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.

(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?

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?

Actually, Quaker, I didn t call Hansen crazy. I said that global warming was his hobbyhorse.

You said he’s a crank. Let’s look that one up, shall we?

(2) : an annoyingly eccentric person; also : one that is overly enthusiastic about a particular subject or activity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tell me how long you would work for Coke if you made speeches every weekend extolling the virtues of Pepsi?

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?

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.

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.

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.”

Evidence and/or factual stories are not freinds of The Bush Administration

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.

And why should the Bush Administration be bothered by the things he says?

Because he is advocating policy positions (government mandated fuel economy) rather than just talking about the science.