Slashdot Mirror
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
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."
When I first clicked the link I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
What's a NASA guy doing giving talks about earth-bound motor vehicles and the technologies to use?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
It seems to me that this whole article hinges on a single notion:
"Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen."
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." The public is a fairly skittish beast, and as soon as they hear some "expert from NASA" telling them one thing, even if it is a theory, they'll run with it for miles. Next thing you know "The next ice age could be coming in the next several thousand years" has turned into "RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE GLACIERS ARE COMING!!!"
At least that's all this seems to be about to me.
Posting as directed.
I'm removing my last catalytic converter as we speak. I love nature.
It's funny because it's true. Catalytic converters are essentially worthless at reducing emissions in most short stop-and-go city driving trips. These do very little, if anything, to reduce emissions in cities. Unless you're a cab driver with the engine running all day, or driving down the highway on a road trip, your catalytic converter isn't doing much to help the environment.
No, it really doesn't. Else you'd have to wonder about the catholic church given how many pedophiles seem to work there. See, it's not a logical line of thought. Go back to highschool and try to stay awake through critical thinking classes.
Sheesh.
Heaven forbid we let experts make policy!
Ugh.
Nothing phases me about these a**holes anymore. True or not i can't believe we give the administration the benefit of the doubt.
If George Bush hired him, he can do whatever he damn well pleases with the reports. But as long as my tax dollars are in there, this guy is welcome to speak the truth. So long as he's clear about what's his opinion and what's NASA's opinion, and it sure sounds like he has been.
A less misleading headline might be, "NASA Employee Says NASA Tried to Silence Him". Of course, that would be honest and wouldn't catch as many people's attention though.
I'm a strong believer in environmental causes but dishonest or misleading reporting hurts our cause and makes people disbelieve everything we say.
A monster ate my homework!
I tried to reverse emissions once, but it gave me really bad abdominal cramps.
I know I've heard this guy on George Noory's radio show from time to time.
No judgement made on the validity of his claims, but he's been on there.
Yeah, I sometimes listen in on my way to lunch at night. The guest topics help me decide what to eat. If it's ghosts, is time for Subway. If it's UFOs, it's time for a Chik-fil-a chicken salad. Climate change means the burrito from the gas station.
I wish this wasn't true.
Sig for hire.
We had been hearing for so long that Bush was ignoring scientists!
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.
No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Frankly, it's a free country, and I don't like that this guy's opinions are being discouraged. OK, so he works at NASA and has a Phd. That probably means he's informed enough to be worth listening to. So far, so good.
What it doesn't mean is that NASA should catch any heat for this. This guy is an individual, and has opinions. A lot of scientific types get annoyed with political considerations, and often I think with good reason. They're used to truth being what everything is about, and in politics truth is usually quasi-relevant at best. But NASA is a big organization, and no one member can speak for it AS AN ORGANIZATION. That's why they have a press department. The media and the public need to draw a line between individuals who work for organizations and the policy of that organization - THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! And assuming they are hurts everyone.
Now admittedly, I don't like Bush. I like our environmental stance in this country even less. I think the country and more particularly the leadership needs a gigantic wack with a clue-bat, and if scientists aren't the ones to deliver that I don't know who would be more qualified. That said, I also dislike it when individuals (particularly well informed ones) are prevented from espousing their views WHEN A REASONALBE MEDIA AND PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!
We're authority obsessed in this country, and what's worse we're extremely poor as a country when it comes to scientific savy. We don't critically evaluate anything we hear from either scientists or the press. We look at economic impact of enviornmental issues without considering anything OTHER than economic impact (yes there are other things, and yes they are equally (or more) important to us as human beings).
So should this guy have spouted policy opinions? Probably not. I would tend to agree that the US needs to get its act together NOW, but he shouldn't have said it without being willing to leave NASA first. But that is the fault of the public, for reacting inappropriately to an individual's opinion. In a perfect world, he SHOULD be allowed to speak his mind.
Oh, and I hope the message doesn't get lost in the outcry (that's a very effective way to draw attention from the IMPORTANT issue here - the environment.) We need to ram some business unfriendly and economically friendly policies down some gullets around here or we (or our children) will eventually pay a much greater price.
catalytic converters don't reduce emmisions. They catalyse (remove) poisons from the exhaust. These poisons are only present in the exhaust of unledded fuel. It has nothing to do with reducing emmisions of CO2 - it improves the air quality in cities.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter for more info.
An interesting note is that the lead in leadded fuel will damage/destroy the catalyst - that's why one shouldn't put leadded fuel in an unleadded car. (and why cars running leadded fuel don't have catalytic convertors.)
The thousands of scientists who have degrees directly related to the field of climatology and atmospheric sciences -- and disagree with James Hansen -- get the same worshipful treatment from the media that men like Hansen regularly receive.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
How can anyone trust the word of a man who has his fingers in so much oil business he walks around with a man known for having people buried up to their wastes and pelted with stones until their sculls collapse!? George W Bush has allot of friends and family in the business of selling oil, this isn't fiction, conspiracy, or liberal BS, someone try and tell me the president of the united states of America sells sun flower seeds? While you're at it tell me that the Saudi royal family has adulterers tickled with pink feather dusters. I don't blame GWB, if it was me I would be out for what I could get too. The question is, when will the history books conclude that he is the worst president ever to run the USA.
I really wonder how my prime minister manages to get along with Bush, what do they have in common? Why would Blair want to cut emissions when Bush clearly thinks its not a problem? Why is Blair's government scared of finding out that it may have allowed CIA 'torture flights' to use our airspace and that the public may be pissed off about this, when the White house is so brazenly non-committed to completely denouncing torture and is running a prison which goes against every single founding ideology of the United States?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You have yours, i have mine. I can't stand the current administration for reason you fail to believe. Take it as you wish but your ignorance proves everything i hate about todays political climate.
It is about oil, it is about control, it is about money.
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"
Considering that astronauts are almost exclusively male, I'm not sure I want to be a member of this club.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
Are our polluting idustries going to radically alter this planet? Probably, if we haven't already. I think its a good bet that Human beings one way or another going tto do something to absolutely make Earth uninhabitable. Just a matter of how, and when. This happens because only a small minority of inhabitants on the planet have the education, knowlege, beliefs, time, resources and a whole host of other things to really fix whats wrong. Most of the world is too concerned with staying alive, not starving to death, not being murdered, tortured, raped, die for the cause of theirs or someone elses percieved 'God' and the list goes on. There are lots of things in this world that can kill you. A good 85% of the Human/Terran population of the Earth falls in this category. So, until something happens that changes that bare survival aspect, and your not worried about whether roaming bands of starving bandits with automatic weapons are going to kill you over your last can of beans and cantine of water, like some people in the world do, I think that the major portion of the population won't care until its too late. And the rich don't care because the rich won't be affected by it until its too late.
