Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Politics Government Science

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him 543

Posted by Zonk
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

Comments Filter:
  • Silenced! (Score:5, Funny)

    by commodoresloat (172735) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:36PM (#14590098)
    When I first clicked the link I got "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
    • Re:Silenced! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ltbarcly (398259) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:36PM (#14590470)
      Bush is daily dropping bombs on people to help the financial interests of certain people (oh, right, it was so that we could fight the terrorists over there. Now that we have invaded Iraq the terrrorists wouldn't try to attack America.).

      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.
  • Open and Shut (Score:4, Insightful)

    by creative_name (459764) <pauls@[ ]edu ['ou.' in gap]> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:38PM (#14590124)
    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.
    • by Saven Marek (739395) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:43PM (#14590150)
      > "RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE GLACIERS ARE COMING!!!"

      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?
    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)

      by devilsadvoc8 (548238)
      The headline is typical anti-Bush propaganda at the Times. If you actually read the article as the parent did, Nasa is only requiring him (and all other scientists) to go through a review process if there is the possibility that their paper/speech would be perceived as official NASA opinion.

      Now before the flames begin, Bush has made a lot of mistakes and I am by no means a Bush supporter. I just think that this kind of journalism continues to mislead the public on an import subject. The guy is mad, so w
      • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)

        by niiler (716140) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:28PM (#14590418) Journal
        The guy's area is climatology. And as I see it, he was just talking about his research and making it relevant as scientists are wont to do. NASA people have been talking about climate change in meetings and in departmental lectures at LEAST since the early 1990's when I went to American Geophysical Union meetings and studied space physics. What has changed is this:

        • There is an administration in power that is heavily invested in oil.
        • Said administration has a history of suppressing scientific data - in fact they have taken it to a new level. Ask the Union of Concerned Scientists what they think.
        • Said administration has defined this man's science as policy. It never used to be policy to state such things.

        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.

        • 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).

          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 w
      • This review policy has been in place at NASA for a large # of years. I last worked at NASA 3 yrs ago and it was the practice then. NASA has a "public statement" practice,in fact they have a whole office for just that purpose. If this person had said his research was, versus policy should be, then he would have been OK. If he had said something like "NASA policy should be to not spend money except on projects to the outer planets" he would have gotten the same discipline
      • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)

        by SQLz (564901) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:31PM (#14590433) Homepage Journal
        Us Americans have such a short term memory. This has been going on for a long time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1509876,00.html [guardian.co.uk] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/global_warming;_ylt=AjO PHgKyNMiA1zjvEt8quVSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHN lYwN0bQ-- [yahoo.com] http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climate-Gate.html [nationalcenter.org] And of course, the big one that made national news: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scie ntists.bush.ap/ [cnn.com] I could cut and paste all day. The fact is this administation tries to hide information from the public all the time because they are engaging in illegal and immoral activity. Bush said 'Jesus is my hero' once and that makes it all ok with most people. As long as he's against abortion, most people will follow him into hollow shell that was once the USA.
      • Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gumbi west (610122)
        Did you read the article? Among the "review process" censored things like data and the conclusion that 2005 was the warmest year on record in 100 years. Can you explain how that is okay? Then they canceled interviews with this gentlemen. Then they allowed interviews AND PLOICY RECOMENDATIONS from a scientist who's views agree with thie Bush world view.

        The problem is that they have learned that if they do one thing and say another, it works and people buy what you said so long as everyone has the same story

      • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)

        by undeadly (941339) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:58PM (#14590590)
        Now before the flames begin, Bush has made a lot of mistakes and I am by no means a Bush supporter. I just think that this kind of journalism continues to mislead the public on an import subject. The guy is mad, so what, it doesn't mean there is a government conspiracy to silence scientists.

        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]:

        In other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fish & Wildlife Service, many scientists say they have been pressured to cook their findings to support pre-approved conclusions. Political appointees are being seeded deeper into these agencies as well as the National Institutes of Health where they can more closely monitor and restrict government and government-funded scientists' work.

