Slashdot Log In
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Jan 28, 2006 05:33 PM
from the shush dept.
from the shush dept.
Lucre Lucifer writes "The top climate scientist at NASA, James E. Hansen, says that the Bush Administration tried to silence him(NY Times) after he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth 'a different planet.' The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions."
Related Stories
[+]
Science: Rewriting Environmental Science 500 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Silenced! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you cite a single time the president has told the truth about any issue? (about something not immediatly verifiable. Yes, when he lit the capitol christmas tree, and then said "It's lit!" he was telling the truth.)
The answer is no, you can't, but feel free to try if you really like the guy. Every statement this president has made which involved delayed verification has been false. Thank you TV for making us all idiots.
Parent
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Clinton is literally the antichrist and the example of every possible vice this does not make Bush any better. Bush IS a liar. Bush DOESN'T tell the truth. It is not a defense to point at other liars in an attempt to change the subject away from something that makes you uncomfortable.
Parent
Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible lie:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- Sept 12, 2002
Certain lie:
"We found weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." --May 29, 2003
Why? lie:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot." -- Dec 04, 2001 (There was no video of the first plane hitting WTC on television until days later. Bush was informed of the second strike while already in the classroom.)
Care to give an example of the president telling a truth? (It has to be something that isn't immediatly verifiable, we aren't to emperor has no clothes territory.. yet)
Parent
Bush accidentally tells the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [thesmokinggun.com]
"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 [onegoodmove.org]
"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
Parent
Re:Bush accidentally tells the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bush lies? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Bush lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bush lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Did you vote for Nader in 2000? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Open and Shut (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Funny)
That would be a great public response. Should we wait until they are halfway up in the hills to tell them that's where glaciers come from?
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)
That's possible... on the other hand, the Bush administration has had a long and illustrious history of suppressing [ucsusa.org] and distorting [ucsusa.org] scientific findings that contradict its own world view. Their truculent behavior has been widely protested by scientists [ucsusa.org] before, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're at it again.
Parent
NOAA is now under aparachik control, too (Score:5, Insightful)
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'.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
He says other politicians in the past tried to ignore him/quiet him down in the past, but since a speech last December, the current administration has been actively trying to muzzle him and he has been threatend with "dire consequences" if he doesn't quiet down.
I don't see anything open and shut with this case.
Read the article, it's interesting if nothing else. Others are just trying to paraphrase/summarize it in their bias for you.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. 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. There scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing."
I'd say that senior scientists in these institutions are mature enough to be making their own decisions about when interviews and writings are appropriate.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand and sympathize with the administration's position, it's hard when the facts are biased against you, but the law is the law. While I've got plenty of bones to pick with the NYT over unobjective reporting, calling this liberal only works if, by liberal, you mean objective. The behavior of the administration described in the article is like a cancerous tumor that will destroy our nation if we let it. Dr. Hansen's refusal to be silenced and those who support him have taken the most honorable position a scientist can take. It's a pity some people can't see that.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:4, Informative)
I do conferences from time to time (although I'm not a professional researcher like Dr. Hansen), and the restrictions the parent talks about apply to me as well. I cannot present anything without agency approval, because as an employee speaking in a professional capacity, I'm representing NASA and the federal government. The perception of our material seems to be different - our conclusions are often construed to be those of those of NASA itself. The positions of university researchers are almost never construed to be the institutional views of the university proper. The same would apply to mistakes/errors in that research.
Federal employees that do research are in a unique position compared to those that work for corporations or universities. Univerisity researches are protected by tenure, and can essentially voice any opinions they like. Corporate researchers generally can be fired for not towing the company line in public. Federal researchers really cannot be fired, but they certainly do not enjoy the protections of tenure (you may end up being moved to another job).
Also, there may be a deeper story with the comment about being muzzled after saying that he was going to vote for Kerry in 2004 during a speech. There are rules regarding what a federal employee can do during an election (the Hatch Act). If he was on duty (i.e., NASA paid for the trip to the conference or he charged the hours) that comment is definitely a no-no under federal law.
