Rewriting Environmental Science

Aqua OS X writes to tell us CBS News is reporting that government scientist James Hansen recently spoke out against the White House in an appearance on 60 Minutes. From the article: "Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science."

Comments

We must act now to save the scientists!!

[thedletterman]

"Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science."

You would think if this person was being censored, he wouldn't be able to tell people he was being censored... or is this his cardboard "KIDNAPPED" sign in the back of the passing stationwagon? Either way, what's scientific about this article? Please file this under hysterics, conspiracy, and politics.

oliticians, he says, are rewriting the science.

[Kaphin]

Let me the first to make a slight correction to his statement. Republicans are rewriting the science. Republicans. Don't forget this.

Re:oliticians, he says, are rewriting the science.

[Wyrmy]

Keep telling yourself that, and repeat to yourself, "All the trouble in the world is caused by evil republicans". Or anybody else with more money than you I suspect.

Re:oliticians, he says, are rewriting the science.

[Colonel Angus]

Look, I think Bush is the biggest failure to ever hold the office of the President, but it's quite clear that this scientist was also asked to fudge information under Clinton as well.

Both of your political parties are guilty of molding (or trying to) science to meet its desired ends. Perhaps Bush more so than Clinton. But as far as I'm concerned, any manipulation of science to further an end is unacceptable.

If you plan to hold Bush and his administration accountable for something at least acknowledge the same wrong-doing when it is (or was) the other party doing it.

Mod Parent Up Please

[thelizman]

There's no story here people. Well, wait. I guess there is a story. The same uncredible news media organization that brought you faked-with-microsoft-word memos to support a story critical of the president now trots out a scientist who himself has a severe credibility problem in order to beat a dead horse of a story about the Bush administration wanting to censor a lunatic who has publically avowed the need to use alarmist rhetoric to focus attention on his pet issue.

So? He's an employee!

[redelm]

'scuse me, but Why does he think he can talk? He's a GOVERNMENT employee, and they are paid to keep military, financial and diplomatic secrets. I'm very sure he signed a secrecy agreement.

His employer, the US govt, pays him to work and find out things for it. Not for anyone else. Work for hire.

If he had wanted to preserve his free speech, he ought to have chosen a different employment. Acedemic work would be obvious.

That was quite ignorant

[geekoid]

Global warming is a fact. There are some people(almost all of which are backedd by the fossil fuel industry) that say it isn't, but I find it hard to argue with the global snow melt that is going on.

Ice on the caps is not like ice you your drink. It is denser, substantial denser, and the ice on one of the caps is on land. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find out which one. If you can't, then you should keep you mouth shut regardless of your opinion.
That doesn't even acount for the glacier the our melting on mountains, in siberia, and all the other place that arn't water.
IT will also icreas the amount of area that can't be farmed. How many farms in the saharra? The mid west of the US will loose much of its grain farmland. Howevfer, on a global scale, you may be correct that farm land will increase, but it will destrow civilization via economic ruin until the globe infrastructure changes to accomidate it.

I do not believe ther is some spirit the guild the earth. I do know that the earth is hugely complex, and you can't have a reaction without an equal and opposite reaction.

Re:Cheap whores

[SlippyToad]

They got used to supporting liberal doctrines to earn their pay while democrats controlled congress.

Evidence, attribution, facts?

Now they moan and cry because somebody "moved their cheese", and they have to learn a new set of political doctrines to get their free drink from the government teet

Evidence, attribution, facts?

Global warming is a hoax

Evidence, attribution, facts? All are currently not on your side.

EVEN if it was real it won't hurt anything because the ice caps are like the ice that floats in your drink. They will shrink as they melt and the net change in sea level will be zero point zero inches.

Ok, it's you vs. a world full of genuine experts whose every prediction has so far come true. Who do you think wins?

If Global warming WAS real it would bring enormous benefit to mankind by dramatically increasing the amount of farmable land available - it would offset world hunger significantly

This I'll tackle myself -- fertile land is more than "land that is warm enough to grow crops." It's also "land that is sufficiently supplied with nutrients and stable topsoil." Heating up the tundra is in no way guaranteed to make it into a garden. And you sure as hell don't know what it will do. Not to mention that raising the temperature above, say, the Corn Belt will make it impossible to grow corn there, as corn fertilizes itself in a narrow range of temperatures NOT to exceed I believe 95 degrees F.

The best way to reduce any greenhouse effect is to fire a lot of useless scientists to decrease their spewing of hot gas.

I submit that the most just thing to do is make you live in the shit-infested, toxic weedlot of a world that your indifference will bring. The problem is, I don't want to live there also. So I'll settle for dismissing you as an ignorant, loud asshole.