backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 24 comment(s) - last by grshopr.. on Jan 31 at 12:14 AM
A scientist that has been issuing public warnings about the possible effects from heat-trapping emissions since 1988 has claimed that the Bush administration tried to censor what he says

James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claims the current Bush administration has tried to silence him since he gave a speech calling for immediate reductions in emissions of greenhouse gas, according to the New York Times.  Although Hansen believes that he is being censored, a NASA spokesman claims that is simply the way NASA operates.  Hansen is planning on ignoring any restrictions that are aimed to limit what he says in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
okay.
By Saist on 1/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: okay.
By UzairH on 1/29/2006 5:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Dream on, baby!

PS. I hope you trying living in New York or London in 60 year's time.
Sure the earth's climate swings wildly, BUT ON A GEOLOGICAL TIMESCALE!! Not when humans massively inhabit the coastlines, not to mention the effects on farming and water supply everywhere.


RE: okay.
By DrZoidberg on 1/29/2006 8:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
u are absolutely right.
The earth has had periods of global warming but it takes hundreds to thousands of years for it to be significant.

The rate at which the earth is now warming up in just last 50 years is quite astounding. I doubt there will be serious global climate catastrophe in my lifetime, but maybe in 100 years time at the rate which we are burning coal, oil, gas emissions into the air, it would add up to something bad.


RE: okay.
By chizzle on 1/30/2006 11:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
Question for you. Is it fair to just look at the last 50 years as conclusive evidence for the global warming trend? Can we go back further to strengthen this view?


RE: okay.
By AlexWade on 1/29/2006 9:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Why couldn't this guy write an anynomous statement in a newspaper? Sorry, but the only people censoring him are him and his hidden agenda.


RE: okay.
By smitty3268 on 1/29/2006 9:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
Try reading the article - he only claims that the current Bush administration was trying to silence him.

So it would be very difficult for the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration, or the current Bush administration to censor this guys findings.

You must be the most naive person I've ever met... Who do you think hires the people at NASA? Who do you think they owe their allegiances to?

sorry, but on a global scale, human polution isn't exactly an issue, and we aren't headed towards some kinda faked apocalyspe.

I don't think we're headed for an apocalypse. Actually, some areas of the US are expected to benefit from increased rainfall due to global warming. But to pretend we aren't contributing to global warming is just sticking your head in the sand. The evidence is VERY clear. So clear that the 5 previous REPUBLICAN heads of the EPA all came together and said we should be doing something. Even Bush doesn't deny global warming anymore, he just doesn't want to implement any solutions that would be expensive.


RE: okay.
By smitty3268 on 1/29/2006 9:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
NASA higher-ups deny the muzzling, but one public affairs officer claims that another officer rejected an NPR request to interview Hansen because NPR's "liberal" slant would interfere with the officer's job "to make the president look good."

...

The WP also reports that NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for the article and gave him the go ahead to talk only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.


RE: okay.
By markwe on 1/29/2006 10:06:20 AM , Rating: 1
Quote:

"How many "greenhouse" gases are produced by the average cow? A single cow produces more methane in one day than a Land Rover can produce."

People tend to forget that agriculture is also an industry. In the developped countries the ratio cows & pigs to human population is above 10 to 1. Clearly the size of industry, and its polution, depends on consumption of the population.

Same goes for non-agricultural industry. This typically accounts for >70% of a countries energy consumption, households <30%, but serves mostly consumption again.

I agree, that given the complexity and scale of the problem, it is pretty hard to give evidence to either opinion, but one must be blind (willingly, Mr. Bush ?) to ignore the effect of industry on the environment.

A small example: How many people believe it natural that fir/pine trees are brown, rather than green at the bottom. Where I live/in my lifetime, I have never seen an entirely green one. So it is easy to forget it is caused by acid rain



RE: okay.
By Clauzii on 1/29/2006 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
If You travel around the Earth and go at places where we (Humans) have build chemical factories, and other polluting manufacturing companies (Paint, Solvents, Additives, Artificial Food Ingridients etc.) and look at the areas around such facilities OR at dumping places for all those "innocent" waste products - Then Your measurment will definately go way up from the "small" 0.01% You mentioned.

Also the Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind thing seems to work it´s way in Big Business. A dump in the Oceans and it´s "thinned" out - for now that is...
With the current rate of production and more and more artificial chemicals, Your 0.01% will in the next 100 years or so have grown to about 10 times now so we are at 0.1% which starts looking alarming - EVEN if it is in 2-300 years!

Unless we give a s... about comming generations...


RE: okay.
By Sazar on 1/29/2006 1:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your math and logic are wrong.

He has worked since 1988 with the department. His problem is with the current administration and censorship or "selective" release of data which is consistent with other facets of GW Bush's administration.

