The Climate scientist they could not silence »
Posted by: Aidenag 6 months, 3 weeks ago301 Comments Report this Story
The trap was sprung in 2006. The White House ordered that Dr Jim Hansen was to be denied the oxygen of publicity forthwith. He was to be banned from appearing in newspapers and on TV and radio. He was effectively to disappear. It was the kind of treatment that might be reserved for terrorists, or in a totalitarian regime, for political dissidents.
Read Full Story at timesonline.co.uk
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 301
-
0%
Locky126 months, 3 weeks ago
Dr. Jim Hansen, Dr. Jim Hansen, Dr, Jim Hansen.
Anytime libs want to talk about global warming they always have to pull Dr. Jim Hansen out of their a$$.
Let me end this once and for all:
Dr. Jim Hansen is only ONE scientist that works for NASA.
He's not getting much collaboration.
So the only reason why I think he's banned from tv and radio is because he's a KOOK, a MOONBAT and a LOON all rolled into one.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag6 months, 3 weeks ago
Well he is one of the most senior scientists at NASA. Head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. also currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. And he is non-partisan(went after Clinton Administration same as he now does with Bush)
Call him what you want, but he is one of the most respected, and experienced scientists alive today...
Reply-
0%
Locky126 months, 3 weeks ago
Doesn't necessarily mean he's CORRECT.
You'd think he'd be flanked by an army of scientists whenever he spoke.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag6 months, 3 weeks ago
Would you consider the IPCC report as being "Flanked by scientists"?. Hansen has been for 30 years saying the VERY things that the IPCC report concluded just now in 2007. He has been at the forefront of climate science for longer than just about anyone, and has the respect of the bulk of the scientific community.
Reply-
0%
Locky126 months, 3 weeks ago
What if it's true? What am I supposed to do? Stop driving to work? Stop heating my home?
What is America supposed to do? Put strict regulations on every business while China doesn't, so we can just watch the rest of our good jobs leave the country?
When I see one scientist by himself, sorry, but I wouldn't sound the alarm just yet.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag6 months, 3 weeks ago
Of course not Locky12. Nobody is saying we should revert back to the stone age.. But you might consider carpooling, getting a hybrid, taking the bus, or finding a job closer to home. Also might consider getting solar panels, or higher quality windows that let less heat escape.
I don't get why people instantly claim the environmental movement wants to end the modern world. All that is being suggested is that people show some common sense and realize the current path humanity is on is not sustainable.
Reply-
0%
Aidenag6 months, 3 weeks ago
As for if we should let china keep polluting while we cut back. that is another big no. What we need to do though is quit being responsible for China's pollutive growth.
Almost all of the stuff made in China is sold to American's and other western cultures who don't want pollution on thier own land, but still want the uber cheap prices that come with no regulations on factory pollution. If we quit being so greedy, China wouldnt have any customers, and would literally be forced into following our path to a cleaner planet. That Or face the downfall of their goverment and economy.
Reply-
0%
Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
AI - a really basic question, I China having an unusual cold spell because of their poluted air?
Reply-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
Klarissa, some basic questions for you: Even if global warming theorists are wrong, shouldn't preserving our environment be of a greater priority than having a great economy and full employment? What good will a six figure income be if your house is under water because the polar ice caps are melting?
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct6 months, 3 weeks ago
KLARISSA:
"I China having an unusual cold spell because of their poluted air?"
That's the difference between weather and climate--obviously a concept you have yet to grasp.
AIDENAG is correct. Most environmentalists aren't calling for an end to modern technology. Most scientists aren't calling for a carbon tax either (that's the work of a vocal minority). Environmentalists are simply asking people to do what they can within their means: recycle, reduce, reuse, carpool, etc. (Is that Hummer really necessary?)
In fact, it is myopic to view the overconsumption of nonrenewable resources like fossil fuel as solely an environmental issue. In truth, it is also a national security issue as our over-reliance on fossil fuels ties us militarily to oil producing countries--some of which represent the most unstable regions in the world.
