Censorship and Climate Change
The New York Times reported that Dr. James Hansen, a prominent NASA scientist, was being silenced through NASA channels by the Bush administration because he was being outspoken about the need to combat climate change more aggressively than is being implemented currently in the US or elsewhere.
While such tactics are not new in recent years to federally-funded scientists, the public has done nothing even while scientists are screaming bloody-murder. In fact, it's funny (or not) how NASA spokesperson can only speak about the Hansen case only after a rep from NASA headquarters assured the Times that there'd be no retribution for going on the record. Yeah, the Administration believes in science...oh sure...
...And just as a reminder to myself...and to David Forsayeth, Comm '08, that Dr. James Hansen knows enough about future climate trends to be outspoken about how little we are doing towards combatting climate change.
And on a related note, it's funny how arctic sovereignty has become such a big issue now that the polar ice caps are melting. But no, the discussion's never about the environmental repercussions or how this wouldn't be an issue if we did a goddamn thing about climate change. Instead, it's about all the oil resource in the area that's opening up or the trading routes (again, not discussing how that'll affect the fragile ecosystem up there and all the other spin-off consequences) or putting military personnel on non-military coast guard icebreakers...
By the way, no, I don't think we can stop the ice caps from melting now...slowing it down, maybe...but not when we're doing NOTHING about climate change.
2 comments:
"combatting climate change"
It almost makes it sound as if we're... idunno... at war with climate change.
What does that even mean? "Combat climate change?" What is 'climate change?' I like to think I'm pretty open to the idea, but I have yet to be convinced even of what climate change is.
Hasn't the climate changed continously over the entire course of the history of the planet?
Even given the rate of change we've seen over the last 100-200 years, isn't that a miniscule amount of time with which to try and assess any real change when considering a system like the earth?
As an historian, there is no way that I would try and assess the significance of an event that occurred as recently as say 9/11. Talking about climate change over the last 100 years, seems like doing the same thing to me.
And isn't the whole notion that we have to 'do something' to 'fix' what humans have done to the Earth rest on the assumption that humans are somehow removed from nature and the Earth? That we are not 'natural.' Why do we assume to know what is best for the earth? Why can't we just be like every other animal and adapt to the changes that occur? We seem pretty good at it.
These are just some thrown together thoughts I have on the subject. The seeming innevitability and evangelical 'end is nigh' warnings about climate change sometimes just get on my nerves.
Censorship, of course, is bad. But then, if you want true academic freedom, you should work for a university and not a government agency.
Also:
[...]"or putting military personnel on non-military coast guard icebreakers..."
It is my understanding of Harper's ice-breaker plan for the NW-passage that the three new ice-breakers would be equipment for the Navy not the Coast Guard, and therefore distinctly military.
The actual quote is:
"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen.
So apparently he doesn't know enough to make those predictions? Also if you havent yet I'd urge you to read State of Fear, I realise it's fiction but much of what it says is true. The censorship is often in the other direction.
Post a Comment