Bush Administration Tries to Silence TOP NASA Scientist

I was going to say something about how Europe would sure love to have some of those greenhouse gases about now, but I happen to agree with you.

I disagree with Hansen, but he should be allowed to speak his mind. Unless he has been instructed to represent the administration's view on such matters - then he would need to acquiesce or quit if he can't do so with a comfortable conscience. There are differences between one's personal views and one's official duties at times. That's a far cry from "silencing" - in countries where silencing is practiced, people like Hansen just disappear. Nice try, though.

Cheers,
Daiwa

First, Dr Hanson is one of the foremost experts on thus subject. I do not know the truth but I would be a lot more likely to believe him then George Bush whose motivation, I believe, is that he does not want to increase costs to big business that supported him. In addition, I do not think Bush knows ANYTHING about this issue. I also have read the reports as to how fast the polar ice is melting and the reports from NOAA that has documented the increase in ocean temperatures.

The principal issue is the approach this administration takes with ANYONE who does not agree with the position they take. It does not matter what the issue is or who disagrees. The Bush Administration tries to silence the source, discredit the source or attempt to divert the attention of the public with another unrelated issue.

The principal issue is the approach this administration takes with ANYONE who does not agree with the position they take. It does not matter what the issue is or who disagrees. The Bush Administration tries to silence the source, discredit the source or attempt to divert the attention of the public with another unrelated issue.

Then "why" have they not started on you?

Because I do not have a national reputation. If in the future my new book, George W. Bush Robin Hood for the Rich achieves any visibility, I will hear form someone.

Oh well, I guess Bush doesn't care about the planet. What car do you drive again Col?

George W. Bush Robin Hood for the Rich

LOL, that is by far the best title to any book I have seen. I give you an A+ for imagination. Heck I give you A+ for imagination on almost all of your articles.

I disagree with Hansen, but he should be allowed to speak his mind. Unless he has been instructed to represent the administration's view on such matters - then he would need to acquiesce or quit if he can't do so with a comfortable conscience. There are differences between one's personal views and one's official duties at times.

Whoa... pretty scary.

So what you’re saying is: since Bush’s position is that global warming isn’t a problem, scientists should reveal evidence that supports his view, even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is indeed a problem. Pretty scary.

This isn’t the first time the Bush administration tampered with scientific theory. They’ve also modified scientific reports in order to downplay the evidence of global warming and the connection between pollution and the greenhouse effect.

What we know about global warming is that it happens, as does global cooling. Both happen with or without the benefit or hindrance of mankind. We have some effect on it, to be sure, but some scientists in panic mode overestimate our impact rather dramatically and certainly overestimate what we can do to mitigate major climate change. Further, the law of unintended consequences does not spare climatologists' efforts to influence nature.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The point of the Blog was the way Bush deals with ANYONE that does not agree with his position. As to Global Warming, even Bush by now must believe it is taking place. The question is how much impact we are having on the process. If the people who believe we should do more to reduce greenhouse gases are incorrect the down side is lower corporate profits. If Bush is wrong and we are making things worse, we could be contributing to a catastrophe. Sounds to me the lesser of the down sides is a little less corporate profit!

Just look at the way you deal with anyone who does not agree with your position, Gene.

There is nothing wrong with expecting your "team" to stay on message and do it's jockeying and arguing in private. Every administration in American history has had the same desire. You make it sound like GW's locking up all who disagree.

Get over it. You may not have noticed, but we don't have political gulags here.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa

Yes that has happened in the past. I believe the level under the Bush Administration set a new high point. The process is WRONG no matter which party does it!

The point of the Blog was the way Bush deals with ANYONE that does not agree with his position.

And you claim not to be Bush bashing?

If Bush is wrong and we are making things worse, we could be contributing to a catastrophe.

Col, you can not blame Bush for such a thing because this has been going on for years and no one has done anything about it and it is Global, which means that the rest of the world is also responsible. You really need to stop putting so much blame on a single man. You actually believe that the fate of the world is on Bush's hand, you are nuts. You need to take that titanium plate out of your head and let it breath a little. Pathetic.

Instead of talking about the problem itself, you chose to cry about what Bush is doing to those who are trying to find out the truth.

