The Republican War On Science
Tweet
We can’t have any facts dirtying up our propaganda, says Team Bush
The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.
It’s sort of ironic that this perversion of science is coming out on the same day as the Challenger anniversary.
34 Responses to “The Republican War On Science”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
A tempest in a teapot (as usual):
Why let experts shape policy when we have great people in government market and sell shit like its beer. I would have to say that it wouldn’t suprise me if Bush didn’t want this news, but then again what does he care? In some way Frank is right, but the real issue is about environmental policy, which Republicans don’t seem to care about.
No, they just disagree with you about the best way to balance environmental and economic policies.
When a scientist speaks about “necessary” economic and governmental policies and is then criticized for those views, it is not an attack on his scientific expertise.
Hansen goes around claiming we need government laws regulating fuel economy. His motivation is based on his knowledge of climate change, but why should that give his economic pronouncements any credibility?
By the way, how’s Kyoto working out for the countries that signed it? Are they meeting their targets? Are they meeting their budgets?
I would agree that certian changes are ineffectual at first, but my problem is that Republicans do tow the anti-enviromental side harder than anyone. If there were a negotiation between environmentalist and polluters, I am sure one side says we all have to ride bikes or we’ll die and the other says lets make everything run on oil. I believe you when you say that its not an attack on the scientist, but do I listen to my butcher for stock trading? And tell me how Republicans are balancing the debate? Do you mean by what comes natural: oh that bad news about our world being destroyed.. Yeah just a myth. Oh, a liberal myth at that. The fact remains is when scientist show bleak predictions(based on empirical evidence, the bane to the snake oil salesmen), our trusted representatives can’t pay anymore lip service. Just like education, the environment is something people care about but because it doesn’t make money for politicians they will continue to pay lipservice to the issue. Now, are you going to tell me that actual empirical evidence and expertice should take a back burner to our current leadership? They never let the truth or even evidence get in the way before.
Oliver posting a selective paragraph, say it ain’t so.
Richard P. Feynman said, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
He wrote, “It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management.”
Now, which estimate proved most correct?
Dr. Hansen was not being criticized for his views, JWG, he says he’s being pressured to stop making his views known. The Bobbsey Twins, Frank and Ian, motivated by their instinctual fealty to power, predictably parrot the PR pablum sent out by the very department, the public affairs dept., that Hansen is leveling the accusation at. If Frank actually read beyond the words of the first flak quote he could find, he would know that Hansen has been working for NASA and giving speeches on the dangers of climate change for 30 years. But now, as Hansen explains, “nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.” See, JWG? Hasen isn’t complaining about criticism, he’s complaining about being muzzled. His boss seems to agree:
“Dr. Hansen’s supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official “order or pressure to say shut Jim up.” But Dr. Einaudi added, “That doesn’t mean I like this kind of pressure being applied.”
What kind of pressure? From the article:
“After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be “dire consequences” if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.
Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.
In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.”
Hansen is a crank. His hobby horse is climate change. If he’s truly concerned — if anthropogenic climate change really threatens, as he believes, the very existence of the human race — why doesn’t he run for public office where he has a chance to do more than snipe from the sidelines? BTW, here’s a link to his CV. Oliver should have provided it.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
“Why doesn t he run for public office where he has a chance to do more than snipe from the sidelines?”
Careful, stick. Follow that line of reasoning and you just may end up arguing Ian into a recruiting office.
Actually, Quaker, I didn’t call Hansen crazy. I said that global warming was his hobbyhorse.You do understand that having that having a hobbyhorse doesn’t make one crazy, don’t you?
As usual, frameone, you’re taking a stand where you’re not being attacked. He’s not a spokesman for NASA, and that is why he is being “muzzled.”
You may not know this, but when you work for the government, you can’t just step in front of a microphone whenever you feel like it.
Secondly, NASA is not a “Republican” agency; it’s semi – independent. If he has been working for NASA for 30 years, then he’s been “muzzled” by Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II.
So predictable.
Criticize the Bushies? Must be craaaaaazy!
Stick,
Are you saying that Hansen is wrong? Even if it is his “hobby horse”, does that make him wrong? And why should the Bush Administration be bothered by the things he says? He isn’t some nutcase out of nowhere, unless you think the entire scientific community is filled with nutcases. How could stating that 2005 was the warmest year in a century be even remotely problematic? If its’ true, it’s true. Why does the Bush Administration oppose any mention of an almost uninamously recognized scientific truth – that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the atmosphere?
