Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
[RIGHT][SIZE="1"]Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times[/SIZE][/RIGHT]
James E. Hansen, top NASA climate scientist, on Friday at the Goddard Institute in Upper Manhattan.
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.
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."
Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead.
"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."
Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan.
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. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.
In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.
He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.
But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."
He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.
Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."
The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.
Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media.
But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result.
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.
Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal."
Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.
Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.
Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"
Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.
"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public."
Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.
In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.
"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."
The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.
Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.
One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.
In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own.
"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff," he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing."
I never know what to do with these posts.
The entire story is reproduced instead of linked and there is no commentary provided to respond to.
What exactly is the point?
That NASA under Bush sucks.
We all knew that already, though, so I guess this is just here to make sure we've seen the story.
We all knew that already, though, so I guess this is just here to make sure we've seen the story.
This story appeared in the New York Times on January 29, 2006 - a date curiously edited out of the post. Not exactly "breaking news."
In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."
Statements like this, drafted to invoke fear and trepidation without being specific, Have turned me off to these alarms.
He might as well have run through the streets yelling the sky is falling. :eyebrow:
I think China should take the lead on this issue.
We (the US) are tired, we're busy and well, we're tired of telling everyone what to do only to have them tell us to stop telling them what to do.
Let's have someone else sit on the perch and dodge pellets for a while. Who wants popcorn?
I think China should take the lead on this issue.
We (the US) are tired, we're busy and well, we're tired of telling everyone what to do only to have them tell us to stop telling them what to do.
Let's have someone else sit on the perch and dodge pellets for a while. Who wants popcorn?
Right fuckin on!! I'm in - no butter on mine though, thanks.
I think China should take the lead on this issue.
We (the US) are tired, we're busy and well, we're tired of telling everyone what to do only to have them tell us to stop telling them what to do.
That's right. Let China have future jobs. Now we pay China for the right to use their technology. What does a mental midget and MBA need us to do? Forget that nations who innovates - who create the new products that reduce global warming - are the nations that become rich as everyone else must buy or license their technology.
As GM, Ford, etc all stifled innovation, Germans decided to develop / enhance / address pollution control. Therefore German engines achieved higher mileage, pollute less, more horsepower ... and everyone had to pay Germans for that 'oxygen sensor'.
The oxygen sensor even made flex fuel vehicles possible in Brazil. Innovation permitted more innovation - even more needed that product to reduce pollution. Only a Rush Limbaugh type liar would instead hype global warming solutions as an expense. Those who solve global warming have new products, new industries, more jobs, get richer on the many licenses, and realize the bottom line: resulting innovations are an asset.
But instead we should let China get rich - a classic MBA attitude that only a mental midget president would appreciate.
I have to agree fully with tw.
Right now we are being short sited. Technology grows exponentially, so if we make one invention, we make many more off that. Yes, it will cost us to make that one invention, but the payoff of the others will easily make up for it.
This story appeared in the New York Times on January 29, 2006
It was also posted here in The Cellar on 16 February 2006 in
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
Also discussed on 6 Mar 2006 in
Perverting science for politics .
(Meanwhile, UG posted his analysis on 14 Mar, "Tw, post #85 demonstrates that you are only half bright, ... ")
Well that proves it. Even 60 Minutes that reported this same scientific censorship on 19 Mar 2006 was also wrong.
It was also posted here in The Cellar on 16 February 2006 in Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
Also discussed on 6 Mar 2006 in Perverting science for politics .
(Meanwhile, UG posted his analysis on 14 Mar, "Tw, post #85 demonstrates that you are only half bright, ... ")
Well that proves it. Even 60 Minutes that reported this same scientific censorship on 19 Mar 2006 was also wrong.
Well I can certainly understand how you might have missed my point about not posting the exact same thing over and over.
We got us a passel of net-nannys in here, anyone else notice this?
I would love to be able to point a finger at someone for ignoring the "climate change" issue going on, but it really is everyones responsibility.
