Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

Posted by Zonk on from the shush dept.

Lucre Lucifer writes "The top climate scientist at NASA, James E. Hansen, says that the Bush Administration tried to silence him(NY Times) after he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. 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."

9 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. Re:To be expected, of course, but... by nuklearfusion · · Score: 4, Informative
    If he's speaking on behalf of NASA, he should be speaking about the science, not policy. If it were a matter of something else NASA does causing the effects, fine.

    From TFA:
    "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."

    --

    There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

  2. Re:Open and Shut by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Informative
    They just don't want scientists running around spouting off all kinds of ideas/theories only to result in the media latching on to these ideas as some sort of "official NASA position." [...] At least that's all this seems to be about to me.


    That's possible... on the other hand, the Bush administration has had a long and illustrious history of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that contradict its own world view. Their truculent behavior has been widely protested by scientists before, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're at it again.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness by reporter · · Score: 5, Informative
    My take on this strange behavior of Washington is the following. Clearly, global warming is a reality. The majority of scientists believe that it is happening right now, and given the choice of believing the bigwigs at MIT and the loudmouths on the Rush Limbaugh show, I support the bigwigs at MIT.

    I certainly do not believe that our elected leaders are idiots. If they have the IQ to engage in mud politics to win an election, they have the IQ to understand the seriousness of global warning.

    The problem is that American agribusiness is a huge and powerful lobby.

    Think about this scenario. Washington concedes that global warming is real. Then, immediately, Washington must switch to a carbon-neutral fuel system like ethanol. To get enough ethanol, Washington would need to drop the 54-cent tariff per gallon of ethanol imported from Brazil. Dropping the tariff would cause Midwest corn farmers and their lobby to cry, "Uncle Sam!"

    To understand the power and influence of American agribusiness, consider the Japanese ban on American beef. Tokyo demanded that we Americans test 100% of our cattle meat destined for the Japanese market. The management of Creekstone Farms actually proposed a plan to test all its cattle meat so that it could be exported to Japan. Tokyo was happy. Creekstone Farms was happy, and its management would happily shoulder 100% of the cost of the tests in order to re-enter the highly profitable Japanese market. Yet, the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to sell the necessary chemicals (for the tests) to Creekstone so that its chemists could conduct the tests. The reason is that American Agribusiness was very unhappy. Who would have thought that Washington would be so opposed to free enterprise and capitalism? The management of Creekstone had every right to satisfy its primary customer: Japan. After all, in a free market, businesses make their own decisions about how to win business. Yet, Uncle Sam blocked this decision (to test all cattle for madcow disease) by a private business.

    If you aren't angry yet, consider this fact. If Washington dropped the 54-cent tariff per gallon of imported ethanol, everyone would pay $1.50 per gallon of fuel for their vehicles. What's the cost of fuel now? $2.70 per gallon and climbing.

  4. Re:Open and Shut by niiler · · Score: 5, Informative
    The guy's area is climatology. And as I see it, he was just talking about his research and making it relevant as scientists are wont to do. NASA people have been talking about climate change in meetings and in departmental lectures at LEAST since the early 1990's when I went to American Geophysical Union meetings and studied space physics. What has changed is this:

    • There is an administration in power that is heavily invested in oil.
    • Said administration has a history of suppressing scientific data - in fact they have taken it to a new level. Ask the Union of Concerned Scientists what they think.
    • Said administration has defined this man's science as policy. It never used to be policy to state such things.

    The evidence is getting more and more clear that what I was hearing about climate change in the early 1990's was, in fact, true see here for example. You can also read National Geographic, which does a story about how climate change affects real people every month. Last month, an author went to the Alps and found that the glaciers were melting and that businessmen were concerned that in 30 years many low lying resorts would have to close. This month there is an article on how traditional peoples of the Arctic are worried about drowning. The Arctic ice is melting more than ever before. Every country but the US seems to "believe" in climate change. The evidence is also getting more and more clear that we are the cause of this warming.

    It seems to me that the Bush administration is upset with this scientist because he is interfering with their policy of keeping the truth about climate change from the American public.

  5. Re:Open and Shut by SQLz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Us Americans have such a short term memory. This has been going on for a long time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1509876,00.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/global_warming;_ylt=AjO PHgKyNMiA1zjvEt8quVSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHN lYwN0bQ-- http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climate-Gate.html And of course, the big one that made national news: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scie ntists.bush.ap/ I could cut and paste all day. The fact is this administation tries to hide information from the public all the time because they are engaging in illegal and immoral activity. Bush said 'Jesus is my hero' once and that makes it all ok with most people. As long as he's against abortion, most people will follow him into hollow shell that was once the USA.

  6. Clear Case of Free Speech Restriction by reallocate · · Score: 4, Informative

    Once upon a time, I was a public affairs officer in the employ of the Feds. Clearly, this is a case of selective treatment of one individual because he takes public stances opposed to the Bush administration. Read all of the NYT article and you'll learn that other NASA scientists whose public remarks typically support Bush are not subject to the same restrictions as Hansen.

    It is par for the course to vet, review and approve a federal employees public remarks when they are speaking for their employer. This is not what is happening here. Hansen speech is being restricted because he says things Bush does not like.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  7. Re:Open and Shut by undeadly · · Score: 5, Informative
    Now before the flames begin, Bush has made a lot of mistakes and I am by no means a Bush supporter. I just think that this kind of journalism continues to mislead the public on an import subject. The guy is mad, so what, it doesn't mean there is a government conspiracy to silence scientists.

    The current administration does exactly that, and it's well documented. Some time ago there was even published a letter signed by 48 Nobel Laurates very concerned abouth Bush science policy. Government researcher has been pressurised not to publish results that the administration does not like:

    In other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish & Wildlife Service, many scientists say they have been pressured to cook their findings to support pre-approved conclusions. Political appointees are being seeded deeper into these agencies as well as the National Institutes of Health where they can more closely monitor and restrict government and government-funded scientists' work.

    Use Google a bit, and you'll find more disturbing facts.

  8. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is typical of the Bush administration.

    Check out Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/qid=11 38494131/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3755481-66817 00?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

  9. The lecture itself by uncadonna · · Score: 4, Informative

    Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here

    --
    mt