Umm yeah but you called him a crank, which dictionary.com defines as “An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous.” Thats the snippet Quaker refers to, not your line about the hobbyhorse. You were keeping up with your own conversation, right?
Run along now dear, the grownups are talking.
Because he is advocating policy positions (government mandated fuel economy) rather than just talking about the science.
Again, why should Bush be bothered by this news? Its an opinion, if it doesn’t “really” hold much weight then ignore the comment. I think you are afraid of what I have said: Evidence and/or factual stories are not freinds of The Bush Administration. Apologists need to realize that the earth itself isn’t against the Bush administration, so please don’t belittle those who study this globe.
Advocating policy is neither factual nor non-factual. You can be in favor of increased fuel economy without being in favor of it being mandated by the government.
“Because he is advocating policy positions (government mandated fuel economy) rather than just talking about the science.”
Yes, and rather than actually respond to his advocacy, as a private citizen, they just want him to shut up.
From the article:
“He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world,” Dr. Cicerone said. “I’ve heard Hansen speak many times and I’ve read many of his papers, starting in the late 70′s. Every single time, in writing or when I’ve heard him speak, he’s always clear that he’s speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it’s been.”
The real problem is that Hansen is giving his opinion not fact. If he were simply describing the result of an experiment, no problem. He is drawing conclusion from his experiments that may or may not be supported by the data.
No one asked him to change the results of an experiment, that would be muzzling science. They asked him to avoid talking about his own, personal opinion about data, which is completely within the realm of an employer.
“He s not a spokesman for NASA, and that is why he is being muzzled.
And Frank once again you have no idea what you’re talking about even though all you have to do is read the article. Hansen does not represent himself as a spokesperson for NASA when he gives his lectures. That’s simply the excuse given by the public affairs department that wants him to shut up.
Also, Hansen says he never experienced this kind of pressure under Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II. It was only after he gave this one speech on Dec. 6 critical of current policies that this became an issue.
Let’s assume that Hansen wasn’t asked to change anything. Let’s assume that Hanson was wrong and was drawing false conclusions from the data (unlikely, but let’s assume). What if the bush administration had actually placed pressure to change conclusions, what if the administration had misrepresented the scientific consensus on an issue or even the underlying data to reach a false conclusion? Totally hypothetical, but what if that extremely unlikely scenario was to happen in some alternate universe somewhere?
“They asked him to avoid talking about his own, personal opinion about data, which is completely within the realm of an employer.”
Guys, Hansen was speaking as a private citizen whose expertise is in climate change. How does NASA have a right to tell him to stop speaking in public, whether it’s his opinion about policy or his scientific findings? Hansen’s colleagues are quoted in the article saying that Hansen never represented himself as spokesperson for NASA either in public speaking engagements or in his published scientific papers.
Would anyone here grant their employer the right to restrict the forums you could speak in or what you were allowed to say there?
I have to agree with frame. Not only are the cons on this blog not reading the article, but they are not addressing the issue that he stated an opinion (based on empirical research). The news is damaging because this administration does not like evidence getting in the way of thier agenda. As to thier being counter evidence, then let another NASA worker speak as a PRIVATE citizen with contrary evidence, and I bet the righties will support it. The issue is not that big of a deal because Bush can just ignore it along with other popularly supported facts. He can even come up with a counter-study showing that greenhouse gasses do not damage the ozone, and then he can ignore and go on with his agenda. Look at his work about abstinence and using research saying that you can get pregnant from oral sex. If these “opinions” are baseless then the cons have nothing to worry about… or at least until they come up with an alternate theory. Say that intelligent design explains the phenomenon! I have now given you something to run with… be merry kiddos:)
By the way, if you are the director of a government agency, you really NEVER get to speak as a private citizen, at least not in public
If the employer paid for the work, and the employee is using the work to promote a personal agenda, sure.
Tell me how long you would work for Coke if you made speeches every weekend extolling the virtues of Pepsi?
Did Hansen represent this as NASA’s opinion or his own? Just curious
“Tell me how long you would work for Coke if you made speeches every weekend extolling the virtues of Pepsi?”
