the other developing countries, China, India, etc. can do what they want. </font color>
I'm sure that meeting those standards would have a negative impact on the economy. <font color="blue"> Especially, if we know that by signing the accord, we will abide and the others will continue to polute. </font color>
Was that decision though, "carved in stone"? Does that make it correct, or that we need not be concerned about Global warming? <font color="blue"> I think we need a good balance of concern along with viable alternatives such as atomic power. This is much safer now but fear keeps us from going forward like Europe has. Germany, France and others have safe and cheap atomic energy. Le'ts top pretenting that peanut oil or solar will save us. That's just so Holliwood types will have a $200,000 car to drive that makes them look like conservationists. Develop the North Slope, no one is ever gonna use that land except wildlife photographers. Rememeber the study that backfired, that the heat from the Alaskan pipeline saved thousands of caribou and other animals in the harsh winters.

Get Democrats out of cars. Where do they have to go anyway? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>


Deeman

<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
01-30-2006, 03:50 PM
So, what you are saying is that the USA, that contributes over 35% of these harmful emissions, should do nothing because China and India will do nothing? I guess China and India can use the same reasoning, so nothing will be done.
I skipped atomic energy, the day Sister Mary Leo (and her punishing pointer) taught that in school, but think it's not 100% safe...think 3 mile island....and then there is thermal pollution?
How are the north slope deposits going to reduce pollution? Better grade of Dinasours (sic) died up there?
I think the fact that we have surrendered out cities, to crime and urban decay....and inept politicians, etc......and we are all commuting back to those cites to work....is one huge source of pollution
another, and I don't know how prevalent this is.....in my home town, the houses were built early in the century, insulated badly, if at all...poorly fitted doors and windows......much of the heating escapes to the outside air.
I think standards should be set for homes....say, if you have a 1500 sq. ft home, and your energy usage for heating exceeds those standards.....???

Qtec
01-31-2006, 11:41 PM
Hi Fran, I hear what you're saying but in this case, the public,s right to know must apply. He isnt speaking for NASA or the Govt, he is stating his own opinion- a conclusion based on scientific evidence. He may be wrong but he has a right to speak and be heard.
Nodoby can say for sure what will happen if we continue to pollut to the point that major changes will be evident. Recently there was an article that reported polar bears having both sex organs- hemafrodite? Thats a bad sign. You would at least expect the Artic to be pretty clean!

Basically, the top US scientist on global warming is contradicting the Govt and they want to shut him up. Thats about the size of it. In a Democratic society they shouldnt be allowed to get away with it.

BTW, in NY 2004 they could have used a few of these. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4662086.stm

Q

Qtec
01-31-2006, 11:46 PM
Steve, nobody is trying to manipulate you except the Govt.
I,m not talking short term. Global warming will result in weather chaos.ie Extreme cold , drought, rain etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

Q

eg8r
02-01-2006, 05:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Fran, I hear what you're saying but in this case, the public,s right to know must apply. He isnt speaking for NASA or the Govt, he is stating his own opinion- a conclusion based on scientific evidence. He may be wrong but he has a right to speak and be heard.
<hr /></blockquote> I am only mentioning this because it makes no sense to say something that is only half right. No one has the right to be heard, they only have the right to free speech. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the top US scientist on global warming is contradicting the Govt and they want to shut him up. Thats about the size of it. In a Democratic society they shouldnt be allowed to get away with it.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't agree. A Democratic society does not state anyone can say whatever they want. You are attributing things to a democracy that are simply not there. If the guy wants to quit his job and then wait the agreed upon amount of time before he can speak about his studies/research at NASA, then more power to him. However, since he works for NASA, and no doubt signed some sort of non-disclosure agreement, NASA legally can control what the man gives out to the public. This is no different than any other company.

Just to be clear, free speech is a right given to an individual as an individual. It is NOT given to an EMPLOYEE. There is no doubt in my mind that this man has signed some non-disclosure agreement, and with that he has given up his right to free speech with respect to the work he performs with that company.