        Use Google a bit, and you'll find more disturbing facts.

    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremi (14640) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:51PM (#14590220) Homepage
      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." [...] At least that's all this seems to be about to me.


      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.

      • by Burz (138833) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @10:44PM (#14591354) Journal
        From the article:

        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'.

    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:01PM (#14590277)
      This guy is the head climatologist at NASA. He has been at NASA since 1967.

      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.
      • Re:Open and Shut (Score:2, Interesting)

        by TheFlyingGoat (161967)
        They haven't been trying to keep him quiet until he started spouting off ideas that NASA didn't sign off on. In fact, the article says that he briefed Cheney twice on his previous research (about cleaning soot being more effective than reducing CO2 emissions) by request of the administration. He may say the administration is trying to silence him, but the proof is there that he's not being entirely honest.
    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)

      by waffleman (697097)
      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,...

      Right. That's what it's superficially about. One step down is the question of whether the public should be trusted in a democratic, free society. Now, I know lots of Chinese who claim that the People's Republic of China is a democratic, free society, and by their personal standard

    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)

      by welcher (850511) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:18PM (#14590375)
      It doesn't seem like you've read the article very closely. The story here is that censorship of scientists is rife in government funded research institutions:

      "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.

    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678) <curt.johnson@gm a i l . c om> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:49PM (#14590534) Homepage
      Did we read the same article? This is a different level of scrutiny with the flimsiest of reasons. The quotes from career federal employees and other members of the science community directly contradicted the appointed officials views. And as for this, "Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority."; NPRs' listeners pay taxes just like Fox News' listeners. Mr. Deutsch has no authority to deny interviews due to the political leanings of those requesting the interview or if an interview might not make the president look good. That is the heart and soul of propaganda, which is still illegal in this country.

      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.
    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:4, Informative)

      by cyclone96 (129449) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @08:52PM (#14590844)
      I work for NASA, and I guess I somewhat agree with the parent.

      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.
    • Re:Open and Shut (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lawrence_Bird (67278)
      If you continue with the NYT story you see a line (paraphrased) 'he was always careful to make sure these were his personal views'. And therein lies the issue. It is impossible for his personal view be separated from his 'official' view when speaking in public on a topic related to his official capacity. Would you have somebody from the
      Dept. of State running around saying "Personally I think ABC about this country" when it is known that the administrations position is XYZ? It is one
    • by snowwrestler (896305) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:02PM (#14593549)
      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.
  • by barchibald (207846) <ben@nospam.unsaltedbutter.com> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:45PM (#14590173)
    I love that science can't involve policy statements. The promote free an open presentation of ideas regarding the facts, but are not to make policy statements:

    • Dear patient: You have lung cancer. I'm not at liberty to discuss if we should do anything about it.
    • If you drive your car over the cliff you will die. I have no opinion on whether or not you should drive your car over the cliff.


    Heaven forbid we let experts make policy!

    Ugh.
    • "I love that science can't involve policy statements."

      Policy statements are NOT science. Policy MAY be based on science. But policy is a political decision.

    • by Ogemaniac (841129)
      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 entirel
  • by cybrthng (22291) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:46PM (#14590176) Journal
    Nothing phases me about these a**holes anymore. True or not i can't believe we give the administration the benefit of the doubt.
  • by ammulder (265357) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:46PM (#14590179)
    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.
    • by tinrobot (314936) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:13PM (#14590350)
      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.

      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.
  • 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.

  • by bigjarom (950328) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @06:52PM (#14590228) Journal
    I tried to reverse emissions once, but it gave me really bad abdominal cramps.
  • by toomim (492480) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:01PM (#14590276)
    We had been hearing for so long that Bush was ignoring scientists!
  • by reporter (666905) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:01PM (#14590283) Homepage
    My take on this strange behavior of Washington is the following. Clearly, global warming is a reality. The majority of scientists believe that it is happening right now, and given the choice of believing the bigwigs at MIT and the loudmouths on the Rush Limbaugh show, I support the bigwigs at MIT.