I'm constantly baffled by neocons who bang the war drums against Middle Eastern countries, yet balk when asked to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
You could draw her a picture with crayons and pretty characters
and her comment here would still prove that she will never understand the difference between climate and temperature.
Ask her if she understands the difference between influenza
(bodies status)and a fever (bodies temperature).
She won't..
I remember the days when even those pretending to be conservative did so while wanting to be affiliated with an
"intelligent" philosophy. Now the neo-cons survive by relying on dumbing down their listeners.. How the might have fallen!
Reply -
0%
svensun6 months, 3 weeks ago
So, ybdog, when you say:
"Environmentalists are simply asking people to do what they can within their means..."
...what you are really saying is that you want all of us to do stuff that will make us FEEL good, like we 'care', but that what we do does NOT actually have to solve a particular problem.
Let's face it, the things you are talking about doing WILL NOT reduce CO2 to 1990 levels, and even if it did, the IPCC has admitted that such reductions WOULD NOT stop what they are predicting, only reduce it by a small percentage.
So all this chest-beating is really about reducing global sea rise by a mere 3" or so? What's the point, when to do so will mean that untold numbers of vulnerable people in Third World countries will die of disease and starvation caused by the poverty your economic reductions will induce. Let's face it, when America faces a recession, Americans do with less; when Africa or Asia face a recession, people starve to death.
Reply-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"...what you are really saying is that you want all of us to do stuff that will make us FEEL good, like we 'care', but that what we do does NOT actually have to solve a particular problem."
--oh sven, you rascal... as if that would be a stretch for you. LOL. Just pretend we're talking about...I don't know, the "war" on terror. Let's see...We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here (or something like that), right? But why? What for? What are you fighting for? The right to keep burning through the world's oil supply with unchecked abandon and to poison the environment with zero regard for those who will come after us? I mean, why do right wingers want to "save" every blastocyst? So they can be born into what? A planet you've polluted and made more dangerous because of your addiction to oil?
Reply-
0%
svensun6 months, 2 weeks ago
I realize it is not 'politically correct' to mention it, but the US does happen to have a little problem with something called 'Islam', which in case you haven't heard of it, is a religion which believes that everyone on Earth must join it, or die.
I know that kind of talk may just be a bit too shocking for you, but if you were to start remembering a little incident that happened on 9/11, and the fact that we were at war with a fellow named Saddam during the ENTIRE 1990's, that might jog your memory as to why the US is fighting in the Middle East.
I realize such reasons make no sense to a neo-marxist materialist, but I will assume that you have more sense than to believe in such fairy tales.
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct6 months, 3 weeks ago
SVENSUN:
"what you are really saying is that you want all of us to do stuff that will make us FEEL good"
No, what I'm saying is that you ought to do what is within your means to conserve, reduce, or recycle Earth's nonrenewable resources because the problem is BIGGER than simply one of global warming. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
SVENSUN:
"So all this chest-beating is really about reducing global sea rise by a mere 3" or so? What's the point"
Again, you miscomprehend. The overconsumption of nonrenewables like fossil fuels is BIGGER than global warming:
(1) Combustion byproducts precipitate as acid rain and harm agriculture and aquatic sectors.
(2) Combustion particulates exacerbate respiratory disorders, like asthma, lung cancer, and allergies.
(3) Most importantly, overconsumption of fossil fuels ties us militarily to oil-producing countries, many of which are unstable and unfriendly toward the U.S.
Reading comprehension--you should try it sometime.
Reply-
0%
svensun6 months, 2 weeks ago
ybdog, you forget, in your analysis of the 'evils' of fossil fuels, that the USA happens to have the LARGEST RESERVES of fossil fuels in the world, namely a 300 year supply of COAL!
Sadly, environmental harem-scarem keeps us from burning that coal, and liberating ourselves from the evils of Middle East, Orinoco Basin, and Siberian oil.