Hansen should be allowed to speak his opinion, subject to the obvious trap of credibility, ego. Saving the world from (fill in the list - apocalypse, extinction of species etc.) is heady stuff and gets media attention far beyond what the (peer reviewed) sober teachnical work (with its obligatory qualifications of the things omitted and the uncertainties in data and calculations) gets. Add to this the exuberance of occupying the moral high ground and temptatrion abounds. Decisions on future coarses of action coasting multiples of a GNP obviously involve many trade-offs. Specialists in narrow fields of science and technology often get guru treatment by media and some succumb to the temptation speak in areas beyond what they know. They nevertheless deserve to be heard, but the media need to be less gullible.
Please point me to a source to confirm this, or explain yourself further. I understand that a catalytic converter only works when it is hot but i allso understand that it heats up pretty quickly after you start driving.
I found some more info on wikipedia and howstuffworks but nothing as alarming as you suggest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question66.htm
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
funny did you see the temp for Anchorage yesterday. -4. I doubt that's warm enough for crops.
This is typical of the Bush administration.
1 38494131/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3755481-66817 00?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Check out Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/qid=1
It is sad that this story doesn't surprise me. In fact, back when Bush stole the election from Al Gore, I explained to my republican friends that its not that I'm so much for Gore, but every ounce of my being is against Bush. The country would have been in good hands with Gore and none of the bullshit we've seen come to pass would have occurred. And I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about our childlessly impotent response to 9/11 and the subsequent sacrifice of 1000's of American lives and countless Iraqi lives by Bush under the guise of a lie.
I gasp when I hear anyone suggest that the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" amounted to more than stealing from a cookie jar and lying about it- when Bush lies to us daily, spies on us, and breaks our laws; setup to keep the government from doing just that.
If you want to argue about this, please don't bother- I'm not hanging around for responses. Like the rest of the country, I'm tired of this guy being in office and I'm ready to split the country in half and move if my half has to have him as president. I'd be happy to give the religious right their own country and leaders because I don't want them in my life. The scary thing is that they'd probably immediately declare war on the other half because the last thing the extreme republicans and the religious right want is freedom of religion and beliefs in the world. I sometimes believe such a war is coming...just like the middle east, we can't escape these morons whose belief in imaginary deities cause them to butt into the lives of others and attempt to legislate their religious edicts into law. Whether you're talking about the Taliban or Bush Administration, both hope to legislate their religious beliefs and both are a threat to freedom.
You know what really bothers me? People will turn their heads the other way when this hits all the papers. "So what if Bush tries to silence scientists...its bad, but what am I going to do about it?" What you can do about it is vote for Democrats in the coming election so we can get enough seats to boot this guy based SOLELY on the countless laws he has broken. Donate money to the DNC. Throw out your politics, just count the number of laws he admits he has broken, but claims authority to break in the name of the American people! No President is above the law. If the president can break the law, then we have no law and he's not the President and we owe no allegiance to him- because the law is the only thing that makes him the President. Once he shows us that the law means nothing to him, he ceases to be the President of the United States. I don't care if he is "protecting the american people". The American people don't need a King who protects us- we had that- and we delcared independance and wrote our own constitution.
We are not going back to a ruler who thinks they know better than our laws. Impeach today.
1984 is here, 22 years late.
But seriously, is this mostly an attention grab or is does this guy have anything to say we don't already know? By the way, 40 years ago scientists were worried about global cooling. I thought it was common knowldge that the Earth has gone through several cycles of warming and mini ice ages. Or was I the only one fascinated with dinosaurs and prehistory as a child? I don't remember all the details, but I'm sure that's not a completely new theory. I mean, pollution is a problem and there's no doubt humans are the worst tenants a landlord could ask for, or that many species of plants and animals are going to become extinct as a result of this, but isn't that kinda common and a part of the whole, I dunno, natural selection thing? Things are gonna die out, our duty is only to not unnaturally accelerate the process (a la deforestation of the Amazon), and maybe to save some in a zoo or genetic archive. Maybe reversing global population growth, and thus reducing all human impact would be better than trying to solve one aspect of the issue we clearly don't understand enough? Daniel Quinn has written several interesting but very counterintuitive (they sound kinda newagey at first, but aren't) books on the subject of mankind's place in and effect on nature specifically contrasting the tribal societies and civilaization. Do yourself a favor and check out Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn. It's short, cheap, and a very good paradigm shifter even if you don't agree with it completely.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
and I don't much feel like re-hashing the same old argument. I will however point out the hypocrisy inherent in demonizing America while ignoring the acts of much worse offenders. That's another aspect that the Modern Church of We Hate Bush has in common with other hate-based religions - they tend to blow all incidents out of proportion and ignore similar acts perpetrated by others.
Anyway, enough of that. I don't want to argue about Bush or US policies, I'm just imploring people not to let themselves be brainwashed by yet another cult. You have brains for a reason - use them. No, not just selectively. Don't turn them off when you see a "Bush kills kittens" sign. If you're going to question government policies and think of yourselves as "progressive" because of it, make sure you question anti-government rhetoric just as carefuly.
DOH! Let's apply your line of illogic to another scenario to see how stupid a thing it was to say:
Criminals often say they are innocent. Makes you wonder about people who claim they are innocent when you see what company they are in.
Read the article. The scientist in question is an expert on climate science who's been at NASA for 38 years. The guy who's trying to shut him up is a recently appointed public affairs officer, loyal to Bush. The scientist's story is backed up by other NASA scientists, and also by another of the public affairs officers.
Most of the progress in emissions technology in the last 15 years has involved getting cats to warm up progressively more quickly. Automakers have found ways to locate the cats closer to the exhaust manifold (or even within it in a few cases), to make the exhaust manifold lighter so it doesn't soak up so much heat before it gets to the cat, to make the exhaust gases themselves hotter, and even in a few cases to electrically preheat the cat. Today, your cat is working within a minute or two of a cold start, at most. Even if you're driving to the store five minutes from your house the cat is dramatically reducing your emissions.
It drives me batshit when I see ricers taking off their cats, which are directly responsible for the considerable improvement in the particulate situation since the '60s, to gain 2 hp. If they weren't so cheap, they'd realize that high-performance exhaust systems with cats are everywhere and work just as well to reduce backpressure enough to kill the motor's low-end torque.
Well, the warming trend has been going on for about 11,000 years. Considering that the God Squad thinks that the earth is only 6000 years old, that means that climate warming has been going on since before God invented the earth.
So, why stop warming now, just when we are hating it?
Oh well, what the hell...
Noticing the man, the Kaiser asked him:
- And you? Aren't you innocent?
