NASA: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence - WHAT ELSE IS BEING STIFLED?

The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA (news - web sites) scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.

White House science adviser John H. Marburger III has denied charges that the administration refuses to accept the reality of climate change, noting that President Bush (news - web sites) pointed out in a 2001 speech that greenhouse gases have increased substantially in the past 200 years.

Last December, the administration said it was planning a five-year program to research global warming and climate change.

Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry (news - web sites) in the presidential election.

"He certainly is not in denial of the existence of climate change problems," Hansen said.

I didn't post this, but if I thought it would be important to post the source. It's from an Associated Press story and can be found at:

and possibly other news sites.

The leftie media is more guilty of science suppression and of pseudoscience promotion than anybody.
I would say they are the scum that do not report truth and do promote lies.
Why would anyone trust what they say?


yahoo article

Bush and company can only block the research of those scientist who recieve grant money from the government. All other scientists should be free to publish any data or results they find. Btw I don't need anyone to tell me the climate is changing. It's happening right now, all I have to do is go outside. Or check out how fast the ice sheets are melting at the poles.

Now as for Mars thats a different story. And the question of what other information is being blocked will have to be asked.

As for Bush there are no WMD. He lied to everyone and should be tried for Treason.
My Two Cents....

Hmm, is everyone planning to vote this year? Now THAT is off topic.

Supresion of scientific data is shocking, but for political reasons it is clear the current administration is quite quilty. But, pharmaceutical companies do the same thing, and the public harm is probably a lot greater.

I've never seen anything to cause me to believe NASA does this. They are good scientists just like us, but also with internal political pressures. They might argue about the conclusions, buit they never dispute the facts, that is the raw data, and they go above and beyond reasonable expectation in making that data available to the public. Evena crackpot like me can get to all the raw data from the MER mission, and look what I'
ve done with it! :lol:

Beware of any scientific study, or any response to it, that has an agenda behind it, whether it be financial, political, or philosophical. The data indicating climate change may be solid, but what policymakers do (or not do) with that data may be another matter. That goes for Kyoto proponents as well as for Bush.

Well, I've never seen it rain like this in October in LA. Ice sheets are melting in antarctica, the actual north pole was ice free last year, the glaciars on Kilamanjaro are melting, the alaskan tundra is thawing, etc. These are strange days indeed.

But, on the plus side, there might be skiing this weekend!

From, (Chris Manley)

--OVERALL SITUATION TODAY>>> According to past snowfall records at Big Bear Lake, the most snowfall ever recorded in October was 2" on October 14th 1994! It is looking like Big Bear Lake may be recording 8 or 12 inch range for all time record! Also interesting is the fact that when this happened (the 2" of snow) we were in the last good El Nino 94-95, where 106" of snowfall for the season were recorded at Lake Level

For those not familiar with so cal, this is a HUGE record breaker. This is a LIVE cam:

For climate change associated with global warming, you can't just latch on to a single weather event, like the press does. It's a question of long-term statistics, such as mean ocean temperatures etc. Even so, It's difficult to get a true picture.

The effects of Global Warming are real, but they are gradual, and not always what you might expect. Global weather patterns will change, leading to localised changes, in some cases resulting in colder weather, or more storms etc.

The world's climate changes under normal cycles over geological time. However in terms of carbon dioxide emissions to atmosphere, we have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 content in the Earth's atmosphere since the beginning of major inductrialisation. See the graph on the link page:

Major publications world wide have listed the effect of greenhouse gasses. I think USA is one of the biggest CO2 emitters and the economy has to absorb cleaner emmision costs. That is a touchy subject since other countries are completely ignorant of pollution.

Are YOU prepaired to drive auto's less? USe mass transportation more? Use air conditioning less? The USA president is not stopping YOU from conserving in any country. There are government incentives to do such.

Stop with the conspiracy theories.

Anyone who doesn't have the basic integrity to post using an actual name doesn't deserve any consideration.

no this is not a conspiracy theory
read the article karl, & everyone
this is a scientist who's findings are being blocked
by an administration who has a problem with science and with telling the truth
findings about the world around us that we can see with our own eyes
how do we know for sure that nasa isn't just releasing what we are allowed to see

This news needs some proliferation !

Copy and Paste !

How do we know everybody isn't hiding something from everybody else? How do we know that Bush isn't really an alien and he's just hiding it? How do we know that the White House isn't really a mind control station that forces us all to believe America isn't the Great Satan when in fact it clearly is?

Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah

How can the US pressure other countries as it should (it's the only one that can do so) to clean up when it's responsible for the great majority of the world's CO emissions.

And way of topic, but by the way, how can the US tell other countries not to go nuclear and keep a straight face when it has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons (and other weapons of mass destruction) in the world, has been the only country to actually use them and, guess what, is now developing some new ones.

And just to finish of this way of topic (sorry Richard) political rant, how can the US call itself a peace loving country when it's the world's largest weapon seller, developer and distributor, and as been involved in a war every 10 or so years for the last half a century.

Now, when I say these things I don’t mean the american people (I really don’t). I’ve worked with americans before and they were all without exception excellent people. It’s your government I’m angry with, I’m not sure if the american people fully understand the resentment this administration has geared up in the world, it’s nothing like I’ve seen before, really, you have no idea. You really have no idea, it’s scary.

And to put this reply back on track with the thread’s topic it all started with the US government’s dismissal of the Kyoto treaty, the first serious attempt to do something globally to handle global warming. Sure it was flawed, and it didn’t work, but it was a start, I’m afraid you’ve turned it into an end.

Sorry about the rant guys, guess I'm feeling edgy today.

How do we know your breath dosen't stink? Oh wait, we do!

The title of this post thread suggest conspiracy and

the following comment in the original post makes me HIGHLY suspcious of the article. Who is stifleing who?

"Hansen said he was speaking as a private citizen, not as a government employee, and paid his own way for the Iowa appearance. He described himself as moderately conservative, but said he will vote for John Kerry (news - web sites) in the presidential election."

Why not just present the facts about global warming? Now a political statement by a scientist?

Because poeple don't agree with you does not make it a conspiracy or stifleing.

and to Gonzz,

Suppose a country is doing the maximum technological removal of CO2 and the Kyoto treaty requires you to reduce CO2 by another 50%. That's part of the the problem. The other problem is that people are not conserving.

And if the USA is so warfaring, why is their Canadian border the longest un armed border in the world? And Mexico does not seem too worried about the USA invading either.

Do you think the USA would ever use nuclear weapons again? do you think the USA should let dictators and communist be the only arms suppliers? do you think the USA should let dictators and communist be the only armies involved in wars?

Gonzz, pacifits are what let Hitler get so far. Oh, but warfareing USA put a stop to Hitler.

You say "You know that USA has been involved in a war every 10 years or so." (hint Sadam Hussein) Well, Sadam used chemical weapons on civilians and invaded two neighboring countries as soon as he got the opportunity.

"How do we know your breath doesn't stink?" Is that the best you can do? You'll have to troll better than that, Trolly.


As I recall, at the time when Sadamm first used chemical weapons on civilians both US and Europe didn't say much about it, guess he was still an asset to maintain in the Middle East at that time, still a friend to the west (this was before he invaded Kuwait, during the Iraq-Iran war).

When Iraq and Iran were at war and the US was supplying weapons to both sides, the fact that he was a dictator didn't seem to bother the US much. Neither does the fact that the Saudi are ruled by a dictator, and Pakistan, and Kuwait by the way. And don't get me started on Pinochet and other right wing dictators the US supported in South America during the cold war.

The fact of the matter is that dictators never bothered the US much as long as they played along. When they go astray then it's time to implement some democracy.

Regarding the nuclear weapons, I'm not saying the US shouldn't have them, I'm saying the US is the country in the world with the least moral authority to tell any other country not to have them. I think they have to be controlled, but one has to be able to appreciate the irony of the situation.

When Indonesia invaded Timor, and started about 30 years of brutal repression, the US didn't do much (Indonesia was a good ally in that part of the globe). Don't go tell me the US went to Kuwait because of the Kuwait people, you went there because Kuwait was (and still is) a very important tactical asset in the region and because of oil.

The question is not if one is or isn't a pacifist, but to know which wars to wage, wars kill thousands of people so one has to be cautious about which ones are started. The war on Afghanistan was called for, the war on Iraq was not.

And I'll tell you, by starting the war on Iraq you unleashed an explosive situation that will take decades to control, and that may yet do a lot of harm. Do you know what is the supreme irony in Iraq: the majority of the population is xiite and has close links with Iran, so if there is a democracy (a real one) the chances are you're going to have an Islamic religious theocracy implemented in Iraq? That will never happen though as the curds want to have an independent state and are more than willing to start a war to get it, something Turkey will never allow...

The problem with this black and white view of the world, good or bad, with us or against us kind of thing, is that first, the world is far too complicated for it, and second, there are no good guys in world history.

(by the way, don't think I'm defending the French, they care for the people in Iraq as much as the US does, so do the Russians, they were interested, like the US, in oil (they were the ones operating there before the US arrived)

World is a terrible place, give me Mars anytime