Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

The New York Times ^ | January 29, 2006 | ANDREW C. REVKIN

[yoe]

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

[snip] He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

[snip]

Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."

[Ben Ficklin]

Hansen was irritated with Bush over two issues.

During the Clinton Administration, Congress was in heated debate over developing a comprehensive policy and of course they were getting nowhere. At that time Hansen publicly stated that there was no political or scientific consensus over CO2 and climate change, and rarher than wait to reach consensus, Congress should temporarily set the CO2 issue aside and move forward on controlling the gasses on which there was consensus. The logic behind this was that if there is a reduction in the smog gasses, which everyone agrees there needs to be, there will be a corresponding reduction in CO2.

When Bush entered office he seized on this Hansen statement and used it to justify non-participation in Kyoto. Not only that, Bush also added additional justification by saying that he was only following Hansen's advice which made Hansen look bad amongst his peers.

The second issue is mentioned in the article above. Bush jumped on Hansens findings on soot and quickly wrote/implemented regs on soot. This was easy to do because the US emits relatively small amounts. OTOH, China and India emit huge amounts of soot because their huge populations use wood and dung extensively for domestic heating, which makes those nations the world leaders in soot emissions. And of course Bush used this as further proof that Kyoto is flawed because it excludes China and India.

[Mark Felton]

"Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels."

This man has had his mic made up sicne 1988 when all of the global warming models were wrong and incapable of even predicting current climate baed on historical parameters.

This mans entire reputation rests on his being "right" about global warming because he ha staked this position out for almost 20 years.

No way would he accept being shown to be wrong now, no matter what the truth.

NASA is right to muzzle political policy statements from this guy. Such policy statements should be the work of committees anyway.

[Richard Kimball]

River City ain't in any trouble.

We'll have to create some then. Must create a desperate need for a boy's band.

[MHalblaub]

by Michael Chrichton

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

"Good stuff"?

Is Mr. James Hansen retired professors?
Ask Tony Blair why he has written his foreword to the study "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change" in the way he did it.

I'm pro reducing the use of fossil fuels. The less oil we need the lees money the sheiks have to pay for their martyrs.

[yoe]

dihydrogen oxide Is my face red? Yep! dihydrogen oxide = H2O = WATER. Another second hand smoke fear factor.

[yoe]

dihydrogen oxide Is my face red? Yep! dihydrogen oxide = H2O = WATER. Another second hand smoke fear factor.

[DougJ]

I'm sure these scientists have a liberal agenda. The way they push this global warming crap is just outrageous. There is no SOUND SCIENCE to support it. It is nothing but a crackpot liberal theory, just like evolution and the big bang.

These scientists have only two goals: (1) to take God out of science and (2) to blame everything that goes wrong on Bush.

All of these crackpot scientists should be fired on the spot and replaced with people who understand that science is supposed to be OBJECTIVE not a subjective attempt to push one's own political agenda.

[maine-iac7]

High concentrations of dihydrogen oxide in the human body is a serious condition and can even be fatal.

So can too much H2O - don't take baths.