- No sire. I am entirely guilty.
Then the Kaiser turned to the jailhouse governor and told him:
- Release this man at once. I will not have this guilty man corrupt all the innocents in here.
so get off your high-horse. I was simply stating that those who demonize the US while ignoring similar or worse acts by others are HYPOCRITES. It doesn't excuse the act, but the majority of the individuals opposing the US don't care about the act so much as the fact that it's the US that's doing it. I'm much less likely to listen to indoctrinated hypocrites than I am to reasonable individuals who wish to logicaly discuss a specific policy.
I mean, pollution is a problem and there's no doubt humans are the worst tenants a landlord could ask for, or that many species of plants and animals are going to become extinct as a result of this, but isn't that kinda common and a part of the whole, I dunno, natural selection thing?
I've heard this argument made before, and frankly, it's really, really dumb. Pollution is okay because things dying is part of natural selection? Give me a break. Do I need to even explain the many ways in which this argument is flawed? I'm not going to waste my time -I doubt you'd understand anyways.
Preferences -> Comments -> Modify AC -6 would seem to do the trick quite well.
He's free to say whatever he wants -- as long as the interview is pre-cleared with The White House, and he has a political^W PR officer with him in the interview room. (they don't say anything about whether the Political Officer is usually armed).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
First off, I'm Canadian :)
:)
Now that that's clarified....I understand where you're coming from completely. I wasn't trying to lump EVERYONE who opposes US policy into the same group...but it's quite clear that the majority of people jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon without doing even cursory research to verify the statements they're spewing. And it's not only them, there are certainly many right wingers who are guilty of it as well. My earlier statements apply equaly to both sides - don't be idiots, research your damn info logicaly and rationaly regaurdless of which "side" it comes from.
As to your complaints about "Washington's support for a whole host of quite horrible right-wing dictatorships in Chile, South Vietnam, South Africa", I'm also reminded of the anti-Bush crowd's support of a certain right-wing dictatoriship in a little place called Palestine
Both sides are willing to support...."less-than-perfect" regimes when it suits them. The world's not a perfect place.
I didn't mean to label anyone a Nazi with my analogy, I was just trying to illustrate how a hate-based system of beleifs can easily lead to murder and genocide, regaurdless of the facts. I could have made the same point using modern "fundamentalist" Islaamism, or right-wing Christians, or the Tamil Tigers, the KKK, the US "thug culture", etc. The Nazis are just the easiest to pick on.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for doing so in a civilized manner. It's always a pleasure to debate with those who can dicuss issues and facts instead of emotional faith-based rhetoric.
1. In a Government agency, EVERYTHING is reviewed by Public Affairs before it's released to the press. 2. Review != censorship; Censorship == remove; 3. If he doesn't like NASA's policies, he can quit. Or does he think keeping his salary is more important than saving the planet? I'm sure he could find a better paying job with "top climate scientist at NASA" on his resume. 4. Searching the news archives, it looks like nobody knew who he was before December. 5. An unrealistic sense of self-importance is a mandatory requirement for paranoia. Chances are pretty good the Bush administration doesn't know who this guy is, and doesn't care, either.
Never mind what is "right", or "better for Gaia". The question is: if you pay for something, do you have the right to control its distribution?
Put that way, I'm siding with the Boss on this one. Not hat I like the answer necessarily.
Just curious. By what criteria do you accept the claims contained at the above sites, and reject other claims?
I don't know what "junkscience.com" advocates, but the other site is pretty clear. Do you think it's plausible that a 10% alcohol mix in gasoline really causes a 50% drop in mileage? Have you noticed that? I haven't. Why hasn't everyone noticed it?
Personally, I'm usually prepared to accept what experts say in their own field of expertise, just on their authority, but I might not always believe that someone is an expert just because they're claimed to be.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Considering that according to a panel of "15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders" assembled by Human Events the Club of Rome's Limits of Growth is the 29th most harmful book ever written (Darwin's Origin of Species is 19th and Keynes' General Theory of Emplyment, Interest and Money just made to the top-10 list) and the increasingly obvious oppressive behaviour of the current administration it is not very surprising.
This Washington Post article has more about the "tipping point" studies, with less emphasis on the politics.
That's an interesting claim to make. Not one I necessarily disagree with, but there have been quite a few other awful presidents. (Disclaimer: I'm not an American either, but from outside I find US Federal politics quite fascinating.)
On the topic, Wikipedia has an historical compilation of US Predident ratings from a variety of different sources. James Buchanan's right down there as one of the worst-rated Presidents, and probably for good reason (eg. fostering an environment to encourage the US Civil War and all that). Roosevelt, Lincoln and Washington seem to be the favourites.
The only two sources that rated President Bush have so far been a 2002 poll and a 2005 poll, which rate him at 23rd and 19th respectively... about average. Considering his presidency is still ongoing and people's views are very polluted, right now though, they're probably not very objective.
At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
The weather scientists need clearance from Washington and a PR hack listening on the phone when they talk to the media??!
That at least rates as 'repressive'.
And I guess afterwards you're going to provide some natural gas to warm up your home?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Say whatever you want about the credibility of one side of this debate or another, the fact that our scientists can't talk to the media without a babysitter is truly and spectacularly wrong.
Never mind what is "right" or "better," the question is: if you pay for something with public money and it isn't classified military actions, do you have the right to bury the results?
I'm siding with the little guy on this one.
Bush also pressured an awful lot of people into bending intelligence reports to sound the way he wanted them and interpred Intelligence information in the way that suited his political goals. To me that is lying albeit in a roundabout way. I have read some of the pre-invasion reports on Iraqi WMD capabilities used to justify the invasion and that were made public. They don't exactly tell lies but they do seem to be written in such a way as to make them easy to misunderstand. I suppose it depends on how you define lies. Did he go on television and tell outright easily provable lies? You tell me:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source, Now revealed to be crap.
"We've [learned] that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases."
Source, Direct Bush quote, Now revealed to be crap.
"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who]"
Note the present tense, those WMD's that Saddam supposedly controlled at the time those words were spoken have yet to be found. The rest of the statement is true.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein [had] an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb."
At the time those words were spoken and used to justify the invasion the US administration was already well aware of reports by the IAEA that there were no indications of the Iraqis having a significant nuclear weapons making capability. I wonder why that wasn't mentioned in the next breath?
I happened to do a websearch on this. Came up with something interesting:
0 051130-2.html
The complete quote (as produced by Malkin):
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
In bold are the sections that the NY Times used:
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
In a Bush speech two months ago, Bush quoted Starr as well. In bold are the sections that Bush quoted in his speech:
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/2
I had to smile at the symmetry of the distortions. The NYTimes used one section of the quote and ignored the rest, and Bush ignored those sections and used only the rest.