This article from March of last year is a result of government studies proving that this issue won't go away.
Two studies were recently published, documenting changes in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, confirming that climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouses of ice and snow (Greenland pictured at top and right). As if there could be any doubt regarding their conclusions, NASA recently published a satellite study of both regions and goes so far as to directly tie these changes to global warming, describing the survey as "the most comprehensive" ever for both regions.
Don't miss the part where they don't
necessarily link it to the use of fossil fuels...
Unfortunately, NASA did not go so far as to directly link global warming to human burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas. As a result, it is possible that the Bush Gang will claim that warming is due to cow farts, echoing claims from an earlier administration.
*sigh* Clearly nothing will change unless entire nations start rehab from oil dependency.. Something that I don't see happening for a long time in the U.S.
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.
We got us a passel of net-nannys in here, anyone else notice this?
I'm not a net nanny. I asked a simple question: what is the point of posting a year-old article that was discussed to death already without offering any commentary whatsoever to even kick start a discussion. This isn't fark, you know.
This isn't fark, you know.
lol :thumb2:
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...
I would love to be able to point a finger at someone for ignoring the "climate change" issue going on, but it really is everyones responsibility.
Everyone should be aware by now that it's getting warmer, the climate is changing, and people a likely contributing to it.
BUT, before we start dictating radical changes in lifestyle, shouldn't we ask some questions?
Like, so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing? How warm will it get and what will that mean? Can we do anything about it or is our contribution too small to have that effect? Or is it too late to effect the outcome, even if we could have?
Don't equate change with bad, some changes are good ....or at least neutral.
If we are going to do something we need a plan. In order to have a plan we have to know where we get the most bang for the buck. That's hard until we have some hard facts, which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth. :tinfoil:
Thanks, Bruce, thats exactly how I feel.
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.
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?
If we are going to do something we need a plan. In order to have a plan we have to know where we get the most bang for the buck. That's hard until we have some hard facts, which seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.
We have a plan. The problem is that some just fear innovation - simply love the status quo. Hell, GM was given $100million to build a hybrid - and did not even do that. Instead they build 300 HP vehicles - and label that obsolete crap as innovation?
The plan exists with options and ballpark numbers. But again, it would require xoxoxoBruce to read any technical discussions. xoxoxoBruce could not find enough money to buy that issue of Scientific American. But somehow he knows no plan exists. Denial is widespread among those who love the status quo.
Do nothing until we detail every aspect of the plan. Nonsense. Even Wal-mart has a program to reduce by a factor of seven the energy consumed by wasteful lighting. And yet xoxoxoBruces says we should wait, do nothing, until a better plan is created.
We don't even insulate building. What some call insulation is trivial efforts only determined by oil selling at low prices – even subsidized by the government. But again, it is called solutions to global warming – not a political ideology. xoxoxoBruce says don't require buildings to be insulated. Let's wait until a better plan is created.
Those who address global warming now will be the rich nations then. They will own the solutions. But what would a bean counter say? Let's wait until a better plan is created. Build V-8 engines because profits are higher. Idiots. That is why GM does not have profits. No wonder they oppose solutions to global warming.
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.
...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.
so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing?
Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? Can we deal with a loss like California's entire citrus crop every once in a while? Can we deal with changes in precipitation and another dust bowl like they had in the 30's? As global warming continues, scientists are pretty sure that severe weather like this will increase. I'd say that is a bad thing.
Everyone should be aware by now that it's getting warmer, the climate is changing, and people a likely contributing to it.
Like, so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing? How warm will it get and what will that mean?
I'm not positive of the exact amount, but even a minute increase in teperature at the polar caps is, not may, is causing a chain of events that will end life on this planet as we know it. Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
http:Polar Ice Cap Melting
http:Causes of Global WarmingNot that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
Are you still dancing on the fence? There is more than enough evidence to support people as the cause. Even your own link to the causes of CO2 should be enough. Sure, it doesn't have a blinking sign saying "We did it! We did it!" But you shouldn't have to lay your face on the stove to know it's on. The planet is warming up and we are the cause, time to start trying to clean up our mess!
Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
http:Causes of Global Warming
Sorry, that was meant to be quoted
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.
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. The planet is warming up and we are the cause, time to start trying to clean up our mess!
I'm not dancing on the fence per say, but we discussed this topic not too long ago in another thread. (damn I can't find it now - lil help please) I don't think there is any reason for us to not try to be more considerate of the planet, but I am not sure whether any of these Bills sent to congress will pass nor if they do whether they will do anything. It reaks of political posturing to me. But I am cynical by nature anyway. I sincerely hope that we, as a race do something to keep this ball spinning, be it our fault or not.
I don't think there is any reason for us to not try to be more considerate of the planet, but I am not sure whether any of these Bills sent to congress will pass nor if they do whether they will do anything. It reaks of political posturing to me. But I am cynical by nature anyway. I sincerely hope that we, as a race do something to keep this ball spinning, be it our fault or not.
I totally agree with you there. Like you said, I hope we do
something, and soon.
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?
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.
Like, so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing? How warm will it get and what will that mean?
How much of
the world's population and infrastructure is on a coastline?
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.
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.
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
Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? Can we deal with a loss like California's entire citrus crop every once in a while? Can we deal with changes in precipitation and another dust bowl like they had in the 30's? As global warming continues, scientists are pretty sure that severe weather like this will increase. I'd say that is a bad thing.
I suppose you have evidence that these things are caused by global warming..... even though they have all happened before... many times.
I also suppose you can prove it's worse than ever before....and it's our fault....and we can do something about it?
The total time man has recorded the weather, is a pisshole in a snow bank compared to the weather we haven't. A hunded years, a thousand years, ten thousand years, are nothing
Despite tw ranting and raving that I said all kinds of shit I never said, it makes sense to do what ever you can (can afford) to cut your energy consumption just for the cost savings alone. But to actually have a chance of having an effect on the climate, we need more than that.
It's got to be a national effort...a plan....which we don't have. Walmart trying to force everyone to buy their bulbs is not a national plan. Neither are the other schemes tw cites.
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.
I am not the key to any solution for global warming, if in fact there is one. I did a lot of looking and reading for the
Inconvenient Truth thread. The only thing the experts could agree on is that global warming exists. Of course tw says the scientists that agree with him are right and the ones that don't are scumbags, but realistically what are we supposed to believe? And what can we do about it?
Will it make a difference? Damifino.:confused:
"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.
I'm not positive of the exact amount, but even a minute increase in teperature at the polar caps is, not may, is causing a chain of events that will end life on this planet as we know it. Not that I think we can do anything about it or whether we are the cause, but. . .
To make that statement, then you know what "falling off the mountain" means. After all you made a statement is requires knowledge of that soundbyte. Tell us, Yesman065, what that statement means - because you know such facts before having an opinion.
Tell us what about "falling off the mountain" since the concept is so basic to understanding global warming.
Yeah...remember that the left Greenies were totally against nuke plants? When was the last one built? But now they are changing their tune.
So nothing has changed but their opinions? Have you learned the difference between nuclear power in 1970s and today? Fundamental changes cause nuclear to be an option to some 'Greens'. You know what those changes are? One example is located maybe 10 miles from the Cellar.
So nothing has changed but their opinions? Have you learned the difference between nuclear power in 1970s and today? Fundamental changes cause nuclear to be an option to some 'Greens'. You know what those changes are? One example is located maybe 10 miles from the Cellar.
Yeah...Three Mile Island was bull..so was the green movie "The China Syndromn....the russian accident happened because of drunk soviet monkees with an obsolete reactor.
Yeah...Three Mile Island was bull..so was the green movie "The China Syndromn....the russian accident happened because of drunk soviet monkees with an obsolete reactor.