eg8r

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 07:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> So, what you are saying is that the USA, that contributes over 35% of these harmful emissions, should do nothing because China and India will do nothing? <font color="blue"> No, not saying they should do nothing but if 98 senators agreed that it was not right to sign the bill, doesn't that make you suspicious of the accord? </font color> I guess China and India can use the same reasoning, so nothing will be done. <font color="blue"> You act as if America has donw nothing to curb polution. This is not true. We have limited coal burning, addeed scrubbers, set and met clean air standards. </font color>
I skipped atomic energy, the day Sister Mary Leo (and her punishing pointer) taught that in school, but think it's not 100% safe...think 3 mile island....and then there is thermal pollution? <font color="blue"> As you guessed, nothing is 100% safe, not even solar. However, with a couple of 25 year old exceptions, atomic reactors have proven to be very reliable and now supply a great deal energy outsidethe U.S. </font color>
How are the north slope deposits going to reduce pollution? Better grade of Dinasours (sic) died up there? <font color="blue"> This would provide more oil for our needs that is not dependent on the Middle East. I don't think even you beleive we will not use.need oil for the forseeable future. </font color>
I think the fact that we have surrendered out cities, to crime and urban decay. <font color="blue"> This surrender is a part of the social welfare system put into place in the 1960's and is accomplishing exactly what it was predicted to do, make a totally dependent class fo people out of the least among us. </font color> ...and inept politicians, etc......and we are all commuting back to those cites to work....is one huge source of pollution
another, and I don't know how prevalent this is.....in my home town, the houses were built early in the century, insulated badly, if at all...poorly fitted doors and windows......much of the heating escapes to the outside air. <font color="blue"> Very true. </font color>
I think standards should be set for homes....say, if you have a 1500 sq. ft home, and your energy usage for heating exceeds those standards.....??? <font color="blue">I think the market has set standards for newer homes as it would cost triple what wepay now for heat/air.energy if we still used the same insulation standards as in our youth.

Perhaps the answer is rationing the fuels to those who have a need? </font color>


Deeman
<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
02-01-2006, 08:15 AM
NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
By Chuck Schoffner
Associated Press
posted: 27 October 2004
12:53 pm ET


IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." <font color="blue"> </font color> Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public. <font color="blue">ie 'we dont want to hear any info that disagrees with our position'. </font color>
"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.

White House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate change, noting that President Bush pointed out in a 2001 speech that greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.

Last December, the administration said it was planning a five-year program to research global warming and climate change.

Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry in the presidential election.

"He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change problems," Hansen said.


They used the same MO with the CIA and Iraq!

Q.... BTW, NASA doesnt own the weather!

wolfdancer
02-01-2006, 08:47 AM
Dee, as usual you make some very good points.
I'm aware that we are trying as a nation to reduce emissions, also that there has been opposition from some of the major polluters, over cost, etc. We still contribute over 30% of the greenhouse gases.....so maybe it's not enough.
Meeting the pact standards, might result in economic chaos, and while in their hearts, some of our Senators would have liked to sign......
How about the 140 nations, including Russia, that did sign?
Re: the north slope...agreed it would make us less dependant, on middle east oil....and eventually will have to be developed.....but the thread was about pollution from emissions.
Re: your "designed 60's program"....I might agree if the republicans had been in power then....I actually think that while the welfare system, was designed to help....it was abused, and instead produced dependency on the system....but
this was the intent,why?
Eventually the high costs of fuel, highway congestions, vehicle maintenance costs, etc...will force people back into the cities, and the cities can be restored.
I live in a new home.....and can't believe how little it costs to heat, A/C in relation to what my Mom paid for a much smaller house....it's the older houses that should be brought up to some standard, esp when there is subsidized energy.
Rationing....I'm sure you don't mean for the affluent?

eg8r
02-01-2006, 08:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q.... BTW, NASA doesnt own the weather! <hr /></blockquote> Ummmm, no kidding. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif However they do own the research and studies conducted by those that work for them.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
02-01-2006, 09:10 AM
Q, every company has one of these types. They think they know better than everyone else and all the others are idiots. They act like spoiled children with authority issues who never grow up.

I betcha 10-1 this guy has some disciplinery problems on the inside so he thinks he can stick it to them on the outside. He's dreaming. He's going to get his butt fired if he keeps this up. He's been warned.

If global warming really is a problem, then it won't help our country by pushing the panic button and pushing for laws that will shut down half the businesses in this country, and put millions of people out of work. What makes you think that this isn't being addressed between the government and major corporations privately to put plans into place for gradual improvements over time so not to cause an economic disaster?

Just because YOU don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

If China isn't complying then if we put the noose around our companies too fast, they'll all send their production to China (which they will have to do in order to survive)who is hoping that will happen. Then China becomes the new superpower. Do you want a new global superpower who throws away baby girls?


