Why does NASA muzzle their scientists that question the global warming hypothesis.?

The 'Man-did-it' global warming thing has become a religion. There is absolutely no credible science supporting it.

Religion can be very intolerant of other's rights.

Couple of blunders on your assertion. one million) Griffin did no longer "diss international warming". He known that it particularly is in the main led to by way of people yet that it became his opinion that we are no longer inevitably in charge for combating it. 2) Griffin is a NASA administrator appointed by way of Bush. he's not a scientist, nonetheless he has ranges in engineering and physics. His statements have been without put off in contradiction with those by way of NASA's climate scientists, which contain their perfect climatologist James Hansen who had in simple terms written a rfile which stated the themes international warming will reason. Hansen talked approximately as Griffin's comments "remarkably uninformed" and "boastful".

Ahhhh the quality of denier research, some things never change

Roy Spencer (from his own website) seems to still be working with NASA

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ (whoops)

Dr. Leonard Weinstein (double whoops) it was actually 35 years

If Heartland (or some other group) are recruiting these people after they retire someone forgot to check some details here

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets...

This denier site actually lists his qualifications

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/488/NASA-Scientist-D...

Note the author Marc Morano well known to anyone who has followed this for a while, but more importantly Dr. Leonard Weinstein's doctorate, research and work at NASA was in the field of Aeronautical engineering, not climate science. Do deniers really think that anyone who has 'retired from NASA' is good enough as a source, if so there must be a lot of retired NASA cleaners and NASA security guards that could be approached for their opinion on climate change.

Michael Griffin: oh dear me! again what muzzling he was appointed by Bush in 2005, made the apology in 2007 (bush still in office) ignoring the fact he was administrator of NASA i.e. he was the boss, who at NASA could have muzzled him he remained administrator till 2009 when the Presidency changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Gl...

As you insist

Miklós Zágoni: with or without the European hyphens does not exist on the NASA website (the other experts? you listed all did) apart from the various denier blogs bleating about him leaving NASA.

As far back as 2003

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/09/01/...

He is listed as a science historian at Budapest University he is still listed as that here

http://www.heartland.org/about/profileresults.html...

If you call them a left wing propaganda group that would be very funny indeed.

Ferenc Miskolczi is the on who worked for NASA he is the one whose theory Miklós Zágoni thinks is correct, this is from dailytech also known for their support of denier theories

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...

As I said research, you didn't have the real ex-NASA scientist, But I do like the way you ignore the information on Weinstein & Griffin

Edit:

"In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views."

Roys comments are hilarious as few "Gore included" were making much noise up to 2001 which is when The IPCC only came to their consensus in 2001 which is also when the Clinton Gore Years ended it is also when Roy Spencer say's he left NASA so who would be try to silence him on an issue that did not become an issue till after the Clinton years. He seems as bad at history as he is at climate science.

This is from the AIP history of climate change

"Scientists intensified their research, organizing programs on an international scale. The world’s governments created a panel to give them the most reliable possible advice, as negotiated among thousands of climate experts and officials. By 2001 this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change managed to establish a consensus, phrased so cautiously that scarcely any expert dissented. They announced that although the climate system was so complex that scientists would never reach complete certainty, it was much more likely than not that our civilization faced severe global warming. At that point the discovery of global warming was essentially completed. Scientists knew the most important things about how the climate could change during the 21st century. How the climate would actually change now depended chiefly on what policies humanity would choose for its greenhouse gas emissions. "

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

edit

"Antarctic Ice: Some things are so well established that you think it is common knowledge that you do not provide a source. From Roy Spencer's blog:

I think you will find the link I posted was the source it is Roy Spencers on website in the first block of text.

"Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite."

That seems pretty clear to me!

You guys are hilarious, the evidence supports AGW and nothing else. All I have to do to end this thread is ask what's causing the warming and there will be no more answers. It's man, there's no evidence of anything else. The fact that someone compared it to evolution just helps my case.

Goodnight!

The comment that a response has to be made by a peer reviewed and published paper is sheer nonsense. Those scientists that comment on global warming issues can be more like peer reviewers of specific papers or of the the literature than fellow publishers on the subject. This is due to the short time needed to respond on particular papers or general positions. Many of the comments are made by very experienced and well published experts, who are expert peer reviewers. The only fair criterion for a comment is that a reasonable depth of review of sufficient pertinent literature has been made for a response.

Because James Hanson, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies is a HUGE MGW believer, and is Algore's chief scientist. He has said that CEOs should be tried for crimes against humanity... http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/d...

If you were a skeptical NASA climate scientist, I doubt that your views would find a warm reception from 'the boss'. I suspect that is one of the main reasons Dr. Spencer left NASA and went to the University of Alabama Huntsville.

31,000 US scientists (9,000 PHDs) have voted. Anthropogenic global warming is not an issue....

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

I'm sure it has something to do with NASA wanting to cash in on the whole global warming hoax and if they start questioning it's validity, the liberals in Washington will whine to stop their funding. Anybody with half a brain can look at the global warming mumbo jumbo and see it's a lot of hype. One single volcanic eruption releases many times more of the "greenhouse gases" than humans ever do, and we've existed and survived with volcanoes for eons.

The problem is that they are scientists.

Not opinions are expected from them but scientific papers.

If they want to express well founded views, the way of doing it is through the publication of scientific papers to be peer reviewed.

I am sorry but it is not possible to make an exception to this process simply based on a different belief.

First, don't forget about William Gray, a leading hurricane forecaster. He said "Pro-global warming scientists are brainwashing our children" Now Colorado State University will no longer promote his yearly hurricane forecasts.

As for N's research paper response, most of the global warming rhetoric doesn't come from research papers, but politicians and scientists making media comments.

Also, many scientists mention their research show proof of global warming because that is the only way they can get funded.