Tell me what created Three Mile Island. I consider those who know without first learning details to be liars. I sure hope you don't end up in that category. What created Three Mile Island? Why was Three Mile Island synonymous with so many other American nuclear 'accidents'?
Tell me what created Three Mile Island. I consider those who know without first learning details to be liars. I sure hope you don't end up in that category. What created Three Mile Island? Why was Three Mile Island synonymous with so many other American nuclear 'accidents'?
How many people died at Three Mile Island?...it was a non-nuke ...no death accident. Oh by the way... I`m old enough to have seen it in real time..and saw the media hysteria...for no good cause.
How many people died at Three Mile Island?...it was a non-nuke ...no death accident. Oh by the way... I`m old enough to have seen it in real time..and saw the media hysteria...for no good cause.
IOW Ronald Cherrycoke has no idea what happened at 3 Mile Island. He just posts. Another disciple of Rush Limbaugh?
Ronald Cherrycoke has no idea what happened at Three Mile Island even though he was alive then - claims to watch it in real time. Again Ronald. Are you a wacko extremist or can you report what caused at Three Mile Island? I smell fear of reality in Ronald's posts. Prove me wrong. A blunt challenge. Show me you are an American patriot - which means you learn facts before posting. Tell us what what created Three Mile Island? Tell us how nothing has changed in 35 years?
What were the casualties of 3 mile island?
What were the casualties of 3 mile island?
Ronald Cherrycoke is the guy who routinely runs stop signs. He knows it is safe. Nobody died. That's all he need know.
Looks like UG has a new handle. I am looking forward to when he starts arguing with himself.
IOW Ronald Cherrycoke has no idea what happened at 3 Mile Island. He just posts. Another disciple of Rush Limbaugh?
Ronald Cherrycoke has no idea what happened at Three Mile Island even though he was alive then - claims to watch it in real time. Again Ronald. Are you a wacko extremist or can you report what caused at Three Mile Island? I smell fear of reality in Ronald's posts. Prove me wrong. A blunt challenge. Show me you are an American patriot - which means you learn facts before posting. Tell us what what created Three Mile Island? Tell us how nothing has changed in 35 years?
Old enough to be a combat infantry man during vietnam...186 infantry..101st .
Another one of those....
And you better thank God every day for men like him (and women)!!
Welcome aboard Ron we need more like you - in my opinion.
How many people died at Three Mile Island?...it was a non-nuke ...no death accident. Oh by the way... I`m old enough to have seen it in real time..and saw the media hysteria...for no good cause.
In the end, the reactor was brought under control. Although approximately 25,000 people lived within five miles of the island at the time of the accident [2],
no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "
the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one".
Heres the link to the FACTS.
http:/Three Mile IslandTo make that statement, then you know what "falling off the mountain" means. After all you made a statement is requires knowledge of that soundbyte. Tell us, Yesman065, what that statement means - because you know such facts before having an opinion.
Tell us what about "falling off the mountain" since the concept is so basic to understanding global warming.
Its about you being nuts. Hows that? - I posted links - read 'em and weep since they don't agree with your BS.
You still owe me an apology.Its about you being nuts. Hows that? - I posted links - read 'em and weep since they don't agree with your BS. You still owe me an apology.
I don't owe you anything. You posted without first learning the facts. You owe America an apology. Do you think they will accept it?
IOW you know all about global warming and yet don't have a clue what "falling off the mountain" means? It is used often when discussing the potential disasters from global warming. Or what happens when climate changes too fast. Before you make conclusions about global warming, don't you think you should first learn the facts?
You were wrong and you know it tw - man up and say you're sorry - you can do it. C'mon fess up.
I know what "falling off the mountain" means - I'm just not going to let you babble your BS anymore or allow you to ignore shit that doesn't fit into your LIES. I'm calling you on it and until you ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG - I will remind you with every post.
Oh speaking of which - You still owe me an apology.
