Scientist accuses White House of 'Nazi' tactics

[sabra]

Source: LATimes

WASHINGTON -- A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

"I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy and that some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching evolution and climate change," Issa said.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-climate20mar20,1,1206407.story?coll=la-headlin

[redqueen]

1. No, issues of science have not become partisan...

it's partisans wishing to IGNORE science that are the problem.

Geez. What an idiot!

[HereSince1628]

3. It's beyond ignoring. The GOP has been de-funding science since Reagan

Particularly since James Watt looked out of the airplane window and said "LOOK!!! Killer Trees!!" It's a damned shame Reagan and his Laffer-curve had no friggin sense of humor. Even the greatest environmental ass of the ages, James Watt, could at least joke about stupid statements made by Mr. Raygun.

[redqueen]

6. Yes - more than ignoring... actively fighting science.

:grr:

In case anyone hasn't sent one yet...

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

[CrazyOrangeCat]

2. Clearly, Rep. Issa . . .

. . . is an asshat.

[aggiesal]

4. Issa's an ass ...

He'll say one thing in congress and tell his constituents something completely different.

I'm sure if you look at his voting record on the hill, he votes on the side of King George 100% of the time. Then appears on "Real Time with Bill Maher" before the November election, and blasts the King, and tries to distance himself from King George and his policies. Yet he still continues to vote for King George.

[Tempest]

5. Issa proved him right in calling the administration Nazis

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

[EFerrari]

8. Can't let science get in the way of fascism. Exactly so. n/t

[lvx35]

9. If science leads you to conclusions against "company" policies....

What the fuck!?!?!? How about maybe making "company" policies reflect scientific reality, instead of the other way around.

[wtmusic]

15. Word...reality check

What's reasonable is for him to state facts which contradict administration policy.

What's unreasonable is to spew administration propaganda at odds with reality. :crazy:

[BattyDem]

19. Someone should ask Issa why all those taxpayer dollars are being spent on ...

NASA's research? Why are we spending millions of dollars to find the answers if the administration has already decided what they want the answers to be. :shrug:

Can't contradict administration policy? Mr. Issa ... your fascism is showing. :eyes:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

32. We're talking science. It only goes against policy if the policy is dishonest to begin with

Honest science doesn't have a policy agenda.

It is just a search for observable, repeatable, objective truth.

[Demit]

7. You vill not contradict zee administration's policy!!! Only VEE can politicize science!

[Hardrada]

20. Die Fahne hoch!!

sagen die Bushleiters!

[Infinite Hope]

10. Issa's last quote describes the GOP well. n/t

[jpak]

11. K & fucking R

The republics have complained *for decades* that environmental policy should be guided by "sound science".

But when "sound science" contradicts them - they call it "junk science" and "fraud".

The republics have again exposed themselves as anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environment and anti-free speech.

Zieg Heal!!!!11111

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

13. Sssshhhhh! Not supposed to say Nazi around Republicans.

They're very sensitive about it.

[kestrel91316]

14. STFU, Darryl.

[MasonJar]

16. I think that Issa is target 1 for being replaced in 08.

[Kolesar]

30. We can use his quotes in this hearing as the first projectile point to launch

and stick a spear in his ass.

[magellan]

17. It appears the Repugs are showing up merely to hassle witnesses

...with accusations of political partisanship. But they're the ones who are coming off as partisan jerks, questioning people's political leanings and repeatedly implying the hearings are prompted by nothing but anti-Bush** sentiment. They've done this to Plame and Hansen now.

Their active pettiness is despicable in light of the seriousness of the issues -- but that's par for the course from the Repugs.

[VegasWolf]

18. Why do Evangelicals and Republicans hate Science? nt

[Demeter]

23. Because Science Reveals Their Ignorance and Arrogance and Narcissism

When you don't like what you see, break the mirror!

[Cobalt-60]

25. Both depend on story telling

And The stories can be instantly proven to be bullshit by science.

[Kolesar]

31. I don't understand why the RW evangelicals sold out to the oil industry

Are they so wrapped up in "free market" ideology that they feel is necessary to make common cause with the oil industry? Is it the oil money contributions to their churches through the Acton Institute? I have a hunch that a lot of it is that the RW evangelicals just absolutely hate the Democrats and feel that they have to be against them on principle. (so much for being with God).

[superconnected]

21. Wonderful title!

[Odin2005]

22. So basically Issa is saying that scientists should put loyalty to one's superiors above truth.

What a fascist asshole.

[halobeam]

24. Infuriating.

Insidious.
Immoral.
Indecent.
Irrelevant.
Incredulous.
Inconceivable.
Irrational.
Insane.

[Hieronymus]

26. I watched that ..

it's stunning that Issa and other republics thought a scientist should allow himself to be bought off for political purposes.

[brentblack]

27. Flame on....

....but the numbers do not add up on global warming.