Fran

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dee, as usual you make some very good points.
I'm aware that we are trying as a nation to reduce emissions, also that there has been opposition from some of the major polluters, over cost, etc. We still contribute over 30% of the greenhouse gases.....so maybe it's not enough. <font color="blue">You are correct. It is not enough but the balance of what we will spend vs. the environment is a tough call to make. I don't know how many jobs we lose for each $100 million we spend in the private sector but I beleive that is why we have not signed on. </font color>
Meeting the pact standards, might result in economic chaos, and while in their hearts, some of our Senators would have liked to sign......
How about the 140 nations, including Russia, that did sign? <font color="blue">Yes, but the majority have no stake in the downside (loss of jobs). Even Russia may or may not comply. Understand the accord is not fair and balanced. It's requirements for the U.S are different from those of most other countries. </font color>
Re: the north slope...agreed it would make us less dependant, on middle east oil....and eventually will have to be developed.....but the thread was about pollution from emissions. <font color="blue"> You are right. </font color>
Re: your "designed 60's program"....I might agree if the republicans had been in power then....I actually think that while the welfare system, was designed to help....it was abused, and instead produced dependency on the system....but
this was the intent,why? <font color="blue"> The intent was to placate people in the streets that were burning down buildings and shooting at firemen. It worked for a while. It was the intent of the programs to give a hand up. However, legislatures kept pilling money on with no accountability even though some liberals and many, many conservatives saw we were establishing a welfare state and fostering dependency instead of requiring recipients to get educations. More money was piled on to encourage having babies that they could not afford. Unemployed minorities were left to stew in slums with checks that encouraged addiction while money for revitilization of urban areas had to wait until the 1990's for serious consideration. </font color>
Eventually the high costs of fuel, highway congestions, vehicle maintenance costs, etc...will force people back into the cities, and the cities can be restored. <font color="blue">Yes, and while many are still poor, the recent requirements for workfare, I beleive, have left these cities with more promise as many more people are prepared for resurgence in the cities, when it comes. </font color>
I live in a new home.....and can't believe how little it costs to heat, A/C in relation to what my Mom paid for a much smaller house....it's the older houses that should be brought up to some standard, esp when there is subsidized energy.
Rationing....I'm sure you don't mean for the affluent? <font color="blue">Rationing especially for the affluent, I would especially like to see the Barbara Strisands have to live in a 3000 sq. ft. home. I believe you would heard them scream then. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Deeman
....only have 2950 sq. ft. and only one vacation home....

Qtec
02-01-2006, 09:55 AM
Fran, the guy is a very well known scientist, has won many awards and is well respected in the scientific community. He has been saying the same things for 22 years without any problems until GW became Pres. IMO he has more credibility on Global Warming than the whole Bush Admin put together.
A sample,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/hansen_james.html
http://www.iowalum.com/daa/hansen.html

Companies are only interested in short term profits. The US car makers resisted for years installing seatbelts in their cars, despite the evidence that it would save lives. I certainly dont trust them to save the planet especially when its going to cost them money.

Q

wolfdancer
02-01-2006, 11:20 AM
Deeman
....only have 2950 sq. ft. and only one vacation home....

2950 is huge....how big is the outhouse down there, a two-seater?

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 12:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Deeman
....only have 2950 sq. ft. and only one vacation home....

2950 is huge....how big is the outhouse down there, a two-seater? <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I'm the proud possesser of a three holer with bidet (water hose hooked up to the third hoel!) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Deeman

Fran Crimi
02-01-2006, 03:45 PM
Well, you can trust us or you can trust China. Which would you prefer?

Interestingly, here's who he received one of his awards from, thanks to your link:


Journals Distributed by AGU
Russian Journal of Earth Science - Original papers in geology, geophysics, and geochemistry, including interdisciplinary aspects of mineralogy and stratigraphy. (6 issues per year, online)

Russian Geology and Geophysics - Theoretical and methodological research and reviews with special attention to Asia and Siberia which includes a print companion. (Monthly, online with print option)

Chinese Journal of Geophysics - A comprehensive journal on solid and applied geophysics, space and atmospheric physics, ocean physics, and related fields. (6 issues per year, online)

So he's in bed with the Russians and the Chinese. Interesting indeed. So, it looks like he'd rather accept awards from these people than criticize the Chinese gov't for refusing to address global warming.

Do I smell an agenda? You bet I do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 05:59 AM
Thanks for the post Q. I think the importance of this information is how it highlights the stop gag White House measures to suppress any information contrary to the agenda of the Bush Administration, aka, "How America Was Dumb Enough to Start A War In Iraq" and "How the White House Retaliated On Joe Wilson By Outing His Wife" and all the other efforts to stop investigations, claim executive previledge to avoid turning over documents involved in legal investigations, etc. Supressing the truth, has been the hallmark of this administration. Regardless of the Scientist's agenda, the administration has, no doubt, gained a reputation, rightfully so, for this kind of "War Against Truth" and supression of the facts. There have been many books, written by many grunts, in government, and out, who have come up against these methods of control, and manipulation of facts and opinions.

Gayle in Md....