Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

[Beestie]

Is it an accepted proposition that totally refraining from the use of fossil fuels will halt global warming?

Just wondering out loud here but what if we stop using fossil fuels altogether and global warming stops. Then reverses. Then we plunge into another ice age.

I kind of doubt it but boy if it did I sure would have a hard time explaining that one to my seven year old.

I mean its not as if the climate on this planet never changes or anything but it does require that we examine a period longer than the last 100 years.

[Hippikos]

Being silenced is never a good thing for Democracy. But that goes for both sides. Dr.Hansen has been able to spread his alarmist messages, which most of them did not became true since 1988, much more than many skeptic scientists. A bit of the kettle calling the pot black. AGW has been looked at more objectively. Me thinks Dr.Hansen is now trying a different route...

[Ibby]

Thanks, Bruce, thats exactly how I feel.

[piercehawkeye45]

I think global warming is natural but we are just adding fuel to the fire. Either way, it can lead to devastating effects throughout the world.

[Irie]

Bruce,
you make a good point and I must admit that my call for immediate change comes in a feeling of desperation. True, it has been this hot before and the earth does what it wants over time, but I think there is enough evidence in not only in science but 70 degree weather in Boston in January that proves we are contributing plenty. Fossil fuels are known to be a large contributer to the problem, so we should start there right away, then plan some more researched attempts.

A recently failed theory was putting quantities of iron in the ocean which spurred plankton growth and helped remove CO2 from the air, but the results weren't what we hoped. If something as desperate as chucking mass quantities of a metal into the ocean won't really work, then shouldn't we do what we can now?

[tw]

We watched xoxoxoBruce's logic 30 years ago when the same myopia said we would all have to ride in Pintos to achieve 24 MPG cars. Back then, the Pinto only achieved about 22 MPG. Why is 30 MPG the normal number for a standard car? Because innovation - not the 'we fear to innovate' attitude that xoxoxoBruce posts - occurred where car companies said the product and innovation. Same applies to global warming. xoxoxoBruce is again saying we would all ride in Pintos; the status quo - stifling innovation - is more important.
We watched xoxoxoBruces logic 30 years ago when the same myopia said we would all have to ride in Pintos to achieve 24 MPG cars. Back then, the Pinto only achieved about 24 MPG. Why is 30 MPG the normal number for a standard car? Because innovation - not the 'we fear to innovate' attitude that xoxoxoBruce posts - occurred where car companies said the product and innovation. Same applies to global warming. xoxoxoBruce is again saying we would all ride in Pintos; the status quo - stifling innovation - is more important.

The argument of global warming is really about those who fear to innovation – who fear change. Meanwhile the threat of global warming is because the changes are happening 10 and 100 times too fast. The resulting loss of knowledge – the various species that teach us how to advance ourselves has become massive. Species are literally ‘falling off the mountain’ – a term that in not understood by those who so hate the world as to not first learn concepts.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

...a term that in not understood by those who so hate the world as to not first learn concepts.

Are you talking about yourself in the third person again? You do know thats a sign of insanity - right? Oh, and posting the exact same thing twice in the same post does not increase its validity.

[piercehawkeye45]

Global warming will not wipe out the human race or life as a whole. Humans have experienced temperatures close to these and maybe even higher back 1,000 years ago and no one died out. Around 100 million years ago the CO2 level was four times as high as it is now, life still exists.

Now all of that is true, humans WILL survive global warming, but that argument is lacking one big issue. How will the standard of living be affected? I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to live my life day to day, living on shit in constant 100 degree weather. If global warming persists, the sea levels will rise, droughts will ravage the third world countries, weather will be as fierce as it comes, and all farming will have to relocate due to a change of the range crops can grow in.

Life will survive global warming, but the standard living will drop, which is the missing argument in the "it's natural" argument.

[Irie]

Update: Bills on Climate Move to Spotlight in New Congress

Legislation to control global warming that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed.

Four major Democratic bills have been announced, with more expected. One of these measures, or a blend of them, stands an excellent chance of passage in this Congress or the next, industry and environmental lobbyists said in interviews.

[WabUfvot5]

I always like to play it safe when potential catastrophe is involved. It may be inconvenient to go inside during a T-storm but if it keeps me from being struck my lightning so be it. Same for climate change. May be inconvenient to some but why tempt nature?

[Undertoad]

Throughout history mankind has two hobbies:

- Bending nature to his will
- Predicting, and panicking over, the approaching apocalypse

It's nice to see them come together so neatly.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Throughout history mankind has two hobbies:

- Bending nature to his will
- Predicting, and panicking over, the approaching apocalypse

It's nice to see them come together so neatly.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

A NASA spokesman denied any effort to silence Hansen, The Times said. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," said Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Rather, the spokesman said the restrictions applied to any and all NASA personnel who could be seen by the public as speaking for the agency. Acosta added, however, that while government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen, The Times said.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

A NASA spokesman denied any effort to silence Hansen, The Times said. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," said Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Rather, the spokesman said the restrictions applied to any and all NASA personnel who could be seen by the public as speaking for the agency. Acosta added, however, that while government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen, The Times said.

Reuters News Agency

Jan. 28, 2006

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

"Next to where I work is a coal fired power plant that spews more shit into the air in one day than I will in my whole life."


Yeah...remember that the left Greenies were totally against nuke plants? When was the last one built? But now they are changing their tune.