Likewise, the US also sits upon VAST RESERVES of uranium, which would supply us with nearly unlimited amounts of NUCLEAR POWER, but again, more enviro-wacko harem-scarum keeps us from acheiving true energy independence.
Instead, we are told that we must put windmills,or some other such nonsense, as long as Ted Kennedy and his friends on Cape Cod can't see them.
I believe technology is solving the exhaust pollution problems with fossil fuels; note the incredible improvements in modern auto emissions. What is needed is real technological improvement, not silly Luddite nonsense like windmills.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct6 months, 2 weeks ago
SVENSUN:
"you forget, in your analysis of the 'evils' of fossil fuels, that the USA happens to have the LARGEST RESERVES of fossil fuels in the world, namely a 300 year supply of COAL!"
Great. Then why don't you drive your coal-powered car to work? You forget, in your analysis of the U.S. coal supply, just how much of that is being used to power the transportation sector. While it's true that coal can be converted into gasoline, the process by which this occurs is costly, does not exist at the scales necessary to address rising demands, and itself consumes energy.
SVENSUN:
"the US also sits upon VAST RESERVES of uranium"
Great. Then why don't you drive your uranium-powered car to work? Nuclear energy is NOT a panacea; it has it's own problems. The fact you fail to see this reveals just how weak your background in the sciences really is.
Until that miracle breakthrough arrives, we ought to be doing our part to achieve energy independence by conserving resources.
Reply-
0%
svensun6 months, 1 week ago
yb,
It turns out that if the DEMOCRAT Governor of Montana had his way, I WOULD BE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY, "drive your coal-powered car to work..."
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/08/energy_indepe...
According to this DEMOCRAT blog, which labels itself as 'progressive', the technology ALEADY exists to convert coal to gasoline very cheaply, compared to today's oil prices, and the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, intends to do exactly that.
So, what's this about 'how weak [my] background in the sciences really is"? Are you saying the same of Gov. Schweitzer, as well?
BTW, couldn't that uranium be used to create the energy needed to cheaply convert all that coal into gasoline?
If the Germans could do it 60 years ago, I see no logical reason why we can't do it today.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Klarissa6 months, 3 weeks ago
see page 6 for the rest of this article on smog:
Could smog protect against global warming?
By Charles J. Hanley
The Associated Press
NAIROBI, Kenya รข;; If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.
The ''shade'' would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such ''massive and drastic'' operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs6 months, 3 weeks ago
They are. However, they do not consume fossil fuels, just plant matter most of which is going to undergo decomposition and produce CO2 anyway. They involve very little mining, refining, oil pipelines, supertankers of oil dumped in our oceans and on our beaches, and they are completely bio-dergradable when worn out.
This is silly, we all know that we cannot revert to accomplishing work for 6.5B people with animal power. What we CAN do is limit our consumption of fossil fuels while working on ways to reduce it further, like mass transit instead of private cars, and finding alternatives to burning coal for any purpose.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
EAOrlando6 months, 3 weeks ago
One might also consider nuclear energy. Its use in Europe, particularly France, has had a far more substantial effect on the reduction of 'greenhouse gases' than all your prescriptions combined. The Enviormental Movement's continued fear-mongering on this issue lends credence to the charge that it is essentially Luddite, and using the 'global warming' debate to further proscribe individual choice.
As for your comments relative to China, "we" did not contribute to its pollution; China was faced with the choice, upon surveying the results of 40-odd years of collectivist ruin, to continue on in its pristine Workers Paradise or feed its people. In choosing the latter course, they are required to accelerate productivity via heavy industry. In the last 10 years, they have advanced approximately a century and a half. They will continue to advance, ignoring our 'enlightened' views regarding the cost of that advance, until their economy matures (see Japan).
Reply-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"One might also consider nuclear energy."
--Why might we "consider nuclear energy" when some refuse to consider conservation? Why should those on the left bend to those who feel our planet is theirs to rape and exploit at will? So you get nuclear energy and we allow you to dig for oil to your heart's content, then what? Do you agree to work on a more aggressive schedule for increasing mileage and emissions standards? Those on the right keep proposing approaches which will allow them to continue using energy with abandon while they give up nothing. Why should anyone agree to that?