The temps on Mars and Jupiter (according to National Geographic and NASA) are going up these days as well as ours. The storms are increasing in the Atlantic - but subsiding EVERYWHERE else.


There are changes coming for sure and conservation is a worthwhile goal. But to think that by changing our lightbulbs we can stop this change is past arrogant. The Earth has gone through several climate changes just in the last 500,000 years. This is nothing new.


Instead of working full tilt to stall the change (no way to stop it), we should be working on how to ADAPT!

Seriously...look past the hype that you see and look at the history of the Earth and the climate changes occuring on other planets in our solar system.

Anyway...flame on...dissent is not allowed on this subject.

[Wednesdays]

29. Nah, I may be inclined to agree with you

provided you show me the sources of your information.

[Barrett808]

34. RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists

Essential reading
http://www.realclimate.org

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. I'm not going to flame, but I am going to request links.

Your comments contradict the evidence provided by the increased intensity and activity of the Australian storms.

I'm perfectly willing to accept a theory of natural climate change only if one acknowledges that human activity exacerbates the changes.

[brentblack]

36. Some Links and such

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Humans are certainly contributing, but I do not believe (disclaimer...I am just a network engineer - no climate background) that we have the power to change the entire Earth. One Volcanic eruption like Mt ST Helens releases more CO2 than all the cars on the planet.

There are too many instances where the Earth has changed dramatically over the last few thousand years (Greenland was green and fertile when the Vikings stopped by 7 or 8 centuries ago) and many times over the last few millions years when there was no human involvement.

I also want to say that conservation is key to human survival - we must conserve the resources we have. I just think that we should work harder to find ways to adapt to the changes. They are coming - regardless if I drive a Prius or a hummer.


Sucks being mortal.

[Canuckistanian]

40. Abdussamatov's work is still highly controversial

Media Matters has a few words to say about the "Mars warming" story -

An excerpt:

Finally, the article reported that "the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."

McCaslin included a quote from the article in which Abdussamatov appears to approve of the theory. But McCaslin failed to make clear that the theory actually originated with Abdussamatov and that the article quoted numerous scientists debunking it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703020010

This is NOT a scientific consensus, as the Global Warming theory is. It's just one lone scientist from Russia.

[Barrett808]

42. But we can't assume, a priori, even ancient humans were incapable of altering climate

Perhaps it's coincidence that the Holocene megafaunal extinction is occurring during the proliferation of the human species. But deforestation has been continuous for several centuries and is continuing. How could that not affect the planet's climate?

We are changing ocean chemistry faster than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably faster than at any time in the planet's history. We know that the Paleocene-Eocene mass extinction event 250 million years ago was accompanied by CO2 levels at around 1000 ppm. This carbon was injected into the atmosphere by the giant volcanic eruptions which created the Siberian traps, over a period of tens of thousands of year. We're dumping gigatons of carbon into the atmospheric at an enormously greater rate than the volcanoes of the "Great Dying". We're currently at about 385 ppm CO2, and rising at 2-3 ppm / year.

Considering the enormous pressures humans are putting on many (most) aspects of the biosphere, why would you assume humans can't have the power to change the entire earth?

Check out my slide deck for more info:

http://www.leftopia.com/presentations/State%20of%20Earth's%20Health%2002.ppt (15 MB)
http://www.leftopia.com/presentations/State%20of%20Earth's%20Health%2002.pdf (5MB)

[daveskilt]

41. I agree on one point - I shall flame on the others though :)

In terms of the number of actual scientists disputing the reality of global warming (as a phenomenon outside of normal cyclical climate patterns) and the human impact causing it - the debate is long over. There are still a few flat earthers out there, but the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed research is consistent.

HOWEVER, I do agree we should be looking at ways to adapt and diversify. If we stick all of our eggs in the same basket of this one planet we are in for trouble. We are simply one pandemic, one asteroid, one well placed volcano, one republican in the white house with an itchy trigger finger away from annihilation. deep space exploration and colonization are long term solutions. And as for cost NASA gets less than 1% of the cost of the Iraq war. get out of iraq and we get enough cash for universal health care, and extneding the prospects of human survival.

[Wise Doubter]

28. 1-2-3.....

[ooglymoogly]

33. Quell supreeeeeeeeeeeeeez...k&r nt

[IWantAChange]

37. Science = demonstrable Facts / Repuke World = policy / Zero in common

[mzmolly]

38. "I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy."

Indeed. Science - like many things can and is purchased on a regular basis.

[daveskilt]

39. climate change, evolution, and stem cells - not political issues

Issa is a fool. Scientists aren't disagreeing with him on these issues for political reasons - they are disagreeing because they know what the hell they are talking about and he does not. they are not saying evolution has more proof than gravity vote democrat - they are saying really? there are people who don't know the science on this? really? and they are republican congressmen? wow, that's sad.