In the end, the reactor was brought under control.
And when was that end? Almost one year later. Yes I am starving you of facts - waiting for one with opinion to first demonstrate a grasp of those facts. And still you post ignores how the answer addresses Roland's misrepresentation of reality. Your citation does not discuss the bigger picture.
Furthemore, only a fool (or an MBA) determines reliability based upon a 'graveyard index'. Even a farmer understand "closing a barn door after the cows have escaped". Yesman065 - apparently you don't.
The 'graveyard index' justified Vietnam and caused the launch (murder) of seven Challenger astronauts. Yesman065 - I am not asking for much from Roland. Simply learn the facts - know why - before jumping to ideologue conclusions.
Roland still has no idea what happened in Three Mile Island - but has all the answers.
Fundamental changes cause nuclear to be an option to some 'Greens'. Roland did not learn any of this. Somehow he has opinions anyway.
Somehow he has opinions anyway.
So do you and you aren't always right either. I will not get into defending him. I have a feeling he can do that just fine. You are trying, yet again, to change the subject and go off on your own little emotional tirade , bic-dic, top mgmt., facts, opinions, emotions blah freaking blah, blah, blah. If something doesn't fit into your agenda or preconceived notions then you discount it - whatever.
tw - You still owe me an apology.tw's doing a Rush Limbaugh imitation, with his "falling off a mountain" sound (written) byte he picked up, and trying to convince everyone they must answer to him. To explain on demand any tangent he thinks up. Don't fall for it. :lol:
tw's doing a Rush Limbaugh imitation, with his "falling off a mountain" sound (written) byte he picked up, and trying to convince everyone they must answer to him.
Well xoxoxoBruce - had you spent only a few dollars or a few hours in the library, then you would have known what that expression meant. It is a benchmark. One who denies global warming also never bothered to learn even basic concepts associated with global warming. Demonstrated again is also why a president could lie about WMDs - and some foolishly and automatically believe the liar. Automatically know a fact without first learning facts? Only those who hate America would do that.
The expression is well understood when one first learns the science (before having conclusions). "falling off the mountain" discusses a potential disaster due to global warming. xoxoxoBruce also denies the threat of global warming. And yet he could not even read one Scientific American issue that discusses the concept in layman's terms. He knows - but did not first learn? Like every poster who somehow knows this global warming problem does not exist - xoxoxoBruce also so not know what "falling off the mountain means".
This post will not change xoxoxoBruce's opinion. His conclusion was made long before he learned any facts. But other should appreciate where this denial of global warming comes from: ignorance. Some just know - facts and numbers be damned.
Meanwhile 'smoking gun' evidence of man’s contribution to global warming is now defacto science. It is only denied by ... well how many more don't even know what "falling off the mountain" means?
tw - I think you "fell down the mountain" and hit your head.
tw - You still owe me an apology.
See, he picked up a Buzz-Byte from one article, that he can't even explain, and makes it the keystone to the secret of saving the planet.... that only he understands.
tw, should have a Cabinet Post with this administration, or at least a seat on the board of FOX news, for having mastered the method. Claiming superiority in thought and deed, by virtue of having secret information like Bush, Cheney, Nixon and Limbaugh.
Virtually every other poster comes to the board and gives what they know, read, heard, feel, suspect or question. They're usually clear on why they post, what they post, and whether they're prepared to defend their position.
Then we have the Great Speckled Bird, circling aloft, dropping turds of information on the threads like it was a benevolent gesture. Accusing anyone that disagrees or questions one of his precious turds, to be stupid, emotional, lazy and/or dumb.
Certainly an emotional and childish reaction, but true to form, from someone that claims to be knowledgeable but only gives us; I know something you don't know, neener, neener, neener. :rolleyes:
Me thinks TW is confusing GW and AGW...
so it's getting warmer, so what? Is that a bad thing?
Global warming = severe local weather more often. Can we deal with a Katrina sized storm every couple years? ....