Reply-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"How can you talk about conserving and not talk about nuclear energy?"
--I don't remember suggesting that a dialogue on conservation mustn't include nuclear energy. My point was that it seems every discussion I have with those on the right regarding energy independence automatically begins with nuclear energy or centers on drilling, blasting, or burning something rather than conserving and developing alternative fuel technology. Even if the reason we're in Iraq really was about gaining energy independence, that doesn't mean we can or should go back to energy policy as usual.
Reply
-
-
0%
svensun6 months, 3 weeks ago
meso:
"Those on the right keep proposing approaches which will allow them to continue using energy with abandon while they give up nothing."
Why are you SO EAGER to see someone 'give up' something? Do you like to make people suffer?
What are you, the Grinch?
You act like PEOPLE are the enemy!
Reply-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"Why are you SO EAGER to see someone 'give up' something? Do you like to make people suffer? What are you, the Grinch? You act like PEOPLE are the enemy!"
--Um, maybe because several thousand Americans have *given up* their lives so that we can plant a flag in the middle east and protect our oil interests? sven, don't you see that the reason our country is going down the toilet is because your President has convinced too many Americans that they can have something for nothing? Jobs they haven't earned,houses and lifestyles they can't afford, huge, heavy cars which burn obscene amounts of fuel, multiple tax cuts while we borrow money to fight multiple wars, and on and on? Please wake up, dude.
Reply-
0%
svensun6 months, 2 weeks ago
What ARE you talking about?
Are you suggesting that GW invented capitalism? or consumerism?
If so, then I would suggest that my original thesis stands up; YOU do NOT LIKE capitalism, or consumerism, which means that you believe that we must 'give up' or suffer some sort of punishment.
Trying to link Iraq to the cheap flow of oil is such a nonsensical argument, based upon both logic and evidence. Obviously, if one's goal was to guarantee the free flow of cheap oil, the LAST thing you should do is INVADE and DISRUPT an oil-producing region. I would say that the current $3 per gallon gas prices demonstrate quite clearly that your thesis holds no 'water' or gas, as it may be.
If you think American soldiers are dying in Iraq to get you cheap gas, then you ARE as deluded as you think THEY are.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
slate6 months, 3 weeks ago
Not everyone can afford a hybrid, solar panels or new windows, that's if they live in their own house in the first place. Face it, some people uses their vehicles to haul things and make a living, for those that just commute and can afford it buy a Hybrid, but remember all those batteries for your car will someday pollute the very ecosystem you bought the car in an attempt to save it in the first place.
Not all Cities are set up with mass transit, come to Houston and try taking a bus sometime.
It does sound easy to just move closer to work. What if your job takes you to a seedy side of town? How much higher would the costs be to live in say NYC proper or commute from Middletown NJ?
Reply-
0%
slate6 months, 3 weeks ago
Yes lets find a way to cut pollution,,,, wouldn't it be nice if we could find an affordable and clean way to make electricity to illuminate the planet and or make things be in motion that now require hydrocarbons to do so? We'll still need oil far into the future for the other 85% of things that are hydrocarbon based that few think about when talking about this subject.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs6 months, 3 weeks ago
If we don't make some hard, sacrificial choices now, slate, the choice is going to be taken out of our hands. And the final result is gonna be a lot worse. There will be no point in going to NY except to loot building materials and metals from the hulks standing in the water. What will we eat when the midwest is a dust bowl that produces neither animals nor grain? The acidification of the ocean is likely to eliminate most of our familiar foods from there, and a great deal of its oxygenating capacity. We are not talking trivia like some people who haul things for a living.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"Because those who believe doing nothing is the limit of their responsibility will get the death they deserve."
--well, maybe not the death they *deserve* but they'll probably get it a lot sooner than they otherwise would have. The thing is, when we're talking about people who will argue all day long that every act of sexual intercourse must result in a birth and then literally the next day fight tooth and nail to deny those very children health insurance, it's kinda hard to pin down the extent to which they care what Mother Nature thinks. ;-(
Reply-
0%
slate6 months, 3 weeks ago
Or those that say if we can't get people to be reasonable humans and not get pregnant in the first place, and since others don't feel they should have to pay up because someone is too stupid to not use readily available contraceptives we should allow these same people who can't take on that simple responsibility the responsibility to decide to take the life of the product of their irresponsibility.
Reply-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
But the thing is, you had no problem insinuating yourself into the lives of those"stupid" people BEFORE they had a kid so stay the course, baby. Why is the 9 year-old kid less innocent to you when he needs you to pay for his insurance than he was he was a clump of cells? Why? You can't have it both ways, slater. Give it up. You break it, you bought it. Period.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
bruhaha6 months, 3 weeks ago
Developing countries and other countries aren't going to change if the US won't change. That is the problem with your argument. Why am I, as a developing country, going to reduce emissions, etc. if the United States won't.
Your argument there is just a lazy excuse to do nothing.
Reply-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
You're right. Let's not do anything. Let's be like everyone else in the international community. And don't stop at the environment. Let's cut back (further) on our own human rights (after all, China isn't complying with that either) and let's do away with the Geneva convention entirely. Since some people weren't following it, we might as well open the floodgates (literally) and decriminalize waterboarding and all other forms of torture. Also, I've heard that some countries (I'm not naming any names) imprison people without a trial so why not just do away with that silly old law and let all countries just do what they want. Arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing. execution on the spot... Should do wonders for international relations. Whoo-hoo!
Reply-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"However, it's the emmissions from his jet fuel consumption that's a far greater danger to the ecosystem and more likely to add to the dreaded climate change."
Oh, I get it... It's perfectly acceptable to burn up as much petroleum as you want (for example, unnecessarily flying back and forth between Crawford Ranch and the White House multiple times per year) as long as you don't lecture other people about energy conversation over all, right? In order to be credible, Gore must be 100% hypervigilant all the time when it comes to conserving energy. LOL. Got it.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct6 months, 3 weeks ago
BOBO:
"Well I'm not going to do anything until both you and Al Gore reduce your personal emissions to 80% of those of an average American."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore...
During WWII, citizens were encouraged to conserve resources to support the war effort. Now, here were are a mere half-century later and you neocons who are so eager to go to war against the Middle East balk when asked to conserve resources and reduce the flow of money going to these oil-producing nations.
Way to support our troops.
Pathetic.
Reply -
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
And I'm not going to stop stealing from my company until the guys at MCI get theirs!
What dumb logic.
LAZY, SELFISH and STUPID.
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed6 months, 3 weeks ago
The US has already taken massive steps to clean up -- we are SOOO much cleaner --air,water and ground-- than we were in the 60's.
When was the last time you heard of a river in the US being so polluted that it caught on fire? Remember the Cuyahoga in PA in, I think it was '72. I crossed the Cuyahoga about 1-1/2 years ago and it looked beautiful.
Long Island Sound was a cesspool when I was a kid -- now it is CLEAN!
We, in the US have already done much to improve the environment -- what is left is draconian measures that will result in incremental improvements.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Yeah, but now we have over 320 million people using resources here, unlike the 1950's when we only had barely over 200 million.
You see, with higher population comes the need for better planning...
Reply-
-
-
0%
amazed6 months, 3 weeks ago
mercury in the fish, I'll give you, but I'm not sure that we put all the mercury into the fish. As far as more cancer from the sun, until the 50's nobody sunned -- people (especially women) tried their hardest to keep their skin as pale as possible, to say nothing of the fact that until well into the 20th century, neither men nor women exposed much skin.