Parent
Oh yeah, I hate that "skittish" public (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)
The evidence is getting more and more clear that what I was hearing about climate change in the early 1990's was, in fact, true see here [worldviewo...arming.org] for example. You can also read National Geographic, which does a story about how climate change affects real people every month. Last month, an author went to the Alps and found that the glaciers were melting and that businessmen were concerned that in 30 years many low lying resorts would have to close. This month there is an article on how traditional peoples of the Arctic are worried about drowning. The Arctic ice is melting [nsidc.org] more than ever before. Every country [unfccc.int] but the US seems to "believe" in climate change. The evidence is also getting more and more clear that we are the cause of this warming. [dailykos.com]
It seems to me that the Bush administration is upset with this scientist because he is interfering with their policy of keeping the truth about climate change from the American public.
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)
The current administration does exactly that, and it's well documented. Some time ago there was even published a letter signed by 48 Nobel Laurates very concerned abouth Bush science policy. Government researcher has been pressurised not to publish results that the administration does not like [zmag.org]:
Use Google a bit, and you'll find more disturbing facts.
Parent
No policy statements here (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid we let experts make policy!
Ugh.
Spying, Wars, Deceipt, Lying, Oil, Profits (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that you say that (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: yes, I've hear the conspiracy theories before (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Who pays his salary, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who pays his salary, anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that George Bush seems to have the notion that the government exists solely for his benefit, but not the people's. This is why people in the government are being silenced when they speak about things that upset George Bush and/or his friends.
Parent
Reversing Emissions (Score:5, Funny)
This is great news!!! (Score:5, Funny)
My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness (Score:5, Informative)
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 [forbes.com]. 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 [organicconsumers.org] 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.
Re:My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness (Score:4, Interesting)
The US Government now is not into free market economics anymore. It is into business model protection. Vertically integrated dairies (dairy produces milk, bottles it and sells it to retailers) that provide milk cheaper than the typical dairy coop or Dean's Foods? Hmm... no, that's not fair, so the FDA must stick them with the same rules that "protect" the coops from Dean's Foods!
great.
Parent
Re:My Conspiracy Theory: American Agribusiness (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this one. Forty years ago scientists measured global cooling effects and they were right. It was related to global dimming - burn a lot of high sulfur fuels and you end up with reflective sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. We've cleaned up our fuels and this effect has been reduced.
We currently get about 4.0 watts/M^2 of 'forcing' due to carbon dioxide, methane, and a cocktail of other stuff I can't spell without Googling for it. We lose about 2.0 watts/M^2 due to sulfate and other aerosols reflecting sunlight.
All of this information and more can be found at http://realclimate.org/ [realclimate.org]
Parent
Why are we still listening to GWB? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Clear Case of Free Speech Restriction (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The scariest quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Check out Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/qid=1
The lecture itself (Score:5, Informative)
4 more years? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:4 more years? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the only thing in your post I agree with.
What a lot of this "they're all the same" mantra sounds to me like is Republican apologists desparately trying to prevent the public from taking their anger out on the Republican party for Bush Jr. The problem of course is that it is the Reps who put an unqualified man on their ticket, and did absolutely no oversight on his admin after getting in office, and then defending him as his incomptentence and arrogance gets Americans killed and puts the Constitution in danger. So you're trying to hide the scary truth from people by repeating this mantra over and over, aka the Big Lie:
Before the Religious Right takeover of the Rep party, I would have agreed with you and the others that the Dems and Reps acted similarly, but not any more. Now your vote between Dem and Rep DOES MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, at least until such time as classical conservatives can retake their party.
Sorry, but this Big Lie mantra isn't going to work anymore, just as many of Rove's other Big Lie mantras are starting to wear real thin on an increasingly cynical population, especially given the fact that Bush Jr. is going to inflict a lot more damage on our country in the 2.5 years he has left, and the Reps as you say, won't stop him.
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. He is not a scientist, but a terrroist. I hope that the wiretaps are installed to monitor this unpatriotic and subversive behavior.
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:4, Informative)
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."
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:To be expected, of course, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [uic.com.au]. Every year we spread a ridiculous quantity of carbon dioxide and other emissions [greenhousegases.gov.au] in to the atmosphere.
Australia has no nuclear power plants. None at all.
To makes things even more ridiculous, Australia even mines uranium [uic.com.au]!
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 [uic.com.au] a modern nuclear plant can be and how badly you need to stuff up [pbs.org] to end up with an event like the one at Chernobyl.
What's more - Australia has a LOT of empty space [wikipedia.org]. 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 [uic.com.au] have stopped any serious efforts.
Parent
Re:James Hansen... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:NYTimes Sensationalist Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Tried to silence him hey (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent