Dr. James Hansen, longtime director of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has a reputation as one of the world’s experts on global climate. Given the Republicans’ rocky relationship with real science, as opposed to misleading catchphrases like “sound science,” it seemed inevitable that Dr. Hansen would run afoul of the administration.
The wait is over.
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.
…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.”
…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.
One more example of why we shouldn’t trust these guys farther than we can throw them.
AWJ
“Dire consequences”? Is it just me, or does the Bush administration sometimes sound less like a government than like a Mafia family?
srv
How about the dems and Soros get together and buy the ranch next the GW, drill for natural gas, and open a 24 hour asphalt facility?
Otto Man
It’s not just you. Check this out.
Pug
NIce lab you got here, Mr. Scientist. It would be too bad if something happened to it.
Pooh
Grave Danger? Is there another kind?
EL
This particularly struck me from the NYT article:
Sounds very Soviet to me, can’t talk without the political officer present.
ppGaz
Word.
John Cole
Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Hansen figured very prominently in Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science. I will have to find my copy and check.
Tad Brennan
Thugs. That’s what they are. There has never before been a group of thugs this ugly in the White House–worse than Haldeman and Erlichman, worse than their Cuban enforcers. Eventually we’ll get the republic back, after they are in jail.
The Other Steve
It’d probably be a good idea if we just started calling Bush… “The Boss” Otherwise we might get rounded up by the Ministry of Culture or something.
Richard Bottoms
Whew, John. Good thing you didn’t vote the adminsitration that threatened him back into office.
You didn’t do that did you?
So it’s kind of your fault, huh?
Tim F.
Read the byline, dude. Again.
Richard Bottoms
I did.
He voted for this clown car administration. Twice.
I didn’t. His fault.
Pooh
Well, Richard, let’s be fair, he had help. There was Katherine Harris, and von Spakowski (sp?), and…
Otto Man
How long before they start burning at the stake anyone who insists the earth revolves around the sun?
John Cole
Oh, piss off, Richard. I am so sick and tired of the feces flinging monkeys like you whose only contribution in the comments section is to toss crap at me.
Go back to the DU.
Richard Bottoms
Now if I ever read a post from John that said: I am sorry I ever voted for George Bush I’d lay off.
But what I read is he’s disappointed, bothered, indignant, unhappy. Everything except, dammit I wish I had cast my ballot fot the other guy because the one I did vote for is out of control and completely incompetent.
I read how he just knows the Democrats would have been worse. Would have done worse. Would have botched two wars, helped our enemies gain power by fighting their twenty year old war for them.
Would have abrogated our rights under the Constitution and when called on it grab for even more power.
Yeah, I am so grateful we were spared what the Democrats would have done.
StupidityRules
Who cares about the enviroment, Rapture(tm) is round the corner anyway.
Richard Bottoms
Ohh, calling a black man a monkey now that’s always gone over well.
The only crap I’ve tossed is the reality is you voted for president Potato Head twice and your only defense is Kerry would have been so much worse.
I get under your skin because you know it is YOUR FAULT Bush has the power he does. When you finally say the word “I was wrong” then I’ll believe you have one shred of remorse for the direction thsi country is going in.
John Cole
Don’t even try that tired old shit here, Richard. Every commenter on this website is black and white, because that is how the pixels show up. Your race, sex, religion, sexual preference- none of that matters, and you trying to inject it into the conversation is as weak as everything else you have ever written.
Tim F.
cough
Richard Bottoms
You can tell when someone is getting steamed when they overreact to a prod in the right place.
So the Republican party isn’t overun by gay bashing homophobes who are trying to limit the rights of a certain class of its citizens?
The party is supremely in tune with the opinions and feelings of minorities and thus does itself a favor whenever its presidential hopefuls visit Bob Jones University?
That hundreds of soldiers haven’t died needlessly because of poor planning, incompetent leadership, and rosy scenarios?
Cause that’s what I write about here.
I write about a party beholden to tent revival preachers and trailer park cowboys who only care about them fags not getting married or their wimmen getting abortions.
You party, not mine.
So when you compain about the state of affairs I have simply reminded you, you voted for them. Not me.