All the reading I have done regarding heart attacks has more to do with the increased fat cotent of our food more than the additives (although trans fats aren't great)
Not to mention that many of what ails us is a direct result of our increased longevity -- when the average life expectancy is 45, you don't have much time to develop blocked arteries, heart disease and many cancers.
Really, it's okay -- you don't really need to be all gloom and doom --things really ARE better.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Thank you (honestly) but the reason I am so concerned is just seeing my friends bringing up children in a world where
weapons are in school, respect for elders and our laws are ignored and child abuse and predators are out of control scares me..
I am gloomy because I do not see mankind bettering this world, and THAT was what my father was taught by his father to teach me..
We are in decline as a civilization and I do not want to be in denial when I can do something about it.
We can't even begin to heal our wounds if we refuse to recognize them..There are people who bleed to death and the bleeding is internal. Just because some cannot see it, does not make it go away!
We are supposed to be smarter!
I want to work every day for a better world.
It is my passion as it was my father's.
Reply-
0%
amazed6 months, 3 weeks ago
much of what you say is true, but has nothing to do with global warming (or lack of it).
Much of can be laid at our ever more permissive society that refuses to deal in any absolute morality at all -- insisting that all relevant morals and ethics are situational.
It is easier to latch onto a cause such as global warming than to recognize the truth -- that our insistence on coddling our children so "they feel good about themselves", our insistence that there is no "wrong" or evil and that every lifestyle is the moral equivalent of every other lifestyle with none better or worse than any other, among other things that I'm running out of room to name -- has contributed to our downfall. It is difficult, if not impossible, to recognize and address these things because it is so far beyond politically correct to do so.
I will be pilloried for this post.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
Teaching our children not to waste, or the importance of conserving is not relevant?
Taking ownership of our responsibilities instead of handing them over to our children because of our wastefulness, inability to balance a budget or control our borders is exactly what I am talking about.
Of course global warming has much to do with what I am saying about our selfish self destructive attitude and our lack of willingness to teach consideration to ongoing generations.. It is about accountability for our actions (or inactions)
They deserve better and we were taught better.
I am not going to leave this earth being recognized as part of the "selfish" generation..
Reply-
0%
amazed6 months, 3 weeks ago
but none of that was what you were bemoaning in your earlier post.
And if you think that the schools are not preaching the gospel of global warming and ecological awareness, recycling and pollution avoidance (as about the only absolutes that ARE being taught) you are quite out of touch with today's curriculum.
Reply -
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
No, what I was "bemoaning" was much of what you are espousing.
We should be able to teach our kids that there is a price to pay for wrongdoing and it can be painful. We need to teach that to greedy businesses also..
Screw political correctness.
Only prejudicial comments should be protected by political correctness.Our country is in need of justice.
This includes reasonable child punishment AND the death penalty for heinous murderers like the DC snipers and child kidnappers.
Our disregard for global warming tells our kids that WE are not going to be accountable for our errors and THAT is not a good example either. (it has to work both ways)
Teaching an 11 and 12 year old about global warming is fine, but their first logical question should be: "Hey, I'm a kid
what can I do, why are you doing this to us, and what are YOU doing about it"?
Right?
Reply-
0%
amazed6 months, 2 weeks ago
read my post again -- and this time think about what I actually said and have been saying rather than putting what you assume I'm saying in my words.
No where I have I ever said that we should totally disregard global warming or pollute with impunity. What I am against is hysterical knee-jerk reactions against something that might or might not be affected by these actions --many of which are not only draconian measures that result in incremental improvements at best -- or as has been happening lately -- the cures (mtbe, ethanol, ultra low sulfur diesel) are worse and causing more problems than the probelmes they are trying to solve.
I am NOT willing to trash our economy or our way of life on a maybe or perhaps or faulty computer models, but I am more tha willing (and do) to do whatever I can FEASABLY do to prevent or reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
"What if it's true? What am I supposed to do? Stop driving to work? Stop heating my home?"
--No. You're being irrational. Why do those on the right always think in terms of black and white?
