Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence

Please see:

From your cite, Roger, down at the end.

'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 in the presidential election.

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

You may also note that Hansen failed to say just what evidence is being suppressed, or how he learned of it.

Dang. Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief the task force headed by the VP. Sounds like they wanted to hear what he had to say. And if he told them the same thing that he published in PNAS, it seems unusual to expect much sense of alarm: 'Future global warming can be predicted much more accurately than is generally realized ... we predict additional warming in the next 50 years of  3Ž4°C +/- 1/4°C, a warming rate of 0.15°C +/- 0.05°C per decade.'

I note that although the article linked here mentions that Hansen paid his own way to battleground state of Iowa the week before the election, there is no mention of a $250,000 Heinz Award he received in 2001 from a foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the candidate he endorsed in this week's speech. In all fairness, the New York Times coverage of the speech did include that disclosure.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin

I was at the speech. He did give those details, including the text of an email he received that stated all press releases on climate change would need to be approved by two political appointees plus the White

Gee! It is nice to hear an intelligent question, and not the moronic rambling of James or WDA. Below is the fragment of the New York Times article that started it all. It names two examples in the field of climate science. Since this article was published many more examples of Bush's political appointees attempting to rewrite science have surfaced.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Some of the loudest criticisms of the administration on climate science have centered on changes to reports and other government documents dealing with the causes and consequences of global warming.

Political appointees have regularly revised news releases on climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, altering headlines and opening paragraphs to play down the continuing global warming trend.

The changes are often subtle, but they consistently shift the meaning of statements away from a sense that things are growing warmer in unusual ways.

The pattern has appeared in reports from other agencies as well.

Several sets of drafts and final press releases from NOAA on temperature trends were provided to The Times by government employees who said they were dismayed by the practice.

On Aug. 14, 2003, a news release summarizing July temperature patterns began as a draft with this headline: 'NOAA reports record and near-record July heat in the West, cooler than average in the East, global temperature much warmer than average.'

When it emerged from NOAA headquarters, it read: 'NOAA reports cooler, wetter than average in the East, hot in the West.'

Such efforts have continued in recent weeks. Scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a leading research center studying climate, worked with public affairs officials last month to finish a release on new studies explaining why Antarctica had experienced cooling while most of the rest of the world had warmed.

The results, just published in a refereed scientific journal, showed that the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica had temporarily shifted atmospheric conditions in a way that cooled the region, but that as the layer heals in coming decades, Antarctica would quickly warm.

The headline initially approved by the agency's public affairs office and the scientists was 'Cool Antarctica May Warm Rapidly This Century, Study Finds.'

The version that finally emerged on Oct. 6 after review by political appointees was titled 'Study Shows Potential for Antarctic Climate

I can imagine that those who do science by press release would be especially concerned. Do you recall him suggesting that any scientists have been politically pressured to change even a comma in their submissions to peer review journals? Too bad nobody with a lick of sense was able to prevent Karl and Trenberth's ridiculous claim in Science last December: 'In the absence of climate mitigation policies, the 90% probability interval for warming from 1990 to 2100 is 1.7? to 4.9?C.' The press release, available a day before the issue was published, emphasized that 90% value in quite matter-of-fact way. I was surprised that the article itself presented it in the same matter-of-fact way.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin

I asked specifically about that and he said he experienced no problems with submitting to professional journals. It's only the popular press (i.e., what the voters read) that the White House wants to spin.

I'm curious to understand what you mean by the phrase 'science by press release.' I can imagine what this may mean, but I'd rather know your own intent.

Did he also say that depended on what the CO2 emissions are?

His employment is at the pleasure of Bush too, I'd imagine. If he'd endorsed Bush, would you also get fired up about that?

Have you been in a coma? Bush ordered the EPA to change the part of their report last year about GW.