The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13087)

rkzenrage 01-15-2007 07:11 PM

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
 
Quote:

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...te.xlarge1.jpg
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

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."

Beestie 01-15-2007 08:37 PM

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?

Ibby 01-15-2007 08:42 PM

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.

Beestie 01-15-2007 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 307574)
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."

xoxoxoBruce 01-15-2007 08:55 PM

Quote:

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:

Beestie 01-15-2007 09:19 PM

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?

yesman065 01-15-2007 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie (Post 307581)
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.

tw 01-15-2007 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie (Post 307581)
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.

piercehawkeye45 01-15-2007 10:59 PM

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.

tw 01-15-2007 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie (Post 307576)
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.

Beestie 01-15-2007 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 307606)
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.

rkzenrage 01-16-2007 11:54 PM

We got us a passel of net-nannys in here, anyone else notice this?

Irie 01-17-2007 12:55 PM

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.
Quote:

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...
Quote:

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.

Beestie 01-17-2007 01:15 PM

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.

Beestie 01-17-2007 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 307860)
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.

Irie 01-17-2007 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie (Post 308072)
This isn't fark, you know.

lol :thumb2:

Hippikos 01-18-2007 06:25 AM

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...

xoxoxoBruce 01-18-2007 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irie (Post 308062)
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:

Ibby 01-18-2007 10:11 PM

Thanks, Bruce, thats exactly how I feel.

piercehawkeye45 01-18-2007 11:04 PM

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

Irie 01-18-2007 11:28 PM

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

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

tw 01-19-2007 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 308599)
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.

tw 01-19-2007 04:33 AM

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

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

yesman065 01-19-2007 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 308641)
...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.

glatt 01-19-2007 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 308599)
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.

yesman065 01-19-2007 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 308599)
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 Warming

Irie 01-19-2007 11:18 AM

Not 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!

Irie 01-19-2007 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 308688)
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

piercehawkeye45 01-19-2007 01:10 PM

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

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

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

Irie 01-19-2007 01:48 PM

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.

yesman065 01-19-2007 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irie (Post 308712)
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.

Irie 01-19-2007 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 308758)
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.

WabUfvot5 01-19-2007 03:45 PM

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

Undertoad 01-19-2007 03:52 PM

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.

Happy Monkey 01-19-2007 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 308599)
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?

glatt 01-19-2007 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 308785)
Throughout history mankind has two hobbies:

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

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

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

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-19-2007 07:28 PM

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

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

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-19-2007 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308832)
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

xoxoxoBruce 01-19-2007 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 308683)
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:

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-19-2007 08:26 PM

"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.

tw 01-19-2007 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 308688)
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.

tw 01-19-2007 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308849)
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.

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-19-2007 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 308890)
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.

tw 01-19-2007 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308894)
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'?

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-19-2007 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 308901)
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.

tw 01-20-2007 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308910)
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?

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-20-2007 12:06 AM

What were the casualties of 3 mile island?

tw 01-20-2007 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308919)
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.

Ronald Cherrycoke 01-20-2007 12:45 AM

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 .

piercehawkeye45 01-20-2007 12:51 AM

Another one of those....

yesman065 01-20-2007 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 308929)
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.

yesman065 01-20-2007 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke (Post 308910)
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 Island

yesman065 01-20-2007 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 308889)
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.

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.

tw 01-20-2007 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 308934)
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?

yesman065 01-20-2007 01:40 AM

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.

tw 01-20-2007 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065 (Post 308933)
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.

yesman065 01-20-2007 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 308943)
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.

xoxoxoBruce 01-20-2007 11:57 PM

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 01-21-2007 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 309072)
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?

yesman065 01-21-2007 10:55 AM

tw - I think you "fell down the mountain" and hit your head.

tw - You still owe me an apology.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.