This is just too telling. For the Right this is somehow about spin and marketing and product placement. Science doesn’t even enter in to it for you guys does it? Dr. Pedro seems to think that NASA exists to produce science that supports the Bush administration or that everyone who works for NASA should support Bush administration policies or else keep quiet about it. This isn’t about competing products in the market place, Pedro. It’s about the freaking survival of the planet. From the article:
“Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA’s mission statement includes the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.” Hansen is sharing with the public, research conducted with public money. He has never equated his opinion of that research with the opinion of NASA.
If any of you read the article you’d see that the Bush administration had no problem with Hansen when he was out talking about policies they liked:
“In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.”
Now, of course, he doesn’t have a right to say anything as a private citizen. It doesn’t get anymore blatantly partisan than that.
Since it is becoming apparent that I am the only one on this string who has actually published papers in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, let me see if I can make this more clear.
If you work for the administration, as the head of an organization, you are then expected to tow the administration line with regard to POLICY. What this guy is speaking out on crosses the line into policy.
No one is trying to supress his DATA on global warming. What they don’t want him doing is popping off about his theories on WHY it is occurring. This is not unreasonable, as there is no DATA that supports this conclusion completely.
I have seen this before with scientists. They are happy to take piles of money from the government to do their work, then when some sort of demand or restriction is placed on them, they scream to high heaven.
Simple answer, if you really believe you are being put down by “the man”….stop taking “the man’s” money for your work.
Luckily, this is just a tempest in a teapot. When someone gets irrefutable data demonstrating CAUSATION, the government won’t do a thing. But until that time, as head of a major government department, he gets to tow the party line with regards to his publicly displayed opinions.
There it is.
A clear admission of what even halfwit conservatives have the good sense to deny. The Bush administration puts policy ahead of science, and that’s just fine with the rubes.
By the way, peed’, it’s “toe the line,” not “tow the line.” If you publish peer-reviewed papers, I’m sure you must have a good editor.
Sorry stick. I missed your reply. You wrote:
You said he’s a crank. Let’s look that one up, shall we?
You may argue a distinction between “annoyingly eccentric” and “crazy”…excuse me, “craaaaaaazy” all you like. Your meaning was too clear for you to back away now.
I’d also like to ask, if Hansen isn’t allowed to interpret his own data, who is? Karl Rove?
“Since it is becoming apparent that I am the only one on this string who has actually published papers in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, let me see if I can make this more clear.”
Could you make it more clear “doctor”? Would you care to link to any of your articles “doctor”? Could you give us a few journal titles and dates so we can look them up?
Robert Hansen is not a crank… he’s one of our country’s top scientists. He basically proved that global warming exists (quite a while ago, I might add) and should be considered a hero with opinions to be respected. Cutting CO2 emissions is something most sane and educated people accept as a reality that has to be faced. Republicans ignore their scientists across the board, from the FDA to the EPA. Even our defense department has stated that global warming is the greatest threat to our national security.
(Also drpedro, there is clear evidence as to what causes global warming!!! It’s freaking CO2 emissions, and there’s chart after chart to prove the correlation.)
Democrats are constantly criticized for taking on their “pet” issues, but republicans never seem to notice that their opinions always seem to land on the side of business interests. Is this a coincidence?
drpedro Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Since it is becoming apparent that I am the only one on this string who has actually published papers in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, let me see if I can make this more clear.
Eh???
You? BS. Anddddd…., even if you do have something ever published, I want to see it, I want to see what you consider as a perr reviewed journal, and I want to hear how you think you are smarter than anyone here, when you still resort to ‘arguement from authority’ with is a fallacious argument.
DrPedro, you do understand what cognitive disorder, and fallacies of reasoning are, don’t you?
Do you understand why saying you obviousely are the only one here with a whatever you claim, and it is only your word so far, even if you do have something published, that does not mean shit.
It is suppression of science, and his opinion is based on his science. Every statement is statement of opinion, it is what reasoning that opinion is based on the makes it factually correct. That is another inaacuracy and distortion and error on your part of the reasoning, that you even try to twist the meaning of what is being said by applying a label in a misleading way.
Don’t even try to pretend you have a brain, buddy, because I kno plenty of people that blew their professors to get grades, and published, and if you are really a doctor like your name says, then you should know that everyone who has a graduate degree has been ‘published’, it is virtually meaningless.
I made a fool out of the head of the BC Naturopathic Society here, so let’s hear your claims to ‘being published in a peer reviwe journal, hey?
The Nantucket Journal of Applied Urine Tasting is not a journal to be bragging about being published in, if you get my drift, which I doubt your are even capable of.