“The top climate scientist at NASA
By on Jan 28th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
“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 New York Times reports.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Because Global warming is the figment of the fever swamp left’s minds.
^^^^^^
Pretty go troll imitation eh?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:25 pmSpudgeboy, you might throw in a few communists and wackos to boot.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:28 pmKnowledge in a vacuum is useless, which is why the W, Rove and Co want to suppress truth speakers.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:31 pmIt’s not his job to make policy statements. He should be fired for insubordination.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:33 pmYes, we shouldn’t follow the whistle blower laws also right Jack?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:35 pmAre we moving back to the Dark Ages or what? Say bye-bye to science.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 6:39 pmMaking policy statements is not “whistleblowing.”
derrick, making policy statements is not science either.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 6:40 pmOkay, I am done with Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumm.
bl and Jack should get together at the gym and pump each other.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pmJack needs a brain implant.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:58 pmIt’s not his job to make policy statements. He should be fired for insubordination.
Comment by Jack
You should be executed because we don’t like you.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pmThis is very interesting and important, but why is there really nothing on the possible filibuster that Sen. Kerry is working on?
January 28th, 2006 at 7:13 pmHey … does anyone actually stop and think that this story sounds retarded. Occam’s razor people … there’s zero reason for them to stifle this scientist. Plenty of other scientists say the exact same thing. Notice the public affairs guy said “This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming” and “We promote openness and we speak with the facts” … why should we believe one person over another if none of us know either individual and certainly know none of the facts beyond this article.
Even scientists disagree about global warming (like they also did about Eugenics … look it up if you don’t know about it) … why would Bush care … he’s got enough to worry about. Not EVERYTHING is a grand conspiracy people.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:13 pmMoron.
I feel sorry for them. They had know idea that a stolen second Bush term would consist of 24/7/365 damage control. /Sarcasm off!
Morons!
January 28th, 2006 at 7:17 pmMaking the truth widely known has a corrosive effect on freedom, especially when official policy disregards or directly conflicts with the truth.
WHAT IS YOUR OBSESSION WITH KNOWING THE TRUTH? WHY DOES FACTUAL SCIENTIFIC REPORTING MATTER TO YOU?
As long as you have cheap gasoline, plasma TVs and electronic images of a triumphal, confident Commander-in-Chief, all is well.
Move along, citizen. These aren’t the ‘droids we’re looking for.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:23 pmGiacomo,
Then this guy should be allowed to speak freeely correct?
Then let’s hear what he’s got to say.
You know why? Because he isn’t a cheerleader, who couldn’t find oil in Texas or a failure at everything he does.
Nope, this guy is literally a “Rocket Scientist”. Literally.
He is a top NASA scientist. You think maybe he has something to say? Then let the man talk.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:24 pmEven scientists disagree about global warming
No real scientists disagreed about eugenics any more than real scientists disagree about global warming. You know nothing about eugenics and don’t have the common sense to find the outhouse, much less get in there and figure out whether to leave or crap. Even if peas could take IQ tests, Gregor Mendel wouldn’t agree with you. Peabrain.
Smart people believe wierd things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons.
Michael Shermer, Scientific American: Smart People Believe Weird Things Sept. 2002
Companies like Enron have learned that small investments in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programs or hiring moonlighting professors can return big payoffs in generating books, reports, articles, testimony and other materials to push for and rationalize public policy positions that damage the public interest but benefit corporate bottomlines.
Ralph Nader, January 31, 2002
The problem with conservative think-tank hacks, you see, is that their ideas crumble upon contact with things like statistics and arithmetic.
Tapped (edited by Richard Just) 9/22/03
I believe in the Free Market Fairy And the Tort Sprite too. They’ll keep our power cheap and our air and water clean. All you have to do is close your eyes and tap your money clip three times.
