I was merely pointing out the irony in the title that was chosen by the author or editor.
I apologize for failing to make it clear that I did not think you gave the article the title.
I usually try to make it clear I am responding to the author, by naming him or her, but I was too lazy to do more than an unsuccessful, cursory search for the author's name.
In the February 8 New York Times, NASA’s Jim Hansen again complained that his ideas on climate change are being suppressed by the Bush Administration, which is destroying our democracy by censoring climate science. According to the Times:[excerpt]“On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed,” he said. “The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That’s the big issue here.”On the other hand, Hansen thinks that lying about climate change in order to get attention is just peachy.He wrote this in Scientific American in March of 2004:
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.Translation: I buffed this issue in order to get your attention and my schtick was subjective and not scientific.But, now, he suggests, that the time has come to tell the truth, and he is being censored. Sorry. Once a distortionist, always a distortionist.
Why should we believe him now? What evidence does he have to offer that his opinions and statements about climate change are suddenly true, when he admits that exaggerations were necessary. Was the public being “honestly informed” then?
And it wasn’t just “the public.” He distorted in front of the U.S. Congress.
No worries. Just making sure!