...that tried to silence the scientist?
Note to self, if I ever want to see something splashed on the front of the New York Times (and thereby repeated endlessly), claim that chimpybushitler is trying to suppress it.
Wow, and that hate-filled post wasn't an example of left-wing trolling, oh no. If you want to point out flaws in other posts, I think you can do it without coming off as a mindless, vitriol-spewing drone yourself.
Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here
mt
So then, those of us who support Nader simply needed to convince those who voted for Bush that since a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, they might as well vote for Nader. (I think I lifted and modified this from a Jay Leno joke, if I remember correctly.)
This space unintentionally left blank.
You're simply insane. Your little persecution complexes fuel your ego trip. "The government is out to get me because I criticized George Bush".
Every time I turn on the television, and frequently, when I open up a browser to read the news, I'm bombarded with information about how bad a president Bush is. Just about anyone that wants to get their anti-Bush message out can find a sympathetic media ear. Ipso facto there can be no serious censorship or oppression. It is not a common characteristic of Nazi, fascist, right-wing dictatorships to allow free ranging criticism for 6 consecutive years.
The Democrats were falling all over themselves to declare war after 9/11 too. Ever since 2000 the Democrats are spinless cowards who don't deserve my vote. They haven't taken a stand on any issues that matter to me (particularly civil liberties and stopping class warfare [ie., the war on drugs]). The Green Party actually had those as major campaign platforms.
If the Democrats stop acting like Republicans, I might feel a little more apt to vote for them come next election. Until then a vote for Gore or Kerry is a vote for Bush.
-4 what? if its celcius then there would not be too much of a problem.
Anyway it is supposed to be winter right now (in the northern hemisphere). In a normal january, temperatures of -4f are common in the area of the world where I currently live. Crops grow just fine in late spring, summer and fall when it is much warmer.
(Note I say in a normal January... right now this area is having the warmest January on record and the last few days have been in the high 30's or low 40's.
Its not just in this hemisphere either, back where I was born they just had a record warm December (of course its summer there)
I'll be taking a closer look at both the Green and Libertarian parties next general election myself, what with being disillusioned with both of the dominant parties. However, I would not be surprised at all if at the beginning of the election year, Bush is going to announce that he has reorganized the Republic of the United States into the First North American Empire (to the sound of thunderous applause.)
This space unintentionally left blank.
Hummm. In Illinois when I was a kid, I remember -39F (real; also -40F == -40C) in the late 70's. And yet, Ill. is loaded with farms. In addition, do note that Alaska for the last 5-6 years has been at its warmest ever. So bad, that the iditorod has issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Many of the same people defending Bush's lies are the same ones that said so many things about clinton (he murders loads of people; he raped 10's of women; He ran up the defict, he did not balance it; etc, etc, etc). Yet, GWB had at least one traitor in the white house and said that he would fire him once he found him. So far, libby has been shown to be involved and bush allowed the man to quit with the statement that he had to be proved guilty. Likewise, he runs up monster deficits. I remember his infamous state of the union addr where he stated that Iraq was buying Uranium from Nigeria. That same night, tenet came out and said that it was absolutely false. Bush then follows it up with saying that Tenet already showed that it was true, so tenet's last statement was incorrect. IOW, GWB was incorrect, Tenet outed him on it, and then GWB tried to disprove Tenet over it. And yet, Tenet was accused of being incorrect on this. Currently, GWB has Sibel Edmunds under a quasi-legal gag order. I only hope that the courts will do the right things and allow her to speak (or that she leaves the country, tells all that will not turn her into a traitor, and wait for the next president to allow her back).
And yet, some 40% of the country support a lieing traitorous president who is destroying the country and turning just about every country against us. Very scarey.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Most of the progress in emissions technology in the last 15 years has involved getting cats to warm up progressively more quickly.
That's easy. Just use a microwave oven.
It is sad that this story doesn't surprise me. In fact, back when Bush stole the election from Al Gore, I explained to my republican friends that its not that I'm so much for Gore, but every ounce of my being is against Bush. The country would have been in good hands with Gore and none of the bullshit we've seen come to pass would have occurred. And I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about our childlessly impotent response to 9/11 and the subsequent sacrifice of 1000's of American lives and countless Iraqi lives by Bush under the guise of a lie.
I gasp when I hear anyone suggest that the Monica Lewinsky "scandal" amounted to more than stealing from a cookie jar and lying about it- when Bush lies to us daily, spies on us, and breaks our laws; setup to keep the government from doing just that.
If you want to argue about this, please don't bother- I'm not hanging around for responses. Like the rest of the country, I'm tired of this guy being in office and I'm ready to split the country in half and move if my half has to have him as president. I'd be happy to give the religious right their own country and leaders because I don't want them in my life. The scary thing is that they'd probably immediately declare war on the other half because the last thing the extreme republicans and the religious right want is freedom of religion and beliefs in the world. I sometimes believe such a war is coming...just like the middle east, we can't escape these morons whose belief in imaginary deities cause them to butt into the lives of others and attempt to legislate their religious edicts into law. Whether you're talking about the Taliban or Bush Administration, both hope to legislate their religious beliefs and both are a threat to freedom.
You know what really bothers me? People will turn their heads the other way when this hits all the papers. "So what if Bush tries to silence scientists...its bad, but what am I going to do about it?" What you can do about it is vote for Democrats in the coming election so we can get enough seats to boot this guy based SOLELY on the countless laws he has broken. Donate money to the DNC. Throw out your politics, just count the number of laws he admits he has broken, but claims authority to break in the name of the American people! No President is above the law. If the president can break the law, then we have no law and he's not the President and we owe no allegiance to him- because the law is the only thing that makes him the President. Once he shows us that the law means nothing to him, he ceases to be the President of the United States. I don't care if he is "protecting the american people". The American people don't need a King who protects us- we had that- and we delcared independance and wrote our own constitution.
We are not going back to a ruler who thinks they know better than our laws. Impeach today.
By the way, where was the connection to the Bush administration here? He has absolutely no evidence of that. Are we supposed to accept that Bush's people pressured his supervisors just because he says so?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
As paranoid as it might sound, I keep wondering if Bush will invent some 'National Security' Crisis in '08 and announce that it is too dangerous to hold elections at this time.
For your protection, you know. And if you are a good patriot, you will not complain about a few more years of neo-con control, Its for your protection and disagreeing with the government aids our enemies, you know.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
If that happens, then it will mean that George Lucas is a modern day prophet.
;)
At least Bush doesn't have the ability to shoot lightning bolts from his fingers. (Actually, he would gain a couple approval points from me if he could do that, just for the coolness factor.)
This space unintentionally left blank.
I couldnt agree more. Also Nader was not the Green Party Candidate IIRC. The Official candidate was someone else I cant remember.
Technically though the democrats are not spineless, just slow. The Republicans always beat them to the punch, so it makes the democrats always look like they are following. Plus they are too cowardly to disagree and stand behind that. Howard Dean was not, and actually Al Gore was not scared either. Recall how the Democratic party essentially froze both of them out.
If gasoline and ethanol were both of equal price per gallon and my vehicle could run on either fuel then I would select the gasoline every time and so would most other people, unless they really value clean air (and even if they do they can free-ride off the ethanol purchases of other people because you cannot prevent me from enjoying the clean air that you paid more to have by buying the ethanol instead of the gasoline). The problem with ethanol and other alcohol fuels is that they have less energy density per gallon than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline which means more gallons of ethanol to travel a given distance than gasoline assuming all other things about the trip are equal. The problem with the whole global warming debate is not whether the scientists are right or wrong, but that people have to put food on the family table and pay their mortgage today and not 50 years from now, so they will not spend more money, willingly and of their own accord, for some public good that will matter years from now but not today. If you want to solve the global warming problem than you have to make the situation palatable economically speaking or people wont take the bitter medicine required to solve the problem, the vast majority of the human race is not and never will be that altruistic.
Modded flamebait, probably far more accurate than we'd like to believe.
I hate to burst in on your ignorance here, but weather does not cause climate, climate causes weather. The temperature in Anchorage today is not very interesting to a climatologist, but the daily high and low over the last hundred years might be.
Consider extracting your head before you post.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
"If they weren't so cheap, they'd realize that high-performance exhaust systems with cats are everywhere and work just as well to reduce backpressure enough to kill the motor's low-end torque."
:)
True. But then most ricers drive vehicles with no low end torque.
Nah, he will just go get Osama. Does anybody believe that we have no idea where he is? A seven foot tall arab with a kidney problem?
evil is as evil does
Several Republicans did not like the number, 500000.
Soon afterwards, Shinseki was forced to retire from the army. Yet, the fiasco in Iraq proved that Shinsek was right -- all along. We needed 500,000 troops.
Because that wasn't the reason that they (or the UK Government) gave before the war. If memory serves me correctly, the justification was that it was part of the 'war on terror' and Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda and it was threatening the world with a stockpile of powerful weapons that could strike in 45 minutes.http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19
As none of the above actually had any truth and many of the documents provided were 'doctored' - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.st
All of them? Considering that three 'suspects' who were fortunate enough to have UK passports were not in any way linked - http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,1374
And how long will they have to wait? How fair will the trial be? Can you really defend freedom by removing it?
No he doesn't. The Parent was pointing out the hypocrasy that a country that has violated UN resolutions for years, is 'allowed' nuclear weapons, but another isn't.
Your attempting to knock down a well made critism by simply screaming "hate".
You did get that one right. Like it or not, the prevaling view (at least from the voting public) is support for Bush. It may seem different when you talk with your friends (or for someone across the pond watch 'The Daily Show'), read
If this were really happening, what would you think?
From the lecture he made. It seems to me that special interests have been a roadblock wielding undue influence over policymakers. The special interests seek to maintain short-term profits with little regard to either the long-term impact on the planet that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren or the long-term economic well-being of our country. That's the closing statement of the lecture. I could understand them having a problem with government employees saying things like that in a lecture. It's pretty much an attack on the current administration, which is not appropriate from a higher-level government employee. Sure, he's entitled to his own private opinion, but making statements like this in a lecture is a bit unprofessional. The rest of the lecture has some good metrologicaly sound arguments. Not everyone will agree with it, including myself, but this is a pretty controversial issue and many experts don't agree. I'd simply like to point out that they may be silencing him because he can't keep his comments professional.
Someone save me from this sanity.
I got a few...
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug 5, 2004
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the 'truth' to sink in. You gotta catapult the propaganda." - May 25, 2005
"Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision and they end up alienating decent people across the globe." - Oct 27, 2005
-- thinkyhead software and media
I fully admit that you should put no more stock in my policy opinions than that of any other factually-aware person.
Science cannot answer any question about what we "ought" to do. Period. Any scientist who uses his platform to attempt to answer them is doing so as a citizen, not a scientist. If Hansen wants to do this on his own time and dime, that is just fine. Doing so on the public's time (you think HE was paying for his trip to the conference and using up vacation time?) is another matter entirely.
In any case, I really don't care about this guy's opinion. His science may be right, but he seems to be refusing to even hint at applying economic rational to his policy process. Yes, Mr. Hansen, we "have the technology" to reduce emissions - to zero even. We could just shoot everyone! The question is not whether we "do we have the technology?" but "at what cost"?
Since Hansen is ignoring even basic economic tradeoffs, his policy opinions are completely and utterly worthless.
They shut up a lot of scientists, one spoke up, and now millions of people know. We know, but we need to do something. Without coordination and among lots of people to press for what they see is right, nothing will get better. One naked guy goes protest his rights, he's a nutcase. Thirty naked people protest their rights, it's a political group. One million naked protesters keep it going for ninety days, it's a movement. There is nothing left to believe in, no purpose left to continue working, and so it is all quickly falling apart. Religions, companies, governments, none have credibility left, apart from fanatics, in numerous factions, many of them increasingly violent. Humanity has changed progressed a lot, very fast, and the old solutions to the old problems no longer work, they simply make them worse. Rather than the violent, cowardly and ignorant speaking up, it is now the time where people with knowledge, bright reasoning, courage and who care for their fellow human beings to speak up. The world has irreversibly changed, much deeper than is visible, everything has changed, and we all must reorganize and rethink, and change.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
er. its leaded. and they dont remove deadly gasses, they simply change the deadly gasses into less deadly ones without changing the original structure of the material inside the catalytic converter. catalytic=catalyst. get it?
These Bush types are the same people that expouse that torturing human beings is an OK policy. They are all going to burn in hell. From their perspective, what difference does it make if they start a little early and they take the rest of us with them?
Die Leitung der NSDAP wünscht, dass alle Regimekritiker die Sprecherlaubnis entzogen wird mit einem deutlichen Hinweis darauf, dass härtere Massnahmen folgen können im Falle einer Missachtung dieses Befehls. Sieg Heil.*
*The leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party) wishes that all critics of the regime be refused permission to speak and warned that harsher measures will follow if this order is not followed. Sieg Heil.
... is that he has managed to cause the most serious rift between the USA and some of her oldest allies since the Nato alliance was founded after the Second World War and then had his cronies demonize those nations among the American people and all of this over a retaliatory campaign against a potatohead dictator in the the Middle East which into the bargain was based on some of the crappiest intelligence gathering in human history. You would think that if a US president would present his allies political leaders with the twin choices of doing what he wants and commit political suicide in the process of assisting him or face the de facto severance of political ties between his administration and their nations it would be over something truly important.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Yes. Down here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, this is a sore point. Climate models now suggest that big storms will be more frequent and sea levels are rising faster than previously predicted (turns out the those global-warming wackos have been underestimating the seriousness of the problem).
... But from an efficiency perspective Fahta couldn't have delivered more inefficient services. Maybe Bush's fear of terrorists stems from the worry that a "Hamas-like" organization might some day arise here in an effort to sweep out the corruption that permeates this administration. No wonder they are spying on all Americans these days. Oh, now I get it. All this global democracy PR is designed to bring the politics of Middle Eastern efficiency to the US. I think I'm starting to see the logic of it all. Its the new security economy stupid! A sincere diplomatic initiative to not offend the Chinese and the Saudis who we need to keep buying our debt.
We were promised help from Katrina but the FEMA and Security bureaucracy eats the relief funds and only the well connected seem to be receiving the billions. I'm still waiting for a trailer to live in and the storm was over 4 months ago. My wife was called by a FEMA guy who told me to call him back because he might finally have us a trailer. When I called back, he told me they were "having contractor problems" and that I was "shit out of luck". This is truely the fecal matter I have come to expect from the Bush administration.
Another Bush lie? One can only wonder which will come first, another major storm or Bush living up to one of his promises? I'm seriously thinking about moving out of the country. I simply can't bear the pain of so closely watching it go down the toilet every time Bush and his freinds flush another one of their PR productions.
Those that need help here have mostly given up seeking it from the government. The only ones still playing this line are the security types posing as reporters and talk show participants. But then you the taxpayer are still paying for all those extra security contractors who are there to protect the workers from the "angry mobs" (we were actually only one of a few people in the entire FEMA emergency relief center staffed by more than 30 people, about half of whom were security personel. Does this make any sense? I guess it doesn't have to as you are there to pick up the tab. I guess it was only fitting that they set up the Gulfport center a Bingo Parlor. I'm still waiting for my number to come up. America really does thrive on the "sweepsteaks myth". If only I can get a
Instead of solving problems this administration seems more intent on creating them for their own political and financial gain. They're tried and true method is just change the PR volume and go on yet another PR offensive when people and the facts begin to turn against them. Take this new illegal initiative on the domestic spying as an example. They are now claiming that its essential to spy on all Americans to capture terrorists (and no doubt peddle inside information in the backroom. What do you really think Jack Abramoff was doing in the White House those 6 occasions one of which shows his picture with George's arm around him?). Hasn't anyone noticed that this only serves to emphasize their complete incompetence in finding this Osama Bin Luddite guy. Hell, I know bill collectors who can do better than this and they don't have Bush's resources. They should just call out that bounty hunter guy I've seen on TV. He has the same general personality, looks, and style as Bush, but at least seems to always get his man. This administration looks more and more like the gang that can't shoot straight. Boy they really "solved" the Israeli-Palistinian issue didn't they? They avoided the issue like the plague when they had a chance to deal with lesser "evils". Now they have managed to usher in the wrong crowd. Good for them at least that the new Palestinian government can all be labeled "democrats". My own se
Film at 11:00.
Someone makes an allegation against NASA and everyone starts the Nazi and Soviet Union comparasons with the current American administration. Doesn't this strike you as shockingly paranoid. It is just a little concerning that people are so eager to believe, without ANY evidence, that NASA policies are actually a secret, malicious government conspiricy against the American people starting at the presidency. Whatever happened to skepticism? I wouldn't want you on my jury in a trumpt up suit against me.
Then install a turnstile array half way up, hook it up to a generator, and watch it solve the world's energy problems!
Man, you have got to love Rove's anonymous rovers. Varmus is a "liberal", therefore we can ignore everything the man says. Hanson is "mad", therefore his science is wrong. Lets trash these people so that we can continue on our merry way. There's a real scientific and reasoned approach. Ironically such anti-science actually flies in the face of one of the ten commandments, "Thou shall not bear false witness". Its sad to see how many God-fairing Christians so eagerly through away there eternal souls to support the party line.
Man uses computer to model climate. His models tell him that global temperatures are in all probability likely to rise dramatically in coming years and that tremendous deleterious economic consequences (such as loss of drinking water for billions of people, more big hurricanes, etc.) are sure to occur. He presents his findings. Representatives of the oil and gas lobby find his science disturbing as it could if acted upon ultimately undermine profits. They insist that the administration do what it can to trash and impede the message the man is sending. The administration passes the word to the WH PR machine and mindless minions trash the man for speaking what he sees as the truth of his findings. Millions insist he shouldn't speak out lest the truth become known. The world heats up and we all burn. The ultimate result hundreds of millions of Christians burn in hell for bearing "false witness", but no matter profits are preserved. Let us pray for ourselves and those in our country too blinded by political passions to see the fundamental truths implicit in Dr. Hansen's computations.
Catalysts have very little effect on particulate emmissions, they only have a real affect on gaseous emmisions.
There is a good reason to remove catalysts from engines because they add to the CO2 emissions and cause more fuel consumption. The model of car I have didn't originally have a catalyst, offical fuel consumption 43mpg, later models were fitted with a catalyst and EGR and fuel consumption falls to 40mpg. Catalysts trade CO2 emissions for CO, NOx and HC emmissions. If car engines could be made cleaner so that they don't need catalysts at all that would be closer to the ideal solution.
You've been listening to "Alice's Restaurant" agaon, haven't you?
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
In Clinton's case - he was lying about sexual relations more than anything, which in the end is what anybody actually can laugh at. Utterly harmless but obvious lies. (At least nobody died as a direct cause of that event unless somebody got a stroke while laughing...)
In the cause of G.W.Bush it is too obvious that it was necessary to lie to get through to political means of being able to serve two periods as a president. Starting a war against a real or inventend enemy is one way to gain popularity in the short term, but in the long term the result may be that he will end up as the least popular president since Nixon (or ever). - In war, the first victim is the truth.
As I see it - as soon as Bush declared war on terrorism - the terrorists had won their case by proving that "United States is the great Devil". Of course - Afghanistan was a little more understandable than Iraq, but the use of silent infiltration may never have to be underestimated - even if it may pop up brown spots on your uniform now and then they tend to be more of an annoyance than a real problem if you were able to catch up and prevent a terrorist action.
Sometimes the best action against a threat is just to take no action - even if it seems strange and causes an outrage for the moment. Not all terrorist groups may be infiltrated, but then it may at least be possible to identify them and circumvent their options. Just don't show the terrorists that you are desperate.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I'm not sure why there's a big deal about the buildup of greenhouse gases. I thought the hole in the ozone was supposed to vent it off?