Gen. JC Christian, Patriot
I finally understood. The scientific evidence that I use must be junk science, because I am a “personal injury lawyer” and therefore I must be out to “shake down deep pocket businesses” on behalf of my venal clients, who are dying from leukemia, liver disease, kidney failure and fatal lung diseases. I found it interesting that according to Mr. Malloy [sic; Steven Milloy], junk science is only used by personal injury lawyers, not defense attorneys. I also found it interesting that according to Mr. Malloy, junk science isn’t used by chemical companies to defeat meritorious toxic injury claims, but only to attack competitors.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pmRaphael Metzger, Esq., in The Furor Over Junk Science: The Perspective Of A Plaintiff’s Attorney
Icecaps melt Atlantic conveyer stops Europe has iceage see no Global Warming
January 28th, 2006 at 7:31 pmIcecaps melt Atlantic conveyer stops Europe has iceage see no Global Warming
Comment by MichDem
I think the point is we’d like to keep the ice at the polar regions, not the equatorial regions. No one is suggesting global warming turns the whole planet into a rainforest.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:36 pmLets see if I can get past your partisan brain, and if there are any rational brain cells functioning today. The great mighty suprised me this week, so I have hope that you partisans might on occassions be reached.
Hey pumpkin … I didn’t say I disagreed with global warming … I said SOME scientists do (I’ve heard some that weren’t oil guys, but I’m sure the oil scientists do). I’m of the opinion that pumping tons of chemicals into the air can’t be a good thing long term, so let’s reduce that … warming or no warming, I’m pretty sure that we can be better stewards of our earth. You assumed way to quickly, sweetums. By the way … I have a hybrid (aren’t you proud).
Anyway, my point was … why just jump on the bandwagon and say it’s a conspiracy … why believe one person over another … I’m sure most people here want to believe the scientist because that allows falls into the grand Bush is psycho idea, but really, there’s not that much to this story. Does Bush have so much time on his hands that he can worry about a scientist who speaks out about what 80 to 90% of other scientists are also saying … it doesn’t make sense … that’s all. Pumpkin :-)
January 28th, 2006 at 7:43 pmG I was speaking as the devils advacate , I didn’t think I’d have to explane that .
January 28th, 2006 at 7:44 pmThe difference between this guy and the other 80-90% of scientists is that this guy is at the top of NASA.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:45 pmSo now it takes a rocket scientist to explane or explane away Global Warming , realy now . Someplaces you can see melted glaciers from the ground , not just space .
January 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pmThe difference between this guy and the other 80-90% of scientists is that this guy is at the top of NASA.
Yeah … I guess … it just seems like Bush has better stuff to do. Maybe someone’s stifling him … it may not be the administration. Heck, big oil could pull that off. Oh, and there are far more influential scientists, especially on meteorology, than NASA guys.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pmEugenics is considered to be a social philosophy, BTW. Not a science. Climatology is a science, not a social philosophy but perhaps pseudo-climatology is a business model for maximizing profits.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:51 pmThe difference between this guy and the other 80-90% of scientists is that this guy is at the top of NASA.
Yeah … I guess … it just seems like Bush has better stuff to do. Maybe someone’s stifling him … it may not be the administration. Heck, big oil could pull that off. Oh, and there are far more influential scientists, especially on meteorology, than NASA guys.
Comment by Giacomo
Stick to the stuff you sort of have a passing familiarity with, (the financial crap you have all wrong), if sticking your finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing is beyond you. You are making a total ss out of yourself on this topic.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:54 pmMichDem,
You are correct anybody can see that it is happening. I am just saying that “When NASA talks, people listen.”
January 28th, 2006 at 7:54 pmAnd who said anything about “conspiracy”. That’s a polite way of saying it’s bullshit? You are the ones who are “conspiracy theorists”. Claiming social philosophies are real science and real science is “junk science” created by “whacko environmentalists” to harm business because they “just hate it”. You are the tin foil hat wearing boobs who who believe in believe in the “Free Market Fairy And the Tort Sprite, too.”