I suppose you have evidence that these things are caused by global warming..... even though they have all happened before... many times.
There is a clear causal correlation between the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean's surface and the hurricane activity for that season. There are also clear causal correlations between the Pacific Ocean's surface temperatures and storms in California and elsewhere. (El Nino and La Nina.) As the Earth gets warmer, the oceans will get warmer. We already know that warmer oceans mean more hurricanes. Is it such a stretch to say that warmer oceans will have a major impact on the weather?
Sure, we don't know the extent of man's responsibility for global warming. We don't know if we can reverse the trend. But I think we can say that global warming (1) exists and (2) is bad. Those are two points that I think can be put into the category of "settled." There's still plenty to argue about.
Increase in violent storms and flooding along the coasts....at least for the southern half of the country. Yeah, that sounds like a minus, but think of all the bugs that will get blown away, plus the windsurfing will be awesome. Of course you won't be able to get homeowners insurance so that precludes a mortgage. I guess that's a minus.;)
but think of all the bugs that will get blown away,
Sure, but do you really want the palmetto bugs blown up here to the Mid-Atlantic region?
Ibis came to Fl in the eye of a storm.
Sure, we don't know the extent of man's responsibility for global warming. We don't know if we can reverse the trend. But I think we can say that global warming (1) exists and (2) is bad. Those are two points that I think can be put into the category of "settled." There's still plenty to argue about.
Glatt, global warming and cooling has been happening since the beginning of the "globe." It is most likely a cyclical situation and we are in the warm side of the cycle. In the 70's it was global cooling we were worried about.
Should we do our part as individuals, communities and nations to reduce our repair whatever damage we are or have done to the environment -absolutely. I don't think any disagrees with that.
In the 70's it was global cooling we were worried about.
If by "
we" you don't mean the scientific community.
Armadillos just walked their happy asses up to Fl from Mexico.
Fucking tourists.
If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.
I most certainly do mean the scientific community - its a fact.
It's a fact that "global cooling" never had much support in the scientific community, as the article shows.
The Post says the Board had observed two years earlier:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.
This quote is taken quite out of context, however, and is misleading as it stands. A more complete quote is:
Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .
Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries"; but many other scientists doubted these conclusions
So what's new..... they didn't all agree then, they don't all agree now.:rolleyes:
Another one of those....
Another one of what kind? Someone that disagrees with you...or someone that knows out of experience what he is talking about? How many casualities from three mile island again?
Show me you are an American patriot
That.
Jan. 22, 2007, 8:19PM
Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'
By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.
Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.
Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.
The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.
For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."
Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.
But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?
To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.
It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.
Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.
"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.
Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.
"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."
Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.
Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.
Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.
For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.
That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.
"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.
Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.
Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.
The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.
[SIZE="5"]And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?[/SIZE]
"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."
[email]eric.berger@chron.com[/email]
I read the same article earlier today and thought I posted it, but I guess I didn't.
"a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members"
So shut up if you want to remain employed? Not the best way to get innovative - is it?
If by "we" you don't mean the scientific community.
Here's a quote I found this morning.
" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:
"We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."
This scientist is so credible that I am very fearful for my future. I agree, that scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly, and must be censured. There is too much at stake. I think we should start by outlawing the burning of fossil fuels altogether, as this eminent scientist argued.
One little detail I should point out ---
this scientist was quoted in 1972, and was talking about the horrors of the coming ice age, caused by human activity, which was responsible for global cooling. And these beliefs were held by the eminent climatologists of the day -- Dr. Reid Bryson, Dr. S.I Rasool, Dr Steven Schneider, and others, and reported in peer-reviewed journals.
Here's the important point: what are the common threads between the climate debate in 1972 and the climate debate today? 1) The solution is to punish producers of, and users of energy -- to put an end to the evils of capitalism and free markets, and 2) scientists who didn't agree were marginalized by the true believers.
