"The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change."
"An internal investigation by NASA’s inspector general concluded that political appointees in the agency’s public affairs office had tried to restrict reporters’ access to its leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen. He has warned about climate change for 20 years and has openly criticized the administration’s refusal to tackle the issue head-on."
Do you think the Bush Administration's censorship of climate science has played a siginificant role in increasing global warming denial in the US? Would there be fewer deniers if not for the Bush Admin censorship?
J S2008-06-04T14:12:00Z
Favorite Answer
It was basic party strategy for some time, with Bush as the key player:
"A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the US Republican and corporate strategist, warned that 'The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need... to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.'" http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1204297,00.html
Unfortunately my friend, we humans in the west have become accustomed to our cars and the fuel that runs them, our air conditioners, our plastic toys, mobile phones, computers, fossil fuels for our energy and our wealth. etc. Personal comfort comes first these days - don't worry about the comfort of our diminishing wildlife and fish stocks - of course we all continue to think on a daily basis that all is ok and the world is so big that we couldn't possibly cause the changes that are predicted. We trust scientists with our lives when we get sick or have an accident. Scientists were key in inventing all of the things that we have to keep us comfortable in our own little world. Yet now when scientists tell us that we have a major problem on our hands - no one wants to listen to them because it may mean that we have to give up some of our comforts or pay extra for carbon credits or similar. We will no doubt be giving up comforts and no doubt paying extra for fuel and energy - once the effects of us trashing the Planet start to hit (as it has already in many countries) then the costs will really start to rise - in ways we probably can't even imagine. I think debate is healthy and it is right to question what is put before us, but now I think it is too late and there is too much evidence to keep denying we have a problem. The sceptics are threatening the future of my children - It is an urgent matter - so I wish they would all just piss off.
None, Bush just doesn't want to wreck the American economy and society trying out half baked solutions suggested by environmentalist alarmists that will have no real effect on the temperature. Alarmists and greenies throw out all sorts of ideas that only really end up being a tax or driving prices up and don't really do anything to help reduce the temperature. Why should we waste our money on crap like that or be forced to live at a lower standard of living.
We could help out people around the world in much better ways for much cheaper by providing vaccinations, or fresh drinking water.... all of which would actually accomplish something and not cost anything what the crackpot global warming solutions would cost.
Clinton/Gore did the same to conceal doubts about AGW.
3 June 2008: A NOTE ON NASA'S JAMES HANSEN BEING MUZZLED BY NASA
I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years.
Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.
But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs.
In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act.
Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?
-Roy W. Spencer The University of Alabama in Huntsville
In a free scientific debate, I do not understand the word denial. Theories are proposed and debated. By definition a theory can be proven wrong or partially verified, but actually never proven (i.e., Newton’s Theory of Gravity hung around for hundreds of years till proven wrong). Denial, to me has no meaning in this context.
While I think the debate is definitely healthy and should be encouraged, I believe it is unwise to make any scientific investigation / debate a political issue. To me, to do so is to remove rational thought from the debate and give it over to oratory and manipulation.
I do believe that both sides of the Global Warming issue need to back off of involving politics.