January 28th, 2006 at 8:05 pmGiacomo,
January 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pmyou have to remember that when the article says “bush is trying to stifle top nasa scientist”, they are referring to the Bush administration, not necessarily bush himself. Bush spent almost half of his time in office on vacation. He’s just a puppet for the neo-cons to hide behind. After all, nobody would have voted for cheney.
Stick to the stuff you sort of have a passing familiarity with, (the financial crap you have all wrong), if sticking your finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing is beyond you.
Kinda angry tonight, are we? Just conversing there, big guy (Ryan is that you). I was speaking to the “bandwagoning” that this is a Bush driven stifle job … that’s not necessarily the case … feel free to disagree.
Oh and what else would it be if the President of the US had decided to stifle the lead scientist of NASA when he wanted to talk about science … sounds like a conspiracy to me.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:09 pmou have to remember that when the article says “bush is trying to stifle top nasa scientistâ€, they are referring to the Bush administration, not necessarily bush himself.
Yeah … you’re right … I got a little tangental. Who knows, maybe it is the Bush administration. I guess my “partisan brain” (for you RightPunch) doesn’t like quick conclusions drawn in a way that is detrimental to “my guy”. That said, I think quick conclusions are dangerous when Republicans try and get creative as well (ie. Democrats and Abramoff).
January 28th, 2006 at 8:18 pmIf you start using Ocam’s Razor, look at the 200 election and you get the following result. It was stolen by political operative masquerading as Supreme Court Justices.
The Neo Cons need to stop spinning and admit that their policies have failed everyone on the country execpt a very few rich guys. Wake up and smell the corruption!
January 28th, 2006 at 8:19 pmThere’s always hope pumpkin!
Sniff … thanks for believing. (a swell of music fills) Like I said earlier, it’s very nice to have the official “partisan” referee to keep me in check ….. (music fades out).
Cheers …. Sweetpea.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pmJanuary 28th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
I don’t believe in global warming anymore than I believe Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator or Osama was a killer.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:21 pmI also don’t believe that 99.99% of the people who “support” Israel can point to it on a map, or describe the people, or tell me what a typical Israeli eats for dinner, or tell me what kind of government they have(here’s clue-they don’t have a government).
January 28th, 2006 at 8:25 pmKinda angry tonight, are we? Just conversing there, big guy (Ryan is that you). I was speaking to the “bandwagoning†that this is a Bush driven stifle job … that’s not necessarily the case … feel free to disagree.
Contemptous, definitely. Angry? I’ll be taking action. We’re getting to that point. Why do they all think I’m Ryan? I take it as a compliment, and no, he doesn’t come here because he thinks Judd bends over backwards to be fair to you and he could return but his beef is with Judd, now.
Oh and what else would it be if the President of the US had decided to stifle the lead scientist of NASA when he wanted to talk about science … sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Comment by Giacomo
Like I said. That’s your thing. Don’t put your tinfoil hat on us. We don’t have points on the tops of our heads.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:39 pmThink the news on global warming couldn’t get any worse? Wrong.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:43 pmhttp://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece
That said, I think quick conclusions are dangerous when Republicans try and get creative as well (ie. Democrats and Abramoff).
January 28th, 2006 at 8:46 pmComment by Giacomo — January 28, 2006
Ok, maybe I took this wrong. I thought Giacomo was saying the republicans are jumping to conclusions re: Dems and Abramoff?
The majority of scientists agree that global warming is a real issue. Of course you can always find an acception, but they are few. If you use common sense, of course Bush avoids the subject and dismisses it. Bush is a Texas oil man, duh. Many other developed nations are seeing it as a concern. Are their any developed nations that share the US view of global warming? I would like to know. The Right Wing is actively attempting to de-legitimize science in general, because science in general agrees about global warming. Examples I see of this: “Intelligent Design”, the only “junk science” department is on Fox News, the term “junk science” became widely used only by this administration. Public schools getting less resources. The US has lagged in math and science compared to developed nations, the majority of math and science college students are foreign. There is a pattern of discouraging the importance of science in this country. Asking questions is discouraged, and well educated people ask questions. “We don’t need no stinking science” I would bet has been uttered by Commander Codpeice.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:53 pm#
It’s not his job to make policy statements. He should be fired for insubordination.