True Believer | January 22, 2007"
That's been the worrisome thing all along. The first folks to embrace GW as real were those with other agendas. If it really is a problem folks need to sell it in a way that doesn't attack human progress. That is why I'm looking at the energy security issue. That is a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels and results in an economy not wedd to freeing co2.
Which means nuclear fission as well as windmill farms.
How much of the world's population and infrastructure is on a coastline?
fortunately blue staters tend to hang out by the coast lines. he he he.
" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:
Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?
Reminds me of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark is wheeled into a huge warehouse just after the CIA assures Indy that "top scientists" are studying the Ark, but won't name them.
Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?
Climate expert Heidi Cullen
Global Warming "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval."
Yep, that's the AGW-Taliban...
Fearmongering
by Walter E. Williams
Jan 23, 2007
Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The Weather Channel has taken up that task with its series "It Could Happen Tomorrow."
The Weather Channel started its "It Could Happen Tomorrow" series in January 2006. The program includes episodes where a tornado destroys Dallas, a tsunami destroys the Pacific Northwest, Mount Rainier erupts and destroys nearby towns, and San Diego is devastated by wildfires.
They omitted a program showing a meteor striking my house, for it, too, could happen tomorrow. Of course, any one of these events could happen tomorrow, but I'm reminded of a passage in Shakespeare's "Macbeth," where after Macbeth listens to the predictions of the witches, Banquo warns him that "Oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence." That is, gain our confidence with trifle truths to set us up for the big lie.
The big lie, conceived by the Weather Channel in cahoots with environmental extremists, is to get us in a tizzy over global warming, and they're vicious about it. Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climatologist, hosts a weekly program called "The Climate Code." Dr. Cullen advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming, according to a report by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
Dr. Cullen has had a lot of help in demonizing skeptics of catastrophic manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers," and former Vice President Al Gore calls skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse. Mr. Morano reports that on one of Dr. Cullen's shows, she featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." (See the Morano report at: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568.) He didn't say whether the death penalty should be administered to those found guilty of global warming denial.
[SIZE="5"]
The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of control must come up with a new name, and that new name is environmentalism.[/SIZE]
Last year, 60 prominent scientists signed a letter saying, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. . . . Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
They added, "It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas." These scientists have probably won The Weather Channel's ire and might be headed toward a Nuremberg-type trial.
Dr. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, and author of More Liberty Means Less Government
We need to cut down on CO2 emmison whether or not we are causing global warming. It will create an industry within itself so I don't know why you are complaining.
How are the scientists controlling us anyways? You don't seem to take them seriously anyways.
Ron, thanks for posting that. I read it the other day and couldn't find it when asked for it.
I heard and interview about corn produced ethanol and some other alternatives - does anyone have a link about the ratios between the loss in gas mileage vs. the gains in reduced emissions. I mean if I have to use, say 20% more ethanol to travel the same distance, do I still produce less negative emissions? How much less. . .?
Ron, thanks for posting that. I read it the other day and couldn't find it when asked for it.
I heard and interview about corn produced ethanol and some other alternatives - does anyone have a link about the ratios between the loss in gas mileage vs. the gains in reduced emissions. I mean if I have to use, say 20% more ethanol to travel the same distance, do I still produce less negative emissions? How much less. . .?
I really believe if there would have been any real advancement in alternative fuels or methods... the capitalist would have jumped on it long before now."They Are Only In It For The Money".
Sugar ethanol is a good alternative but we don't use it because we tax imported sugar to protect our industry. I believe Brazil uses sugar ethanol.
Sugar ethanol is a good alternative but we don't use it because we tax imported sugar to protect our industry. I believe Brazil uses sugar ethanol.
Got to grow all these plants...where is the savings?..seems like the fertililzaor cost would more than make up for any savings.
![the world's population and infrastructure]("http://www.ambergriscaye.com/wallpaper/art/lights_of_earth_at_nightx.jpg"){kind=link}