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.
I tried to reverse emissions once, but it gave me really bad abdominal cramps.
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.
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.
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"
He's the top climate scientist who has been with NASA for decades. Calling him a "NASA Employee" as if he's a janitor is more misleading than you think! A better headline would be "NASA's Climate Expert Says Agency Tried To Silence Him". I guess it's more a matter of taste than anything else.
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
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.
> 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
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.
Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here
mt
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.
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.
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
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.
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.