I have him on ice in my freezer waiting for the bounty to rise ;-)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I would have to say that, the current administrations policies on changing the situations regarding global warming are at best 'distanced' at the moment. Mostly because in order to reduce emissions of anything running on fossil fuels, you need to shift the economy from an oil based, to either nuclear based (which they wouldnt budge a finger to do either because theyre so afraid of it), or a hydrogen/nuclear based economy. When hydrogen based systems can be developed at cost for manufacturers and they have a platform to do it, maybe then our country will move into the green movement. Until its safe for the ultra large oil / car manufacturers that keep our economy moving, nothing will happen to greatly reduce green house gases. This is why the USA stayed away from things like the Kyoto Protocol, and why they didnt join in the discussions at the G8 covention last year about global warming.... Some day, some day......because countries like ours have to wait until something terrible happens to act, as weve learned from so many other incidents....
...if it weren't for stuff like this:
5 -125458-3247r ...and this:
s f?/base/news/113774992055330.xml&coll=2 ...and this:
http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=2006012
http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.s
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whoops.asp
Come on folks, look at the people in the offices you work in. Do you really think that workers and executives at nuclear power companies are any different? No, they aren't. Do you want a responsibility like that in the hands of a PHB?
Wind is closing in on nuclear -- it costs just about the same to install. Use that for peak load, adding solar as it becomes more economical. Develop tidal/wave and geothermal for baseload. At least that way the worst thing that's going to happen when a doofus takes hold of the wheel is a few chemical explosions and maybe some high-velocity icicles.
Someone had to do it.
The preceding opportunity to stump a political position was brought to by some whiner who just can't get a grip. Luckily, the parent managed to get justified on Slashdot with the coincidence that the word "NASA" was used. Thus obfiscating him of any ridicule he richly deserves.
The public is a fairly skittish beast,
This might be the scariest thing I've read on Slashdot all day. It betrays a fascist or oligarchical point of view, where the Leaders know best and the Public are ignorant rubes who must be led to a greater future against their will. It implies that it is right to control information or withold from the "skittish" public because it would just upset them and cause trouble.
I don't know where you're posting from, but in my country, the U.S., that goes against everything the country was founded on and stands for. We are a government for the people, by the people. The public rules the roost around here and if you don't like it you can move to Myanmar or North Korea or some other fascist state where daddy knows best.
Since 9/11 the U.S. federal government has become more and more fascist--seeing the need to control and limit information to the public for their own good, making decisions in isolation and resisting the efforts of others to inform or influence them. Opinions like the parents are wholly part of the problem and should be attacked wherever they are expressed.
I'm an adult citizen, responsible and free, and legally entitled to hear all sides and make my own decision about things, thanks.
The second-greatest success of the special interests and political elites was convincing the public that they are powerless to direct their own country. The greatest success was convincing them that they don't want to.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I think what all these complaints about institutional confusion ignore is that 'NASA scientist' is not taken to mean, policymaker speaking for NASA--rather, it is a coe word for 'man who knows his shit,' much in the same vein as 'MIT professor.'
What proof is there that we are accelerating climate change?
Speaking as a non-American scientist, I have to regard the refusal of the Bush government to take any effective measures to curb the enormous amount of pollution the USA is sending in the air, as a clear and present danger to our most vital interests, i.e. our very survival.
If scientists who speak out against such a behaviour are silenced by official pressure, that is not merely a worry; it is appalling and undermines every hope that a meaningful agreement to protect the climate can be reached.
The question we have to ponder is what other measures we can take to stop US pollution, if the USA itself refuses to cooperate. Maybe we should consider punitive taxation on all imports from the USA, or an agreement with the oil-procuding nations to restrict their exports to the USA.
back when Bush stole the election from Al Gore,
Because that's a state of denial if I ever saw one
FYI I did not vote for him
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Dr. Hansen is not a crackpot. If you would RTFA, you might see that in fact there is a real censorship issue going on here. There was nothing in the original lecture which should have prompted this sort of behavior from the administration. The lecture provides a very clear and well-supported case for anthropogenic global climate change; one which is anathema to the current administration's well-documented ties to the energy industry.
The real news is that a slashdotter is defaming a well-respected scientist who provides a very good scientific case for something. Oh, wait...
Both parties are indentured to transnational corporations. Nearly the exact same corporations. Both have had a tendency to invade other countries and to support US global hegemony. I do not think capitalism is the best political-economic system. But you want me to severely compromise my values just because one of the entrenched parties preaches the values more fully embraced in other third parties? A de-facto two party state is a pitiful excuse for a democracy.
Since I'm talking about a State in The US, I must be using metric. Sheesh. F. Fahrenheit. -4 F. It's cold. Global warming if it exists can't be stopped.
Contractors? Last time I checked Halliburton didn't build the rovers you dolt.
This hot bitch screwed her way all the way up the Canadian Space Agency hierarchy, and the astronaut wives sur did not want their husbands to screw with that hot bitch in space.
Your story breaks down upon examination of the photo. That girl is ok at best. I'd probably need to be in space at least three weeks before she became a "hot bitch". And how can wives of astronauts go "on strike" anyways? Don't you need to be employed before you can go on strike?
There are many individuals out there that are trying to do the right thing, but they are still the minority. A minority that tries to educate itself and do what is right. A minority that has the luxury to do it. A minority that the government need only placate.
The government does not need to listen to those that are distraught about the melting of the polar caps or the descrease in biodiversity, or the rising temperatures that are causing sweeping climatic change in our lifetime. Because caring about these things does not lead to wealth and power. And wealth and power is what the government hears.
A very small number of people in this world have true power to change it on a global scale. How many of those people do you personally know? I suspect, though I do now know enough to confirm it, that a small handful of people in the oil industry hold enough power (through corporate power, wealth, and political connections) to reverse much of the damage we are doing to the environment.
How many people would it really take in our government to sway the Senate and the Congress toward definite positive action on these matters? How many key voices, including the President's, would it take to gain the support necessary to establish a firm plan for independence from fossil fuels?
What can an individual do? What can an individual do that individuals are not already doing: scientists and reports and political activists. What good are their sincere efforts? Our government spends more money trying to find a terrorist than it does trying to protect the Earth from the damage we are doing. A terrorist strikes at a nation, but our globally irresponsible environmental policies strike at the Earth itself. We're the worse terrorist on the planet.
Citing a high preist of a religion as proof that the religion is true is a bit circular, don't you think. Not that I'm challenging your deeply held religious beliefs, you understand! Of course the world will become Hell if we do not Repent the Sin of Carbon Emission. Those other religions that assert Hell awaits in the afterlife are not the one true religion. No siree!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Voting Nader (or any left-wing candidate) tells the Democratic Party that if they ever wish to win an election again, they had better come back to the left. A write-in for myself wouldn't be quite so effective, though I have considered it.