Comment by Jack — January 28, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Yeh Imagine that peskie Scientist and the WHOLE team working on Projects for years, knowing more than Bush does about it such things..Say didnt that Sophomore also know less than george also the other day when she stumped ol Boy King? Guess she was Insubordinate to huh Jack?
January 28th, 2006 at 8:56 pmEven scientists disagree about global warming (like they also did about Eugenics … look it up if you don’t know about it) … why would Bush care … he’s got enough to worry about. Not EVERYTHING is a grand conspiracy people.
Comment by Giacomo — January 28, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Bush doesnt care, that part I can agree with.
Conspiracy, personally ahh never use that word.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:06 pmAlthough Abramoff did confess to one, and Rush Limpwad speaks of built in truth detectors, Gary even speaks of Moon Bats. Funny. But Delay had A spiritual adviser named Buckman. Rather Moonish isnt that?
I mean the ‘Hammer’ with a Spiritual Adviser? Thats a HOOT!
Now come on Jack, do you Honestly think FAUX news, or one of the other Kristol Murdoch Outlets wouldnt SPIN a negative report? Rove acts like hes still on the Campaign Trail and will do just that, I commend the Scientist for putting out the INFO, Information of this type should always be freely Disseminated without Admin officials putting their grubby fingerprints on it.
“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.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:12 pmThe only reason that atmospheric scientists believe that excess carbon dioxide can cause a green house effect is that both Venus and Mars are warmer than they should be, based on the volumn of thermal energy they receive from the Sun. The only common factor is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on both planets. Another case is Europa, a moon of Jupiter, where methane may be a factor in the greenhouse effect.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:16 pmhttp://www.ntz.info/picturesbig/b00871-p05031-scanned_highres_STS038_STS038-91-78.jpg
Ten years ago, glaciers covered most of the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro. The photograph above was taken in November 1990 by the Space Shuttle mission STS-38 crew (STS038-91-78).
An estimated 82 percent of the icecap that crowned the mountain when it was first thoroughly surveyed in 1912 is now gone, and the ice is thinning as well — by as much as a meter in one area. According to some projections, if recession continues at the present rate, the majority of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro could vanish in the next 15 years.
http://www.ntz.info/pictures/b00871-p05034-scanned_highres_STS097_STS097-701-17.jpg
Dont look very Good, couldnt hurt to try reducing more..
January 28th, 2006 at 9:23 pmThose damn Cows and their methane…
January 28th, 2006 at 9:24 pmI thought they used ICE core samples to detect the amount of CO2 present Walt?
January 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pmto the Engineers here;
get the PDF report;
Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11
Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document.
Scholars claim government’s account violates laws of physics and engineering.
(PRWEB via PR Web Direct) January 27, 2006 — An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:31 pmhttp://prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb338782.htm
oops here PDF on 911 Physics
January 28th, 2006 at 9:32 pmWhere is Trofim Lysenko when you need him the most?
worth the read
January 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThere’s a core of ice recently extracted that contains current to 600,000 year old ice. It shows the normal trend of our planet’s cycle between natural global warming and ice age through the deposits of air trapped in the layers of ice. By analyzing this sample, Scientists concluded that a normal period of warmth last about 10,000 years. Ours is currently 2,000 years beyond a ‘typical’ range of warmth, as 2005 has officially gone down as the hottest year on record. The top 5 hottest years are all since 1998.
The grass in some areas of the South is green (it’s typically dormant this time of year). We’ve frequently been having days of 65 degree weather when 45 is the average for January. We’re alternating between periods of intense rainstorms and drought. And the summer last year was so hot that we had all kinds of new insects appearing, and as a result more new kinds of birds. SOme plants are dying out because it’s too hot and other tropical varieties are thriving.
Personally, there’s enough reality for me to accept Global Warming is real – no matter how many NASA scientists the Bush Regime thinks it can oppress.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pmIt’s always a defensive posturing that goes on in their brains. It would seem that they can’t accept failure, without trying to blame others for those failures. That’s a personal observation of mine, and unlike the partisan brain isn’t based on scientific observation – but my own experiences are pretty consistent.
Comment by RightPunch — January 28, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
Ditto. :)
January 28th, 2006 at 9:37 pmI work for a regional governmental organization that in the future may work with information with NASA Goddard on climate change. My organizaiton is headed by a Republican politician who has national ambitions. I tend to believe Dr. Hansen is being stiffled internally since several years ago scientists within our organization were forbidden to contact the media directly (even with job protections). The organization I work for is invetstigating the regional ramifications of climate change on environmental infrastructure and quality – behind the scenes, and has not been given permission to hold a workshop with a simple focus on gathering information (such as published study results) that might inform management of our regional and local resources. From what I have learned, we are in for a wild ride in the next 100 years. Every aspect of our infrastructure is at risk and some government agencies just have their heada in the sand and are not preparing. Environmentally, for example, take a survey of the local landfills and wastewater treatment plants that will be above sea level or flood frequently 50 years from now. We are failing ourselves and future Americans terribly right now by not addressing this head on. If you want to know why I’m not saying who I work for…
January 28th, 2006 at 9:39 pmActually Walt, Any College Science Lab can measure therms in a closed environment and have. By doing that with various gasses they have found that CO2 does indeed trap heat better. So that part of it really isn’t in question.
What bushco’s boys (oil boys) have tried to say is that the earth isn’t a closed system and we don’t know all the parameters so we can’t make the same statement.
Once again that’s a lie mascarading with a pinch of truth… The earths atmosphere is indeed a closed system. Do you think our atmosphere goes out to outer space & back? Hydrogen goes out. Maybe some Helium. The rest of the gasses are too heavy. It’s a closed system. What is true is that we don’t know all the parameters.
Still, you can see it in a lab, why automatically assume it doesn’t happen on a wider scale lab, like say the earth we all live in?
You got another earth to live on? I don’t.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:46 pmThe Earth’s atmosphere is not a closed system.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pmPS – Who else read in today’s paper that Chevron had it’s LARGEST QUARTERLY PROFIT EVER in the history of the company this last quarter? Funny how they made that announcement after the evening news was over on a Friday night.
The other oild companies are supposed to release their most recent quarterly results this next week. Who want’s to take bets?
January 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pmkindness, so you’re against profits? Do you work for free? Do you not ever expect a raise? Or are you simply a hypocrite?
January 28th, 2006 at 9:50 pmSorry but you don’t know jack. You’re willing to gamble with my kids and grand kids planet.
It all stays here in the earth & surrounding atmosphere. That’s closed to me. Big but closed.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:51 pmIT should be noted again that the subject of this thread is not whether the earth’s atmosphere is warming or not.
The issue is whether government employees should be making their own policy statements. It is not Hansen’s job to make policy.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:52 pm“You’re willing to gamble with my kids and grand kids planet.”
Since I have not made any policy statements here, you have no basis to make your assertion. You simply made it up.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:53 pmDo you honestly NOT want to hear the opinion of scientists who know the data better than anyone else? Are we all supposed to blindly follow the administration without thinking about this ourselves, shouldn’t we have access to the same information that “our leaders” do? They receive briefings that include opinion from top scientists on policy direction. We all know our politicians are influenced by special interest groups. How are we to hold them accountable to the public good if we don’t have the same information?
January 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pmI thought they used ICE core samples to detect the amount of CO2 present Walt?
Comment by Wolfoputz — January 28, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
On Venus and Mars?
January 28th, 2006 at 10:15 pm#68 – kindness,
January 28th, 2006 at 10:21 pmIt’s true that any college (or high school) lab can conduct experiments to determine the effects of carbon dioxide on IR retention, I was only pointing to the trigger for the scientific discovery.
Global Warming is the term commonly used to describe the increase of energy in the atmosphere due to the build up of percent of CO2 in the air mixture, This does not mean that all the planet will get hotter, but instead the energy available to weather pattern is going to increase. The bush administration might be trying to stifil this news, however the insurance industry is not, they have spent quite a bit of time and money because of the implications directly to their bottom line, one result that I recently expierenced was the fact that the insurance carrier raised the dectuctable minimum from $250 to $1000 for wind damage, and they did this before Katrina, when i called and asked they said the $250 was no longer available, because of their risk assesaments they could not justify such a risk to their bottom line,
January 28th, 2006 at 10:25 pm“Science is a plot by evil wizards”….George Bush
At least I think he said that. If any conservatives are reading this, the burden is on them to prove he didn’t.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:37 pm#38 #39 Comment by No Freedom!
BIG RED X
January 28th, 2006 at 11:48 pmBIG RED X
“It’s true that any college (or high school) lab can conduct experiments to determine the effects of carbon dioxide on IR retention, I was only pointing to the trigger for the scientific discovery.”
Comment by WaltTheMan — January 28, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
Global warming as we understand it will be made even worse by the melting polar caps – because of the massive amounts of frozen methane hydrate trapped within. Once that is released, the problem becomes worse, by orders of magnitude. Google “trapped arctic methane”.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:53 pmDano347 the larger problem with the melting of the large masses of ice that composed the caps is the fact that ice reflects llight and the infrared heat, where as the ocean or land masses under the ice will not. Therefore instead of the polar caps reflecting the heat away the water and land will absorb the heat therefore actually increasing the total amount of heat absorbed each day by planet earth.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:24 am#84 Comment by No Freedom!
Plate Techtonics.
Hummz, you seem to think that they float on Iron and Coal. Those solid materials are part of the crust in which is ON the plates.
A scientist you are not.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:25 amStay with the Armageddon idea found in the Bible. It hits closer to home than you know.
“In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters…”
George Deutsch? I wonder if it’s the same George Deutsch who wrote this Defense of Head Shops. Apparently the Cannibis News liked it enough to feature it.
The article ends on a note of warning against “governmental irresponsibility”:
January 29th, 2006 at 1:40 am
#91,
January 29th, 2006 at 1:52 amI have a 5 year old grand daughter. It would be nice if she enters the twenty second century. People in our families tend to survive from 96 to 103 years. Doesn’t Armageddon seem like a curse on humanity? Is GWB insane?
a GIANT,HUGE,ENORMACE EARTH QUAKE, Let me try to explain this, then you do the research.
Take a Creme filled Doughnut, Suck out the middle of it. What happens? it Collapses.
I love this guy!
January 29th, 2006 at 2:24 amThe Earth’s atmosphere is not a closed system.
Comment by Jack
What drivel. Stars have what’s called “stellar atmosphere” and that doesn’t support life as we define it. No one is talking about atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the question. There are many planets with an atmosphere that doesn’t support life. Get one, a life, and a brain.
IT should be noted again that the subject of this thread is not whether the earth’s atmosphere is warming or not.
The issue is whether government employees should be making their own policy statements. It is not Hansen’s job to make policy.
Comment by Jack
It should be noted that in the corporate and despotic serfdom that Jack would have us live in, no one is free to speak the truth. I say we track Jack down and eliminate him. I think he is a dangerous terrorist and un-American traitor. He want’s to destroy America. He hates it so much.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:55 am#84 Comment by No Freedom!
Plate Techtonics.
