Hey, I'm not arguing global warming. I'm wondering if it is appropriate for politicians to be muzzling scientists. I take it you think that's okay?
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
www.denisdutton.com
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
I'd be against muzzling them but definitely in favor of cutting all their funding until they can produce at least a halfway credible theory of man made climate change on a global scale.
So far I haven't seen it.
Is it appropriate for a scientist to use his position to advance a political agenda?
It's disturbing, until you take into consideration that Hansen's words as an individual would be construed by many as NASA's opinion, not simply Hansen's.
Is it appropriate for scientists to politicize science? Is it appropriate for them to disseminate theories (e.g. the "forcing" theory) as established fact to the general public? Scientists on the other side have been muzzled in academia and the scientific press. Are you okay with that?
Do you think it's okay for journalists to muzzle scientists who don't subscribe to the global warming mantra?
Do you really think there's a conspiracy out there which will keep any scientist or wacko quiet? I notice that there's never any background done or search for motivation on a "muzzled" scientist who is already a Carterite "greenpisser." But if a scientist is skeptical of the global warming theory he's automatically searched for ties to Big Oil or the Bush Administration.
Give me a break, don't believe Everything you hear. Look at what motivates people and always be skeptical. You'll never find 100% agreement on any scientific theory, but in this day and age you'd think there were no scientists who disagree with the hockey stick.
Read "State of Fear," not as a crackpot rightwing book, but just to keep your mind open to motivational factors for the "humans are destroying the world" theories.
Never mind, just keep believing everything the New York Times tells you.
I am a scientist myself - a chemist. But if I presumed upon myself to pontificate in public with bogus authority about, say, planetary geology or some other field outside of my area of expertise - then not only muzzling but rotten eggs and tomatoes would be in order.
I don't see where anyone has been muzzled. This scientist's opinion/theory is well known. Just because the agency he worked in has employees with different opinions from his is not necessarily muzzling. I think this guy is just frustrated and trying to get some attention thrown his way and the greenies are more than welcome to help his agenda.
As far as the science goes, severe hurricanes and warm ocean temperatures are not something new. Global warming / cooling is part of a natural cycle that is incompletely understood, but likely has its primary origin in the output of the sun. Numerous other factors mediate the overall effect.