I don't demand someone who exactly shares my views, but a party a little left of centre would be a nice start. Maybe one that opposes the death penalty on principle and is in favor of civil liberties. Maybe one that isn't in bed with Isreal.
In today's political climate, the Democrats are left of center, and anyone to the left of them barely even makes it on the spectrum. This isn't going to change by reaffirming the GOP and its policies every election cycle. On the contrary, it's just going to keep getting worse and worse.
The Democratic party isn't going to come back to your definition of the left, not in the next few years, because--well, what happens if they begin speaking out en masse against the death penalty? (Never mind that the Democratic position at the state and national level is already much less favorable to it. Even John Kerry opposes it on principle.) Then they'll maybe win your vote, but they'll lose ten more in the political center (see above). No, as I said, change happens incrementally, and voting for hopeless candidates outside the current political mainstream reeks of angsty spitefulness and selfish uncaring for people for whom there is still a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans.
You rant against those who Doubt the Truth - but no one here is disagreeing with you. Perhaps the Doubt you argue so strongly against is the Doubt within your own heart? You must not allow yourself such weakness, for that is the path to Denial!
Go now and subscribe to another newspaper: by recycling the additional paper you will remind yourself daily of the strength of your belief. The Earth knows every person who Denies the Truth, and the Hard Times ahead will be that much worse for each amoung their number.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Don't feel so helpless. First of all you have the satisfaction that you are doing the right thing. Most of these Bush-leagers know that they are doing the wrong thing and they will pay the price for it. Even though they try to deny it, it eats at their souls and will ultimately consume them.
Secondly, consider the notion of strategic investment. The Bushies don't value the environment much. They think they can live without one. Invest in the environment and environmentally sustainable practices, say solar power generation, wind power, renewable resources, hybird cars, water systems, genetic resources, etc. In time you will find that you own these mindless minions who didn't think these things were valuable. They will have tranferred their power to you as a result of their own stupidity and arrogance. Yes it will take time, evolutionary events alwasy take time, but you can rest assured that you will be in relatively good shape compared to the fate that awaits them.
If you are particularly generous, you can also pray for their souls as they will certainly be loosing theirs.
Not good for anyone, mindless minion or otherwise. Yet there seems to be little help for it.
Ah, I just decided to make that my sig after watching that Fear of Girls movie, since I thought it was such a funny line. I just didn't realize that it would get tacked onto the end of all my previous posts. And personally, I find the goth subculture rather pathetic, summed up by this great quote a friend of mine here came up with.
"I wear black to show the anguish in my soul."
Translated: "Daddy wouldn't buy me a car."
This space unintentionally left blank.
As paranoid as it might sound, I keep wondering if Bush will invent some 'National Security' Crisis in '08 and announce that it is too dangerous to hold elections at this time.
Come on, you know GW is just a pawn for his daddy. All Daddy has to do is get Jebb a job as president and the monarchy continues. This particular monarchy has been in effect (with the exception of the Clinton years) pretty continuously since Reagan was elected in 1984 [ an auspicious and apropos year for the current regime ]. Reagan could barely do more than a good talking head show, so you know who was really running things don't you (hint: who was Vice President)? If you consider the power of the CIA before the Reagan years (remember the cold war?) and examine who was running the CIA in those days, you may be likely to conclude that this regime has lasted even longer than that... (I suggest researching GW Sr.'s daddy and grand-daddy as well)
It is time for Americans to wake up. It is time for us to ask hard questions and it is time for us to stop buying all the pregenerated propaganda bullshit that is being shoved down our throats by politically owned television networks. If you dig, you will find interesting founding and ownership relationships between the Bush family and a variety of powerful television network interests. This story is intensely more interesting than people are allowing themselves to believe. Here is a good link.
Conspiracy? Hah! Just check the damned facts. They speak for themselves.
But, if you like conspiracies; To get to the conspiracy angle, you have to look at sites like This One . God help us if even a sliver of that tin-foil-hat stuff is true.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Anyone who believes that lying about having sex is even in the same universe of evil as lying about the justification of the wanton destruction, genocide and looting of entire nations needs to have their head examined.
Odds are that every one of you reading this has lied about sex in your life. Have you lied about the rationale you used to kill people and steal their property? How about lying in order to manipulate and enslave millions of people to your whims? I doubt a single one of you can make that claim (except maybe Cmdr Taco himself)...
Time for everyone to stop comparing nuclear weapons to donuts. It's ridiculous.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
If George Bush hired him, he can do whatever he damn well pleases with the reports. But as long as my tax dollars are in there, this guy is welcome to speak the truth. So long as he's clear about what's his opinion and what's NASA's opinion, and it sure sounds like he has been.
Unfortunately, our government has deemed pretty much everything that your tax dollars are spent on to be too sensitive to reveal to you. As a result, you must sit and listen to the propaganda that is designed for small, un-enlightened, un-connected, mindless middleclass consumers such as yourself while the real grownups that are from good families and are appropriately connected in both politics and corporate ownership rightly profit from the information and other assets created from the tax dollars that you have sacrificed. What part of this do you not understand?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
I've never been one of the tin-foil hat crowd myself. But even I wouldn't be surprised by that at this point. The incredible hubris and sheer gall that this administration has shown over the last five years has been downright stunning. It's truly amazing to have a President and cronies who not only tell open, bald-faced, outright lies on a regular and consistent basis, but then openly threaten to arrest and harrass reporters and whistle-blowers who dare to REVEAL the lies. Fucking amazing.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Because Chaney is the one with the force lightning....I thought everyone knew this?
Mr. T carries a postage stamp in his wallet at all times on the back is a list of all the fools he doesn't pity
Amidst your wankery on computer modelling, your demonization of the oil and gas lobby (who have nothing to do with this story), you ought to consider one fact. Dr. Hansens first computer models didn't even include oceans. In fact, most computer models are flawed because they assign constants to such things as solar forcing, atmospheric volume, atmospheric transmissivity, and so on. I could explain all this to you in great detail, but you're too busy worshipping "science" to listen to reason.
Let's see. I could waste my time explaining to you precisely how much of a crackpot Hansen is, but others have done that research for me.
I could further waste my time by explaining the difference between a real scientist (Not Hansen), and a political hack (Hansen). I could discuss things like how policy decisions are not within the purview of a scientific paper, or how real scientists (again, not Hansen) don't tweak their data to support their conclusions. But I suspect that in the end, you'd still continue with your Gaia worshipping global warming will kill us all four legs good two legs bad wankery. So piss off.