    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.

    • Can you explain how dropping a $0.54/gallon tariff decreases the price by more than $1.20?

      I'd also like to point out that NO politician from grain belt states would ever propose this or do anything but fight tooth and nail to stop it. This is what keeps many businesses alive.

      It also may be worth something to slow the destruction of the rainforest.

    • by Forbman (794277) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @09:05PM (#14590905)
      Don't lump all US agribusiness into the people who feed ADM. ADM is the entity that lobbies against removing the EtOH tarriff, on behalf of the farmers (sort of like the RIAA does for its artists).

      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.

    • So if the 54-cent tariff was removed, prices would fall by $1.20? Good thinking!
  • Did he have to escape from a group of brownshirts in jackboots? Was he convicted as an enemy spy "attacking the Capitalist State and Social Order" and sent to a labor camp for 15 years? Perhaps, a fatwa was issued calling on the faithful to kill him?

    No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!

    • Yeah, the administration clearly aren't nazis! So what are all these leftists complaining about? Sure, they're curtailing freedom, spying on nationals, and invading other countries, but they don't salute the swastika, so they're obviously not bad guys.
    • Did he have to escape from a group of brownshirts in jackboots? Was he convicted as an enemy spy "attacking the Capitalist State and Social Order" and sent to a labor camp for 15 years? Perhaps, a fatwa was issued calling on the faithful to kill him?

      No? None of that? Damn, this lousy government of ours. They can't even silence anyone!


      I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we needed to wait until it was that bad before we took a stand. Perhaps your historical conjecture that brownshirts and political prisoners sud
  • The thousands of scientists who have degrees directly related to the field of climatology and atmospheric sciences -- and disagree with James Hansen -- get the same worshipful treatment from the media that men like Hansen regularly receive.
    • The thousands of scientists who have degrees directly related to the field of climatology and atmospheric sciences -- and disagree with James Hansen -- get the same worshipful treatment from the media that men like Hansen regularly receive.

      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.

  • by t_allardyce (48447) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:39PM (#14590487) Journal
    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?

    • "I really wonder how my prime minister manages to get along with Bush, what do they have in common? "

      They are both born again christians. Both of them have said they pray together.

      Maybe they have other things in common but it seems to me that is the relevant one here.

      "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,"

      My theory is that these guys think they are fulfilling some sort of prophesy i
  • by reallocate (142797) on Saturday January 28, 2006 @07:49PM (#14590543)
    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.
  • by naasking (94116) <naasking@gmaiMONETl.com minus painter> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @08:08PM (#14590638) Homepage
    Here is honestly the scariest thing I've read recently:
    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.
  • Not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2006 @08:25PM (#14590725)
    This is typical of the Bush administration.

    Check out Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465046754/qid=11 38494131/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-3755481-66817 00?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 [amazon.com]

  • The lecture itself (Score:5, Informative)

    by uncadonna (85026) <mtobisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @11:54PM (#14591638) Homepage Journal
    Decide for yourself whether it's an appropriate lecture for a climate scientist to give: here [nasa.gov]
  • 4 more years? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:06AM (#14591850)
    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.
    • Re:4 more years? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TallMatthew (919136)
      "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.

      Jerking your knee to a democratic vote because of George Bush is the kind of shallow-minded response that's being cultivated by people in Washington. If you think that way, they win.

      This really isn't Republican vs Democrat, left vs right, donkey vs el

      • Re:4 more years? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by True Grit (739797) * <edwcogburn.gmail@com> on Sunday January 29, 2006 @01:29PM (#14593646)
        The reason we're in so much trouble currently is that a faction within the Republican party has hijacked its agenda.

        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:

        This really isn't Republican vs Democrat, left vs right, donkey vs elephant, yadda yadda yadda.

        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.
  • Venting? (Score:3, Funny)

    by crawdad62 (308893) on Sunday January 29, 2006 @11:59AM (#14593289)
    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?

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...