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."
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.
What's a NASA guy doing giving talks about earth-bound motor vehicles and the technologies to use?
Agreed. He is not a scientist, but a terrroist. I hope that the wiretaps are installed to monitor this unpatriotic and subversive behavior.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
NASA does a lot of things -- not all directly involve space travel. This guy happens to be in charge of climate simulations; in particular we should listen to his opinion about how changing our behaviour might affect the climate.
What's more disturbing is the politicians telling us to "leave the policy decisions to [them]". While it's true that they are the one who will make decisions, they are not experts on anything -- we put them there to choose among options offered by experts. The scientists should be saying "if we don't do anything now, the climate situation will get worse". The politicians might then decide "doing something now will have more negative impact than the climate change it averts" (that's up to them), but they shouldn't try to diss the scientists.
My personal take: the politicians prefer lobbyists to be the ones offering the options, since in that case they are paid to make the right decision instead of having to think.
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.
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.
Then what should we do about all those volcanoes that spew out more gases in 1 day than the emissions of all puny motor vehicles within a 3000 mile radius?
Stop adding to the problem by eliminating the vehicle emissions? The planet can obviously handle the amount of emissions it naturally generates, and handle it in such a way as to provide a climate that facilitates our existence. The problem is that the emissions we are adding are tipping the balance towards a climate which does a much poorer job of supporting our existence.
It's foolish to think that motor vehicles are the direct cause of global warming which is a theory anyway.
So is Gravity. They're both very well supported theories, too. If you don't believe me, try walking off the nearest cliff.
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.)
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.
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"
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.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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
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
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.
Was he speaking as Dr Hansen, concerned citizen, or as "NASAs top climate expert"? It makes a big difference.
Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to agree that seperation of church and state is critical, but if the man wants to preach on his own time, the fact that he happens to be a government employee shouldn't be important, right?
On the other hand, if he was speaking for a government agency, I can see the problem. I know Global Warming is a very popular religion these days, with many followers on Slashdot (some of whom will no doubt mod me down just on the assumption I'm a non-believer, even though I'm not even questioning their deeply held religious beliefs), but that's no excuse to endorse that religion when speaking for NASA.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> I will however point out the hypocrisy inherent in demonizing America while ignoring the acts of much worse offenders.
I guess you're not a fan of the quaint notion that "a better world starts with me".
You can justify anything, if all it requires is finding someone doing worse.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I couldn't agree more.
Sydney, Australia is currently powered by several large coal plants. In fact 78% of the power generated in Australia is from coal. Every year we spread a ridiculous quantity of carbon dioxide and other emissions in to the atmosphere.
Australia has no nuclear power plants. None at all.
To makes things even more ridiculous, Australia even mines uranium!
The main concern anywhere about nuclear power stations is the chance of a catastrophe. People point at Chernobyl and say "We can't have one of THOSE near us!". This is obviously garbage, it's well documented how safe a modern nuclear plant can be and how badly you need to stuff up to end up with an event like the one at Chernobyl.
What's more - Australia has a LOT of empty space. While building a plant in the middle of the outback wouldn't make a great deal of sense (hard to maintain, expensive to carry the power so far to the city etc), we could certainly find a balance point between distance and cost if it really worries people (personally, I wouldn't care if it was in the next suburb over from me).
There has been some thought of getting nuclear power in Australia, however as yet, the protests of an uninformed public have stopped any serious efforts.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
"(they don't say anything about whether the Political Officer is usually armed)"
Wow! They don't say anything about whether or not the Political Officer sodomizes babies before eating them, either! What a shocking revelation!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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'.
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.
Yes, because one will always trump the other.
Good grief, is the world always so black and white for you? Both education AND experience (all 38 years of it in this case) have a place in this world. Hell, they can even coexist.
Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here
mt
Not all volcanoes are of the same magnitude. They're indexed by the Volcanic Explosivity Index, (usually abbreviated) VEI. Presumably, the grandparent was talking about volcanoes towards the higher end of that scale.
Anyway, when you ignore individual eruptions and look at net output, volcanoes do not put out nearly as much CO2 as human activities. According to Wikipedia,
Finally, what would you have us do if volcanoes were causing climate change? (Let's ignore the fact that this was not a problem at all before the industrial revolution, even though volcanoes were around far earlier). Surely the answer "accept much of the earth becoming uninhabitable and keep going about our merry ways" is not acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
Active volcanoes (each) release more like 10 to 20 million tons a day of Sulfur Dioxide.
Humans don't put out that much and that's the stuff that will cool a planet.
Kilauea spews out tons of H2S (Hydrogen Sulfide) every day.
True about measureable CO2 Volcanos vs. Humans but what isn't measured are ocean vents (ocean flatulence)
"accept much of the earth becoming uninhabitable and keep going about our merry ways" is not acceptable.
I agree that it's not acceptable. No matter if a volcano makes the northwest uninhabitable or crates new land near Hawaii and Iceland, what the Earth does (i.e. plate tectonics, ocean flatulence, magnetic shift) is all part of the ecosystem. As inhabitants of this planet, we're part of the ecosystem and spewing out CO2 is part of what we do. Earth doesn't give a shit what we do. It's core will do what it will do without our intervention.
If we make our air unbreatheable, we die and it's our own damn fault and the ecosystem will adjust. Volcanos will still spew, plates will still shift.
Our current lifestyle won't change because humans are lazy. AIDS is 100% preventable yet it still runs rampant because of the lack of willing to change. Education has little to play with it other than basic comprehension.
My angle is that there is alot of America hating going on we're led to belive that it is American drivers that are the cause of Global Warming because of their love for the road.
Australia is given carte blanche to pollute their air and ocean and their air is much more toxic than the US due to the fact that they have no restrictions on pollutants as the US does.
Same for India and China and China has like 1/3 of the population of the planet.
Someone explain to me how it's Americas fault that ice is melting in Antarctica.
We're not going to change. We'll have to adapt when we're forced to. Look at the US fiasco over 'airport security'. Americans and foreign travelers put up with it.
When some super volcano happens http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm
people will be forced to change.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
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.
Yeah, extreme accidents like the 56 deaths from Chernobyl totally outweigh non-nuclear events such as the Bhopal chemical spill which killed a mere 3,800 people. Heck, it outweighs the average US death rate from coal mining of 45 a year.
;)
In order to have a chernobyl style event in a modern, properly designed reactor*, more than 12 major systems have to simultaneously fail. Heck, 3MI, which was built before Chernobyl, was a better design.
*Chernobyl was more flawed than the Galaxy class's warp core
I don't read AC A human right
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.
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.
What an incredibly inane post...
Look at the map of California. Imagine that Los Angeles , San Diego, and San Francisco are just black, nasty, unbreathable poison. Compare that to the rest of the square footage area of the state.
Inanity 1: Wind blows air around
Inanity 2: There are more cities and more roadways than just those three large cities.
Now compare that to the San Andreas fault line
Inanity 3: Cars don't cause earthquakes.
What will cause more damage?
Inanity 4: A wildfire will "cause more damage" to your home than a small leak in the roof. Does that mean you shouldn't patch the leak?
The vents of Yosemite do more toxic spewing than the rest of the US driving public day per day.
Inanity 5: Unreferenced assertion aside, even if it's true: tomatoes contain natural toxins, therefore there's no reason to think adding more could be bad?
If I were an alarmist, I'd be moving the hell out of the northwest too.
Inanity 6: "Too"? Who said, "Mount St. Helens is erupting, I'M LEAVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOR FEAR OF THE VOLCANO!!!!"
There wasn't a single rational or applicable point in your entire post.
What you were, I think, trying to say is that "Nature kicks more ass by 6AM than the rest of us kick all day". That is most definitely true, but that doesn't make the air in Los Angeles any cleaner. That doesn't keep large swaths of the Amazonian rain forests from being cleared. That doesn't keep us from depleting our supplies of oil and fresh water. Your premise is shown false by countless examples. We're not independent observers to nature, we are part of nature. If we wanted to, we could send the entire planet into an ice age (how many gigatons would that take? certainly less than we have stockpiled amongst us). We could also eradicate, just by logging alone, most of the world's forests in short order. Don't you think that would have an affect? So why do you think that somehow running millions (billions?) of small greenhouse gas generators spread all across the temperate sections of the northern hemisphere won't affect nature? Of all the inanities of your post, the worst is the implied inanity, which is fundamental to your argument, that we do not affect the system within which we live.
An automobile is a dynamic system which is self-regulating. Increase fuel flow rate, and it speeds up. It can sustain massive amounts of explosive force and high temperatures. Yet on a hot day, a hot day that is only a fraction of the temperature inside the cylinders, a car engine can overheat and fail. It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that a hot day can contribute to engine failure just because the air temperature is so much less than the temperature within the cylinder.
"Please ensure you capture context of Saddam the undeniable bad guy, engaging in systematic brinksmanship with the rest of the world. Counterfactuals about the two madmen-in-training, his sons, would also be interesting."
There are lots of madmen in the world, why go after saddam and his sons first.
For that matter if there are three madmen in a country why not simply kill them. Why invade and occupy a country? Why spend two hundred billion dollars and counting just to get rid three madmen.
DOn't get me wrong. I am all for getting rid of madmen but I am for getting rid of all of them, not just the ones with oil.
evil is as evil does
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
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.
Except that history is written by the victors. So from the standpoint of what people will remember, it has very little to do with the factual truth and everything to do with who wins the argument.
What about waiting, drinking tea and look at the Iraqi regime crumble to dust? I would have given the Saddam regime another two years before it would have fallen in. Dictatorship only carries so far, and a dictatorship that isn't even able to cater for the persons supporting it will be dead tomorrow.
The U.S. led invasion took the Iraqi people the chance to help themselves and get rid of their oppressors themselves and be proud of it. Didn't you ever wonder why nearly no one ever cheered for the U.S. troups? Because they were seen as just another foreign force taking foothold in their beloved land.
And about the dead poll: Look at the numbers for the last two years: The yearly account of Iraqis dying by violence is about the same as we know for the worst years of the Saddam rule. I guess for the families there is no difference if their loved ones die from Saddamists or Terrorists or Criminals or as "collateral damage" from military actions against them. The terms are exchangeable. The people are still dead.
Sarcasm aside, when I'm talking about 'Major Systems', many of them are completely mechanical or physical in nature. Stuff like pumps and containment structures.
Every computer in the plant could fail and they'd still be able to safely shut down the reactor. Rather easily, as a matter of fact.
Let's put it this way. Even if you had a nuclear trained terrorist in the control room trying to make it go boom, he would be unable to do so.
I don't read AC A human right
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
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.
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?
A millenia ago our ancestors cowered in caves during thunderstorms, believing lightening to be the act of spirits who were angry with them for some reason. We've come a long way since then. Ignorance is emminently fixable.
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.
Hmmm... so why aren't all the companies that have prospered from not having to reduce emissions now paying for the rebuilding of New Orleans and the other areas devasted by the obnormal number/size of the huricanes last year?
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
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.
Then what should we do about all those volcanoes that spew out more gases in 1 day than the emissions of all puny motor vehicles within a 3000 mile radius?
If a guy shoots you non-fatally three times... are you going to go "SHOOT ME AGAIN! FINISH THE JOB!"?
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.
What I'm driving at is I believe that part of the rationale behind remaining in Iraq was to ensure that whoever does wind up running the country is at least reasonably malleable. Not that I agree with it.
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.