"What is America supposed to do? Put strict regulations on every business while China doesn't, so we can just watch the rest of our good jobs leave the country?"
--This is the same argument right wingers use to justify illegally invading other countries, using torture, and imprisoning people indefinitely without a trial. You people have to decide if you want us to be the best country in the world or you want us to be like everybody else. You cannot have it both ways. We lead by example or we devote our existence to fending off attacks from those who feel we are bullies and have no moral high ground to dictate what other countries should do.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
StarLord6 months, 3 weeks ago
No, it doesn't mean that he' automatically right. It does, however, mean that he's entitled to a fair hearing - which your beloved President has denied him, via a political appointee.
Given that you seem determined to ignore anyone/everyone who disagrees with you, debating you is pointless. You believe that unless there is 100% unity from scientists (including those paid by Big Oil to confuse the results), then no-one should listen to them. I disagree: it is up to all to make up their own minds, not for them to wait for some people who are being paid not to see the obvious to realise the error of their ways.
Reply -
0%
AnteUp6 months, 3 weeks ago
Locky12 ~
Well, if he is just one - and you give the impression, one
of a small group. Tell me why this administration fears his comments? Where are the well respected scientists who would
lay out the error of Mr. Hansen's thinking. And I don't mean
ONE scientist, or theorist like Michael Crichton, show us
the MANY scientists who feel Hansen is an alarmist.
Such heavy handed methods would not be necessary - the
scientific community would take care of the issue.
Reply-
0%
donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
...the adminstration said the head of the CDC can't talk to the media either after his speach addressed the impacts on health of global warming!
Does the lack of funding to federal environmental inspection teams also add to the Bush state of denial? You bet! Whatever is necessary to make a short term buck under the Repugs!
Reply -
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
This administration is despicable. They cover up everything, admit nothing and blame Clinton for the rest..
Hey, it just took them until the abysmal Christmas season to finally admit that a sinking dollar, rising fuel costs, and a skyrocketing deficit might also be part of a BAD economy.
As recently as early December they were still telling us the economy was strong. They are lying deceitful evil doers..
Reply
-
-
-
0%
donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
...to a Repug, a scientist can't be a scientist until he states he is a devoted Christian first! Why we now have incompetent scientists in all federal appointed positions under Dumya! There is a reason why Dumya has an executive order for political oversight of all government functions... to the detriment of all Americans!
Reply
-
-
0%
BravoSierra6 months, 3 weeks ago
You don't know much about how science works. Science is based upon independent research that can be replicated and cross-validated. This is done using a multi-method, multi-modal approach. Scientists work independently for a reason. The very notion that scientists would flock together they way you propose is idiotic given the way science works. And while many other scientists' predictions are not quite as harsh as Hansen's, the vast majority of climate scientists agree with him in principle if not in magnitude.
Reply
-
-
0%
Spadecaller6 months, 3 weeks ago
Censors and despots show no respect for truth or science; they will roll over anyone that gets in their way.
Isn't that what the Senate hearings have already proven? The Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated ruthlessness against those who oppose their selfish agendas; whether it be war profiteering, industrial abuse of the environment, or the manipulation of the media.
Science has been given the last seat on the bus behind religion and industry. Shameful!
Reply-
-
0%
StarLord6 months, 3 weeks ago
What's the fascist's response to people asking for privacy?
"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."
This can be applied to any White House. If Clinton is not allowed to conceal a stained dress, then Bush is not allowed to conceal how he spends the taxpayers' money.
"Who shall guard the guardians?" - Roman proverb.
Reply-
0%
donald516 months, 3 weeks ago
...prior to Dumya, cabinet members were only excused from testimony to Congress when national security was an issue, now it comes down to just the image of the Repug administration. And, Cheney classifies everything or admits he isn't even part of the Presidency! How the rules changed from Clinton to Dumya!
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed6 months, 3 weeks ago
except when the DEMS are claiming executive priviledge -- how long did it take the Clintons to produce those FBI files -- oh, right, they were "LOST".<
-
-
-
-