Keep in mind that a Bush appointee selectively and liberally edited many documents to reduce or eliminate the perceived effects of the Greenhouse effect from official documents. Once this was found out and published, he resigned citing "personal time" as his reason.

This is not (pardon the pun) rocket science. The administration as a whole has an agenda and sets policy. It doesn't have to be the president himself but to a degree his influence is felt on topics such as this because of his own public comments stateside and internationally.


who's censoring him?
By CheesePoofs on 1/29/2006 2:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Is NASA censoring him or is the Bush administration censoring him? The title says NASA but the article says the Bush administration. Or is it both?




RE: who's censoring him?
By Snuffalufagus on 1/29/2006 4:21:13 PM , Rating: 1
This guy seems to claims censorship everytime he talks. He was upset when they made him append the idea that not all scientist would agree with his conclusions and may in fact make a different determination from the same data.
I bet he's just upset Kerry lost :).



RE: who's censoring him?
By UzairH on 1/29/2006 7:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!

Anyway, for those who joined this thread late, mine was not the first post, the first post you see now was actually my reply to a guy who was apparently a non-believer in climate change.


Keep in mind...
By RogueLegend on 1/29/2006 11:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
Much of the CURRENT members of the Bush Administration are the same people who were in the LAST Bush Administration. You guys forget that? Rumsfeild, Cheney, and Powell (formerly) were all a part of the last one, and I'm sure the list isn't limited to the more visible members either.

And just because Clinton took office in between doesn't mean the whole heirarchy of appointees from the previous Administration disappeared. Many people were left over who probably kept certain policies in place.

Further, the article title says Hansen has been issuing the warnings since 1988. This does NOT necessarily mean he has been censored by THIS Admin since 1988. Just says that he HAS BEEN CENSORED.

Now, I can't read the original article to confirm that last part (due to an error with the link), but I think someone was so quick to criticize they didn't think through the whole wording. Take that critical thought and expand it a litttle further next time. It'll make you look a little smarter.




RE: Keep in mind...
By smitty3268 on 1/29/2006 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
He only claims he has been censored for the last month, after he gave a speech about global warming.


Most of you can STFU
By shuttleboi on 1/29/2006 7:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
When you get a PhD in environmental science, then post something. Until then, kindly STFU. Obviously Bush is protecting big business, who do not want to comply with supposedly costly environmental regulations.




RE: Most of you can STFU
By Gumby16 on 1/30/2006 12:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
I DO have a PhD in environmental science. And I agree. Most of you don't have any idea what you're saying, let alone the consequences of your uninformed opinions, so just kindly STFU until and if you decide to become informed instead of regurgitating what you heard from your favorite political pundit.


Roflcopter.
By knowyourenemy on 1/29/2006 1:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
I am so glad I am actually reading posts from a group of obvious experts on this issue instead of listening to that guy scientist who has devoted his entire life to this. I will believe you all and agree blindly in saying that pollution is not an issue.

Retards.




Wouldn't it be great if ?
By mindless1 on 1/30/2006 2:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be great if when bush leaves office, if we could just roll-back time and do away with all the damage done in that period? The nerve he has to smile in public, but then the stupid monkeys out there really are tricked that easily, if they see happy faces and theoretically good ideals in speeches, nevermind what's REALLY happening.




dirty ocean
By HardwareD00d on 1/30/2006 4:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
When the ocean gets too "dirty" with all the chemicals we dump into it, we'll probably dump billions of tons of deflocculant into it and clean it like a giant pool LOL.




WHO'S CENSORING ME???
By johnsaw on 1/30/2006 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
ON DAILYTECH THERE WAS MY COMMENT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND NOW THERE ISN'T ANYMORE.

WHO'S CENSORING ME???




it is hard to believe....
By chizzle on 1/30/2006 11:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that I don't believe that human activity is affecting the climate, but I'm not buying the fact that there will be a drastic change. Want to say pollution is getting worse and harming humankind, so be it. But the global warming hysteria is out of control. We have very little affect on a planet that has been around for millions of years, and will still be around when we're gone. The future generations? How did our ancestors survive the last ice age? They adapted. If I'm totally wrong, and the world turns upside down, I don't think the future generations will have any problems adapting. After all, we've been doing it for centuries.




Malarkey
By grshopr on 1/31/2006 12:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
All commentary I've seen on Global Warming only cites data collected since the industrial revolution. Whereas any examination of climatic change throughout the planet's history shows big and small, long and short periods of fluctuation. When The Day After Tomorrow came out I found a geological study detailing a shift that occurred several thousand years ago in which an ice age began in the span of a week after a long trend of warming. Until I see someone actually take longterm history into account I have to write off all the alarmist propaganda as misguided whimsy.




Conspiracy
By johnsaw on 1/29/06, Rating: -1
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki