DailyTech - US Climate Expert Claims NASA Tried To Silence Him

Submit News

Science US Climate Expert Claims NASA Tried To Silence Him
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - January 29, 2006 1:46 AM

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

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

okay.

By Saist on 1/29/06, Rating: 0

By Saist on 1/29/2006 5:06:41 AM , Rating: 0

he says since 1988. That would mean 4 years of Bush senior...

then 8 years of Clinton administration.

then 6 years of Bush junior administration.

with.. NASA going private and The internet going public.

Sorry, but this guys story just doesn't add up. Okay, lets accept that the Bush Senior Administration did censor him? Why didn't he just re-publish or re-speak his findings when the Clintons were in office, or why didn't he pursue again with a democrat in office? Why wait until now, over 15 years later to say anything.

Okay, lets accept that no hard book publisher would publish him. That's okay, ever heard of the Internet? Allows massive amounts of people to communicate with one another reguardless of location or content of message? For a scientist involved in a field that most certainly requires a high degree of computer experience and usage to correctly caluclate all variables, to not be aware of the internet and not use it for a delivery platform is pure idiocy, or clinical insanity.

And if he wants to blame NASA and the Senior Bush Administration, again, story doesn't add up. The President does not oversee any branches of the government but the executive office. Branches of the government, such as NASA at the time of the this report, are controlled by Congress. The same as in the clinically insane mining expert who blamed the current Bush administration for the mining accident last year. Slight problem. That isn't in the job description of the Executive Office. That's Congress's job to oversee the various departments of the Government, including those that pertain to work safty, or space exploration. The Executive Branch has no place in that chain of command. So it would be very difficult for the Bush Administration, or the Clinton Administration, or the current Bush administration to censor this guys findings.

So, if I accept that he believes what he has said, either this former employee is clinically insane, or doesn't have a clue about how the government works.

Not to mention that there are significant other facts to deal with that destroy the arguments about how cars or air conditioners can "destroy" the earth. Anybody care to guess how much poison the volcano in Alaska dumped into the atompshere in under 10 minutes?

Try this on for size : it's more than Los Angeles and New York create in an entire calander year.

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.

I'm sorry, but if these enviromentalists ever hope to be taken seriously, they really need to recheck their figures. The natural cycle of the planet alone dumps more toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and enviroment than entire major cities. How much more? Let me put this into perspective. Accounting for all the natural polutants produced by that natural enviroment in 2004, Humand beings only contributed a measurable .01 percent more toxic chemicals.

um. yeah. .01%

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

One other thing while I'm at it. I'm pretty sure that those who track the weather occurances are no doubt reading that enviromentalists are saying that we are headed for a greenhouse death. I'd like for those readers to go back and check the weather stastics for 19060's and 1970's. You'll find something funny there. Scientists then took almost the exact same readings, minus 1 or 2 degrees, and declared we were headed for an ice age.

Too bad for those scientists, the internet exists, and tracking down fallacies is no harder than going to yahoo or google.

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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?

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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

Parent

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...

Parent

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.

Parent

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 :).

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.