NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence

[Orwell]

The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

“In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

The Bush administration has been repeatedly accused of not giving a damn about science or scientists.

[a_unique_person]

You were beaten to it. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51159

[Orwell]

Oh! Damn...

[corplinx]

Actually, this is interesting. MSNBC carried the story Orwell posted in 2004. The NYTimes is a new story where makes some of the same complaints. The thing is, I have never seen a counter Hansen's side of the story. Most of the board neocons like myself have just wiggled our noses and said "censoring scientists is flat wrong".

Here is the other side of the story:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...sen-revisited/

I have no comment since if you check the source, its bias is pretty clear. Then again, the MSNBC/NYTimes stories carry another bias, that being Hansen's since they basically play instrument to his tune.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by corplinx

Actually, this is interesting. MSNBC carried the story Orwell posted in 2004. The NYTimes is a new story where makes some of the same complaints. The thing is, I have never seen a counter Hansen's side of the story. Most of the board neocons like myself have just wiggled our noses and said "censoring scientists is flat wrong".

Here is the other side of the story:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...sen-revisited/

I have no comment since if you check the source, its bias is pretty clear. Then again, the MSNBC/NYTimes stories carry another bias, that being Hansen's since they basically play instrument to his tune.

"Bias", in this case, is kind of irrelevant. People have been accusing this administration of bad science shenanigans for years now. There have been dozens (or more) of allegations, some of them with pretty compelling evidence. Hell, there even was a book on it ("The Republican war on science"; it probably should have been called "the Bush administration's war on science" since I don't believe every republican shares this administration's disrespect for science).

The Bush administration has, amongst other things:

- Rejected the scientific consensus on global warming and suppressed an EPA report supporting that consensus.

- Stacked numerous advisory committees with industry representatives and members of the religious Right.

- Begun deploying a missile defense system without evidence that it can work.

- Banned funding for embryonic stem cell research except on a claimed 60 cell lines already in existence, most of which turned out not to exist.

- Forced the National Cancer Institute to say that abortion may cause breast cancer, a claim refuted by good studies.

- Ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove information about condom use and efficacy from its Web site.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...000&sc=I100322

And there are other cases...

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Orwell

"Bias", in this case, is kind of irrelevant.

No, its very relevant, just don't get hung on lib/con type simple bias. Either the story is accurate or it is not. The NYT seems to be happy with "Hansen showed up here and said this" being accurate but not actually checking his accusations or motivations. He may be a pure scientist and courageous whistle blower or he could be a believer with an axe to grind.

I won't let you derail your own thread into a generic bush vs. science one either.

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by corplinx

No, its very relevant, just don't get hung on lib/con type simple bias. Either the story is accurate or it is not. The NYT seems to be happy with "Hansen showed up here and said this" being accurate but not actually checking his accusations or motivations. He may be a pure scientist and courageous whistle blower or he could be a believer with an axe to grind.

I won't let you derail your own thread into a generic bush vs. science one either.

My point, Corplinx, was that this is one more accusation regarding the Bush administration's disrespect for science. See, in the OP, I said:

Originally Posted by Orwell

The Bush administration has been repeatedly accused of not giving a damn about science or scientists.

See, I am not derailing my thread. By the way, having an axe to grind doesn't mean that you need to lie to grind it. The most efficient way of grinding an axe is to grind an axe that actually exists, eh? I quoted a bunch of specific cases in my previous post. If you think these are all being made up by people who have axes to grind, well, it's up top you to prove it.

[corplinx]

Originally Posted by Orwell

My point, Corplinx, was that this is one more accusation regarding the Bush administration's disrespect for science.

Well, do you think this is solid evidence or is tapestry painting?

[Orwell]

Originally Posted by corplinx

Well, do you think this is solid evidence or is tapestry painting?

I think that, considering that this isn't the first time such accusations have been made, there is a pretty good case for this being true. It is consistent, anyway, with the way how this administration has behaved in the past.

[Lurker]

If I can add another Bush suppression for the list, recall when Bush's medicare bill was in congress the cost was vastly understated and an accountant in the Bush administration was going to revise the cost closer to the true cost. But the administration silenced him until the bill passed.

Lurker

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by corplinx

Actually, this is interesting. MSNBC carried the story Orwell posted in 2004. The NYTimes is a new story where makes some of the same complaints. The thing is, I have never seen a counter Hansen's side of the story. Most of the board neocons like myself have just wiggled our noses and said "censoring scientists is flat wrong".

Here is the other side of the story:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...sen-revisited/

I have no comment since if you check the source, its bias is pretty clear. Then again, the MSNBC/NYTimes stories carry another bias, that being Hansen's since they basically play instrument to his tune.

Did you read their 'about us'?

Quote:

World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in the literature and popular press. As the nation’s leading publication in this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States.
Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable read—which may account for its broad appeal.

They can say all that and keep a straight face?

[davefoc]

Based on numberous articles that are consistent with the idea that the Bush administration attempts to manipulate government funded science to support its views I tend to believe the idea that the Bush administration attempted to stifle Hansen's ability to get his message out.

One thought about the government attempts to stifle reports that support the idea that humans are a primary cause of the current global warming:

Before Bush was elected one of his campaign promises was that his administration would work to reduce polution including CO2 emissions. The first secretary of the interior actually took him seriously on the promise and began to implement regulation of CO2. Her efforts were strongly opposed by people in the administration and stopped almost immediately.

When Bush promised CO2 reductions he didn't realize that CO2 was different than other pollutants that could be reduced by pollution control mechanisms while still continuing to use the same amount of fossile fuels. When somebody in his administration explained to him that controlling CO2 meant using less fossile fuels* and using less fossile fuels was something his administration was definitely not in favor of he "forgot" his campaign pledge and worked to eliminate any government attempts to reduce CO2 emissions.

I have come to see Bush as an individual that has little interest in policy. Policy direction is almost entirely generated by his top advisers. I think Bush's science policy is like that. He has no particular knowledge or opinions except that he is loyal to the people that do have opinions if they are loyal to him. And being a Bush high ranking loyalist means you have almost carte blanche authority to push your policies from invading Iraq to squelching government funded research that supports the position that burning fossile fuels leads to significant anthropogenic global warming.

* My statement here is not quite correct. It is possible to reduce CO2 generation by switching from coal to other fossile fuel sources of energy like oil and natural gas.