Richard Bottoms
Sorry, not good enough.
I regret getting a speeding ticket a while back. Doesn’t mean I actually conceed I was wrong to speed.
Richard Bottoms
I poke fun so rarely, I’ll put a smiley face in next time.
SeesThroughIt
Not until after the midterm elections.
Pooh
Wow, that got ugly fast…
ppGaz
{ cork pops }
Fill your wine glass?
Anyone?
Ken Hahn
Amazing.
This gentleman makes wild allegations of intimidation and you swallow it whole hog. He offers no proof and you demand none. It fits your bias that he’s a victim of Bush, so you run with it. It really put the fear of God into him, didn’t it? You can see has to hide out and refute his opinions.
You all want to be Galileo, but you’re all too busy being Chicken Little.
If the left would stop producing so much hot air there would be no global warming.
srv
You know, sometimes we should look at where society is going and instead of talking all doom-and-gloom, we should see them for the opportunities they are.
For example, if reality-based science is on the outs, we should expect alot of positions at the NASA labs to be opening up in the next few years. Maybe, since I was a lousy engineering student (party, beer, you know), I’m smart enough to get a Physics degree from Bob Jones?
Where the Dark Ages really that bad, after all? Seems like there was alot of beer and partying.
Rizalist
(first time here) Like to make the observation that Science and Religion have both informed and misled society throughout history. Both have a kind of authority that clearly does not come from any single position they take on a particular issue. So people deem it “unfair” when such general authority is used to win an argument in a highly controversial issue. Rightly so, because science and religion deal with secrets and forces that are beyond any scientist or believer to control. Take Albert Einstein, a pacifist and reputedly that greatest scientist that ever lived, who caused America to discover and harness the secrets of the stars, yet unleashed a genie that may yet destroy us all. Or save us.
Perry Como
Able Danger, something the Liberals don’t want to talk about because it shows that Clinton knew about the 9/11 plot and refused to do anything about it.
Richard Bottoms
Hmm six years later and it’s still all Bill Clinton’s fault.
stickler
Objective lesson for all:
This, and the repression directed against government scientists, is part and parcel of the same thing: Lysenkoism. Only Party-approved science is acceptable. All other science is flawed and must be repressed.
Same with news. Because NewsMax or Faux said it, it must be true — and any other source is politically incorrect and must be repressed.
The East Germans had a song — pretty snappy tune, actually — which summed it all up.
Die Partei, die Partei, die hat immer Recht, und Genosse, es bleibet dabei…
“the Party, the Party, it is always correct, and Comrade, it will always be so…”
Clinton is the Eternal Enemy. Objective science is Liberalism run amok. War is Peace. Up is down.
Ryan Waxx
Completely agree with Ken Hahn’s amazement at the total lack of skepticism here in these comments. Perhaps that is because you are hearing what you want to believe.
But mostly, I’m appalled at the naive notion that there has never been ways of discouraging executive branch employees from using their executive branch position to discredit executive branch policy.
I mean really, do you seriously think no one in the State Dept ever disagreed with (one random example) Clinton’s missle strikes in Iraq? So what do you think kept them from using their positions to bash that (except for anonymous comments to the papers)? Their innate good-naturedness? Their total lack of partisanship? Yeah, right.
Jesus. Are there any adults in this thread?
Richard Bottoms
And so when GW said he’s going to change the culture of how Washington operates he was mouthing a deliberate flasehood? That his people would be just as bad.
Or just better at the PR spin?
So the story here is, why believe this guy at all, and besides if he WAS intimidated it happens all the time, and besides it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.
Ryan Waxx
> And so when GW said he’s going to change the culture of how Washington operates he was mouthing a deliberate flasehood?
Ah. I see. So, now the main complaint about GWB is not that he’s actually doing something unusual, but that he’s *gasp* not fulfilling a campaign promise to the satisfaction of his political opponents.
Yeah, he’d be the first president to do that *snigger*. Son, I do believe I asked for adults.
You know, that’s quite a backpedaling from your previous position. Better check your passport… you might have ended up in another country with that kind of leap.
Tad Brennan
Well, part of the Orwellian damage is already done when people cannot or will not distinguish between policy and science.
Policy disputes have been a staple of every administration. But no previous administration has carried on such a concerted war against science itself–scientific experts, expertise, studies, results and data.
They want to hide and deny the settled scientific consensus (remember, Bush also supports ID). And some people are either dumb enough or evil enough to try to recast it as a policy dispute. When the Bush administration declares the earth is flat, they’ll be in the front lines saying it’s nothing more than a policy dispute.
stickler
Pay close attention here to the way the lickspittle Party loyalist works in a snide accusation of disloyalty to country. Nicely done.
Ryan Waxx
Actually, I meant nothing of the sort. But hey, nice invective! I bet you are the life of the party.
Ryan Waxx
> Policy disputes have been a staple of every administration. But no previous administration has carried on such a concerted war against science itself—scientific experts, expertise, studies, results and data.
My god. Are you people for real? Hell, even SCIENTISTS don’t always agree on theory. Never have, except in the idealistic fantasies of science-worshippers. Forget what the church did to Galelio. Why don’t you get a book and read what his fellow scientists said about him?
And no one can deny that global warming doesn’t have a policy hook roughly the size of the U.S. economy. Pretending that it’s off limits to debate because the fellows who control a couple influential science magazines say so, is either appalingly juvenile, or an attepmt to argue entirely from authority… something that you apparently only have a problem with when Bush does it.
Andrei
Actually… the main complain about Bush is that he’s a friggin’ moron, and too many people think that’s a’ok with them or are willing to tolerate it because they somehow believe the Democrats will truly screw it up more so than this administration and the GOP Congress has to date.
How many more examples of Bush speaking off the cuff and answering impromtu questions do you people need?
Andrei
You are sorely misinformed. When Scientists don’t believe each other’s theories, they test them and publish results of those findings. Are there some scientists smarter than others? Of course, which is why the facts and the proof speaks for itself in science.
Ryan Waxx
> How many more examples of Bush speaking off the cuff and answering impromtu questions do you people need?
Ah, so your primary requirement for a president is that he answer questions slickly and with appealing sound bytes.
How shallow.
Nope, not an adult to be found anywhere. Have a nice night.
Andrei
What? Are you kidding? Have you ever watched or listened to Bush at unscripted public speaking events?
My primary requirment for a president is that he’s not a fucking moron and can ACTUALLY ANSWER A QUESTION without resorting to prescribed talking points. Have you ever seen what happens when Bush goes off script?
How less shallow can one get than that?
Adults? Look in the mirror sir and wake up please.
GTinMN
Little Ryan is woefully misinformed, or willfully ignorant, about the war on science that has been a major initiative of the Bushistas. Lest anyone takes up where he left off with that line of bullshit:
A
few
examples
Sirkowski
What about global warming?
– What about Clinton?
Typical wingnut answer…
Perry Como
I’d like to know who “Dr.” Hansen voted for in the last two elections. He’s probably a Democrat and he’s just trying to make President Bush look bad. Democrats can’t beat the Republicans in the polls, so now they are trying to beat us in the laboratory. Hansen should shut up and do his job, rather than try to set policy from his lab.
Pooh
Perry, is that 5-pound or 10-pound test you’re using?
Sojourner
I love this. We’re now going to vote on science. Are the Repubs really that stupid?
ubernerd83
Hah. Mafia administration. I wonder if they’re going to nail this guy’s head to the floor? If so, we’ll have to break out Spiny Norman.
(10 imaginary internet points to whoever gets that reference.)
chopper
hah! i like how you put Dr. in quotes, implying that he might not even have a phd. nice.
as to doing his job, he is. HES THE TOP CLIMATE SCIENTIST AT NASA. its his job to determine these things.
Sojourner
Yet another example of how the Bush administration chooses ideology over science as the basis for its policies:
How many people will die as a result of this stupidity?
Jcricket
I’d say that Perry is channeling DougJ. It’s just too perfect, with the “Dr” and “set policy from his lab” comments.