Hummz, you seem to think that they float on Iron and Coal. Those solid materials are part of the crust in which is ON the plates.
A scientist you are not.
Stay with the Armageddon idea found in the Bible. It hits closer to home than you know.
Comment by Max-1 — January 29, 2006 @ 12:25 am
Max-1 may be closer to the truth than we all realize. And a case could be made that neutralizing cretins like Jack by any means necessary is justifiable as form of self-defense.
Fortunately for Jack we could do this by just cutting out his tongue and chopping his fingers off, that’s all. Hey, some people think that the crime of looting a TV, or even food, in a flood justifies being shot.
A double whammy on Bush with this article in today’s WaPo:
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.
This “tipping point” scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world’s fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.
January 29th, 2006 at 3:04 amYo NO FREEDOM,
Does the idea of 12/2012 signify anything to you??
That’s the tipping point of no return. That’s the point where scientists realize, for sure because they will HAVE the proof that the earth IS heating up, that the ice sheets ARE melting, that rise of sea level IS directly associated and tied to the former two.
Reduction of GREEN HOUSE GASSES needs to slow down?
WRONG!!
Production of green house gasses needs to stop.
But we all know that is impossible.
WHAT IS POSSIBLE is alternative energy sources.
And that’s not double speek for ANWAR.
12/2012
Legends have been written about it, yet hardly anyone knows.
The Maya calendar ends on 12/20/12. Which could be any number of things and meanings. One thing is for certain, that even though the Maya calendar, cyclical by design, has ended, the same calendar HAD a restart. The current calendar does not.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:01 amAll calenders are the result of the human instincts to create order out of chaos,… Days without end becomes understandable when you name them and create a cycle where by which they can be understood.
This does not change the fact that nothing we have ever pronounced with our limited intellectual ability has ever changed the way the universe actually operates.
……..and as an aside when I was a small child I used to wonder If I could go back in time, on what day did god create the universe.
I mean I was born on a the fourth Monday in the month of August no matter what day I’m told my “birthday” occurs this year.
We place a lot of emphasis on numbers and then extrapolate this to be undeniable truth.
But numbers are really a figment of our imagination just like Monday, it doesn’t exist except on a calender.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:58 amStop people from speaking out.
Yep, that sounds like our President.
They did the same think with the lead up to the war. For a Democracy to be successful, citizens have to be informed, but this President does everything he can to prevent that. O’Neill tried to speak-up about the tax breaks. They did the same think to the Medicare drug plan. People tried to come forward to talk about the REAL cost, but Bush, Rove, Delay, Frist, Hastert conspired to silence voices. They are doing the same thing with environmental issues. This is why we end up with people like Mike Brown in critical positions. They are yes-men and women, political hacks, who have no experience or education to carry out their jobs but that’s what this President wants.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:28 amHack scientist can not no matter what they say or what they do make policy statements. They would have to change jobs to do so. When a scientist speaks about scientific matters he is stating facts. If those facts dont back up the official policy then it is up to the policy makers to adjust their policy. The scientist can not do this simply by stating the facts. The issue here is not a scientist changing policy. The issue here is policy makers are trying to replace science with policy. Fairy tells are not a replacement for facts. If your policy does not match the facts then the policy is wrong.
January 29th, 2006 at 12:50 pmHack = Jack,
January 29th, 2006 at 12:51 pmJames Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years
Each nation must find the best use of its resources to sustain civilisation for as long as they can
Published: 16 January 2006
Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfilment of her vocation; then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it.
Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police have no escape from their duty.
This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news.
The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.
Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.
Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This “global dimming” is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible – and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us.
To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys.
My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth. I think it is because Darwin’s vision was so good and clear that it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.
Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth’s skin – its forest and ocean ecosystems – as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth.
So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.
Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas.
We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.
Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do. Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know her place in the universe.
We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.
January 29th, 2006 at 2:31 pmEnvironment in crisis: ‘We are past the point of no return’
January 29th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind’s abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion – that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.