I bore of your contradictions, in one place you cry because cars create too much polution and then in another article you complain about all the people loosing jobs in car companies. Make up your mind. If the car companies are laying off people, that means they are not making money, which means they are not selling cars, which means there are less cars to polute the air. You confuse me Col, you want them to make less poluting cars and sell them really cheap when you know that's not possible because new technology is always expensive.

If it rains you complain you can't go out but if it's sunny you complain it's to dry. There is no pleasing you. Well actually yes there is, all we have to do is agree with you that Bush sucks and we should remove him immidiately, that will make you happy. But wait, the Cheney will become president, that will only make more unhappy, there is just no winning.

The point of the Blog was the way Bush deals with ANYONE that does not agree with his position.

I am inclined to believe you're taking the words "attempted to stop" out of context to an extreme, and compounding the issue for those of us that seek more creditable sources of such a complex topic. You're using the NYTimes reporter as a source....

The White House has denied a "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring and that human beings, through the use of fossil fuels, are "largely" responsible, and from my sources I am inclined to agree.

Just ask the 4,000 scientists from 106 countries who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which includes 72 Nobel Prize winners. The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
What about the Oregon Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of Sciences? It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from scientists. It reads, in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Or, what about the 46 climate scientists who sent a letter, printed in the June 3 edition of Canada's National Post, to a Canadian member of Parliament, questioning the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming? According to the signatories, the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." Moreover, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord." And, that from a country that has liberal leanings.

According to a survey of state climatologist's by Citizens for a Sound Economy, 58 percent surveyed said they disagreed with the claim that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real" and with the statement that "there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate." Only 36 percent of the climatologist's agreed with the assertion.

The National Academy of Sciences also doesn't see consensus. As it wrote in 2001: "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes in the 20th Century cannot be unequivocally established."

So, explain to me why anyone with a sense of reason should believe Dr Hansen, and your NYTIMES source when they say GWB's admin attempted to stop him. They likely presented their views on the subject and asked him to reconsider. On the same token if you want an measure of "STOP', consider if GWB wanted to stop JH from going public, trust me he would have been stopped!

I believe Bush is trying to prevent Dr. Hanson from presenting his informed opinion. The Bush administration has done the same thing every time a well known person or group does not agree with his position. I have admitted there are differences of opinion about what is causing Global Warming, although most experts admit that it is occurring, but who is Bush to try and prevent ANYONE from presenting their opinion!

You fail to read my post AND don't appear to get the gist of the full NYTimes article without bias, ... GWB is NOT doing what your saying!!!

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. Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." 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. 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."

I see no conspiracy. If you read Hansen's history you'll see he's been listened to closely by the white house. Yet, due to his constant disrespect for the rules he's found himself in question throughout NASA. Furthermore, he's doesn't have the right to be NASA's public spokesmen unless he's appointed as such, simple period, done!

The so called rules are to stifle any descent from the Bush policy.

Gene, you can be so deaf.

Cheers,
Daiwa

How can "descent" be stifled, anyway? I thought Bush's policies were as low as they could get.

Cheers,
Daiwa

It seems as though the conflict comes from the Scientist wanting to use his position as a government spokesman to make policy speeches. That not being his job, I can see how the Adminstration which funds him would want him to not abuse his position by putting his words in their mouth.

He was the long time Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Science not John Smith. He has every right to express his opinion and the Bush administration is trying to take away the Constitutional rights of this man.

So, he's currently hanging by his testes in Abu Ghraib? Give me a break Colonel, really. I'm not sure what branch you may have served in, but if I were to guess, it would be Air Farce.

If the Prez were trying to silence this guy, we'd have never seen anything in the Times. Do you honestly believe the earth is globally warming? I seem to recall an article within the last six months saying we were in a global freeze. Thirty years ago, we were also told we were in a global freeze. The truth is, Colonel, we just don't know. We don't have records long enough back to truly extrapolate what may come.

Talk to your friends at the Sierra Club, PETA, and Farm Aid and convince them to plug cow arses. It would make as much a difference in greenhouse gasses as anything. Colonel, if you quit smoking the weed you could make a difference. And you wouldn't kill Teddy Kennedy's little kids with asthma.

the Bush administration is trying to take away the Constitutional rights of this man

Jesus, Gene - get real.

Cheers,
Daiwa