Again, I do think it’s unfair to slam John. He’s a lifelong Republican and nearly every day he publicly blogs about “Republican Stupidity”. Yes, I know, he periodically posst examples of “Dem Stupidity”, but they seem mostly aimed at non-elected officials like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc. Republicans don’t have a monopoly on stupidity (although they do have a commanding lead right now). So while John isn’t pulling a David Brock and denouncing everyone he’s ever supported/voted for, he’s still gracious enough to admit when Republicans are morons and provide this forum for us to come and rant anonymously.
I do wonder, John, what your plans are in the future in terms of voting? With the depth of the damage Bush has done to the economy, international relations, civil liberties,etc. to affect us for 20+ years), will you vote for someone from the current Republican caucus in ’08? Do you really think Dems, if in control, will be equally bad? Since I can’t imagine you not voting, who are you likely to support?
Seriously, I’d be interested to see a blog post on your thoughts about the coming ’06 and ’08 political landscape, not in terms of who will win, but who you’d support and why.
Richard Bottoms
Main Entry: 1snig·ger
Pronunciation: ‘sni-g&r
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): snig·gered; snig·ger·ing /-g(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: by alteration
: SNICKER
– snig·ger·er /-g&r-&r/ noun
Dave_Violence
“This gentleman makes wild allegations of intimidation and you swallow it whole hog. He offers no proof and you demand none.”
I’m pretty skeptical, too. If this is 100% true, what is the risk to Dr. Hansen if he names names, etc.? Will he never work again? Why not? Wouldn’t some university pick him up? Wouldn’t the outrage (genuine) over his lab getting shitcanned (Gov’t property) and his career trashed be universal and the W Administration stuck answering questions on this issue non-stop be too risky for the “re-thuglicans”? If it’s nearly impossible to fire a Federal employee, what the heck?
“…The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture…” WHO called?
Perry Como
Nobody. Hansen probably works for MoveOn is his spare time. He has a political axe to grind sso he went running to NYTimes because he knew the NYT would be more than happy to print a made up hit piece about the Administration. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hansen and Ward Churchill are good friends.
Sojourner
Certainly a much more rational explanation than those pesky, inconvenient facts. But then these are the same people who believe that science should be performed as a political contest.
Have a good day, DougJ!
SeesThroughIt
No, they just think they’ve found a good way to attack facts that are, to steal Stephen Colbert’s phrase, biased against them: put it to a vote. Let the unenlightened overshout the people who are experts in the field, in other words. It’s part of their strategy for inserting creationism into schools as well–all that “teach the controversy” bullshit.
DougJ: Your Perry Como character has really gotten solid. Before, he was a little too scattershot, but now he’s quite effective.
TallDave
Oh please. If the PA officers are calling him, it’s because he’s not doing his job. Guess what? When you’re a gov’t scientist, there are rules.
So they remind him to follow the rules, and immediately the NYT makes it sound like a Luddite Stalinist purge. This from the people who act as though GM food is going to lead to humankind being exterminated by giant man-eating carrots.
TallDave
emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use.
How many people will die as a result of this stupidity?
Damn them! Promoting abstinence and fidelity as though they can prevent AIDS! What kind of ridiculous theology-based craziness is that?
They should tried for murder.
Andrei
And Dr. Hansen claims they are using the rules to silence him, so he will ignore the rules.
Oh that’s right… we don’t have an obesity problem in this country from all the crap food the food industry has been feeding into the system the past 70 years? Only 33% or so Americans are obese because there really aren’t any food problems in this country. So we might as well say GM food is fine, trust those in the food industry as they’ve done such a great job so far keeping us all healthy. Right?
Nothing to see here, move along, right, TallDave? Do you ever question anything?
Andrei
Last time I looked, we have 8 billion people or so on the planet because when you get right down to it, people like to get it on. So good luck on that trying to convince people not to get it on thing because I’m sure it’s easy to corral 8 billion people on the planet
Hell… Jim Bakker couldn’t even keep it in his pants. Wake up already.
Sojourner
Nice one, dumb ass. Spend money on a strategy that has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective.
What a great idea!!! Another example of effective government courtesy of the Bush administration! Whoo hoo!
Sojourner
Only reality.
SeesThroughIt
Seriously. Has anybody bothered to look at Texas, where Gub’ner Bush introduced his beloved faith-based approach to sex ed (“Don’t have it–end of lecture.”)? It’s among the worst states in the nation for teenage pregnancy and STD transmission rates. But a little thing like abject failure has never stopped Bush before, so why should it now? It’s not like he personally will suffer any consequences, so what does he care about, ya know, the little people?
Bruce Moomaw
First, the Times dug up corroboratory (and repeated) testimony from the Goddard Institute’s public affairs officer to the effect that the Administration is trying to stifle Hansen — not to mention the following intriguing statement of official policy which the Administration doesn’t even try to deny: “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.” Definitely Politburo time. If Ken Hahn had actually read the article before shooting off his mouth that Hansen was making “wild accusations of intimidation with no proof”, he might have noticed these little items.
Second, contrary to Ryan Waxx, the consensus among atmospheric scientists that man-made global warming exists is and is probably serious involves a hell of a lot more than “the fellows who control a couple influential science magazines”. In November 1991 Gallup polled 400 climatologists and found a landslide consensus that it does exist and had a very good chance of being serious. (I’m looking at a copy of the poll right now, accompanied by an indignant cover letter from the Gallup people on how George Will and Ronald Bailey blatantly distorted the poll results to try to make it appear otherwise.) That consensus has solidified considerably further in the 14 yers since then, although it still isn’t unanimous. The only people who are apparently trying to make the subject “off limits to debate”, Mr. Waxx, are in the Administration.
The most interesting thing of all is that Hansen is by no means on one far pole of the debate, — he’s already gained great notoriety (and some opposition from other climatologists) by suggesting that one way to partially alleviate the problem which would be much cheaper and easier than trying to reduce humanity’s CO2 emission would be for it to reduce its output of other greenhouse gases. Evidently this isn’t enough for Commissar Rove.
Bruce Moomaw
Additional tidbit from today’s article on global warming in the Washington Post:
“When Hansen posted data on the Internet in the fall suggesting that 2005 could be the warmest year on record, NASA officials ordered Hansen to withdraw the information because he had not had it screened by the administration in advance, according to a Goddard scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity. More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation.
” ‘They’re trying to control what’s getting out to the public,’ Hansen said, adding that many of his colleagues are afraid to talk about the issue. ‘They’re not willing to say much, because they’ve been pressured and they’re afraid they’ll get into trouble.’ ”
As I say, Politburo time.
Perry Como
It’s just the Administration doing a long needed smackdown on activist scientists. When we elect scientists, then we will let them set policy. Until then I’d prefer to leave it to the people we have already elected.
Shygetz
When the rules say, in effect, “You cannot warn the public of emminent global danger because it would hurt the party line” then hell yes, you should be pissed off. If the rules said that scientists could only talk about peer reviewed science, that would be a good rule. If it says that scientists can only talk about party-approved science, that’s awful. And that’s essentially what the rules say.
Faux News
AHEM! (clears throat). I’m not exactly feeling the love here from you.
john
Just wondering why you didn’t bold this little tidbit from the article–
“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.”
Doesn’t fit the agenda, no?
How vile it is that science has to have an ‘agenda’.
But, Tim, the notion that the left is science’s friend is as ludicrous as the notion that the right is science’s friend. But ‘sides’ use science only in the pursuit of more power. If the science contradicts their positions, ignore or discredit it.
Tim F.
Well gosh, the accused issues a precisely-worded non-denial denial. Stop the presses.
You’re attacking conclusions of your own making, John. Some folks call that a ‘straw man’ argument.
tzs
Yet another reason why I’m moving to Japan….
I suggest all those of you supporting this administration check into “Revealed Truth” and WHY the Soviet Union finally decided that physicists were exempt from it.
Hint: it had to do with the critical mass of nuclear waste and why certain areas of the Urals ended up radioactive….
BIRDZILLA
james hansen is just your usial blabber hot air freak its like when former VP AL GORE claimed that 98% of the scientists beleive in global warming but 17000 to 18000 scientists signed a letter recomending against signing into the junk science inspired KYOTO TREATY the whole GRENHOUSE EFFECT is based wholey on junk science and computer simulations they have absolutly no facts to back it up just like with evolution