|
Saturday, July 01, 2006 The MessengerThe best scientists, scrutinizing atmosphere, ice, earth, and sea, say global warming is approaching a tipping point. But we still have time to keep it from reaching catastrophic levels. By Mark Bowen
Jim Hansen may be the most respected climate scientist in the world. He's been director of NASA's premier climate research center, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for 25 years and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for 10. And he more or less single-handedly turned global warming into an international issue one sweltering June day in 1988, when he told a group of reporters in a hearing room, just after testifying to a Senate committee, "It's time to stop waffling so much and say that the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now." It took the rest of the scientific community about eight years to catch up with him on that point. He was ahead of the pack in 1988, and he remains so. He's been accurately predicting the progress of global warming for 25 years. And as the science grows ever more solid, owing in no small part to his own work, Hansen's predictions about an issue some see as the greatest threat civilization has ever faced are becoming ominously precise. An attempt by the Bush administration to silence him early this year also helped turn global warming into one of the biggest news stories of 2006. It began on December 6, 2005, when Hansen declared in a talk at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco that if our rate of fossil fuel burning continues to grow, we will eventually transform Earth into "a different planet." He presented an analysis showing that existing technologies can significantly cut greenhouse emissions, and suggested that a global solution requires leadership by the United States. On December 15, he and three colleagues posted a routine monthly analysis on the GISS website, summarizing data from thousands of weather stations around the globe. It showed that 2005 was coming in as the warmest year since the mid-1800s. He was interviewed about this by ABC News. According to NASA memorandums provided by Hansen, senior political appointees at NASA headquarters in Washington quickly called career public-affairs officers at the agency and directed them to give headquarters advance notice of Hansen's speaking schedule, his "data releases," and his attendance at scientific meetings. The career officers also understood from the phone calls that the posting of all content on the GISS website, including scientific data sets, would now require headquarters approval; that no NASA employees or contractors could grant media interviews without approval; and that public-affairs officers had the right to stand in for scientists in all interviews. Hansen emphasizes that the political appointees made sure to leave no paper trail. But by throwing off this muzzle, Hansen propelled himself -- and global warming -- into the headlines. The story broke on the front page of the New York Times ; Hansen appeared on NPR and 60 Minutes , too. Through it all, he remained productive scientifically. One week, he submitted a paper to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ; the next, he presented an invited talk at the NAS's annual meeting; the next, he filed a brief in U.S. District Court in California, as an expert witness for the state in a suit brought by automobile manufacturers hoping to strike down a 2004 regulation by the California Air Resources Board that would eventually reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles sold in the state by about a third. Hansen now starts off most public appearances by stating that he speaks as a private citizen, not a public employee, that his opinions are those of a climate scientist with more than 30 years' experience, not of a government policymaker. Indeed, he asked to be interviewed not at his institute, on the campus of Columbia University, but at the small apartment he keeps nearby. Over lunch in a tasteful but spartan living room on the top floor of a building that affords magnificent southwest views of the Hudson River and the western half of Manhattan, he sits in jeans and an untucked blue-checked shirt, without shoes, sipping his fourth or fifth coffee of the day. He says he's been muzzled before -- during the Reagan and first Bush administrations -- but that in more than three decades as a government employee, he has seen nothing to equal the recent clampdown. He is angry, but he expresses his anger calmly. |



Comments
Guest (Erich J. Knight) on 07/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (kitk) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (ldskid) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?&id=246768
Guest (saythetruth) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (-John) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
"Name: Weather and Forecasting
Frequency: Bimonthly
ISSN: 1520-0434
Description: Research on forecasting and analysis techniques, forecast verification studies, and case studies useful to forecasters. This includes submissions that report on changes to the suite of operational numerical models and statistical postprocessing techniques, demonstrate the transfer of research results to the forecast community, or illustrate the societal use and value of forecasts. Contributions that focus on forecasting and analysis techniques from the very short range out to seasonal time scales are welcome."
Therefore, I question whether Prof. Gray is really qualified to present or qualify long-term predictions.
Guest (Mike) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The main point is simple - we have limited resources, so why not use them more effectively and economically?
Guest (Vick Fisher) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (IHC) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Rich M) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Greg) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Suppose we decided to no longer use these useless data modelling methods. What, exactly, would we use in their place?
Let's design an aircraft without mathematical models:
1. Throw a block of wood into the air.
2. Note that it didn't fly.
3. Change the block of wood somehow, but it had better be random, because you can't use a model to tell you how to change it.
4. Throw the block again, and repeat indefinitely.
I think you mean to say that blind faith in models is not justified, though models have many uses, and often provide great insight, but that wouldn't have been as much fun as bashing science, and would have required more cognition, which seems to be in short supply.
Sigh.
Guest (Bernardette) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (David A. Fay) on 08/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
David A. Fay
Guest (Ferdi) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
See http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Guest (Ferdi) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (P'od Patriot) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Their credibility will be absolutely SHOT.
...And this is NOT a good thing!
When exactly did they stop teaching the story of Chicken Little, anyway?!
Guest (JC) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (tom) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
As for th elatter, CO2 traps in heat, the 64 000 question < unanswered as of yet> how much does this affect global temperatures.
In other words, we aren't sure ,or close to being sure, that man made CO2 will significantly increase global temperatures.
Guest (Tim) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (RJ) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
So "propaganda" doesn't seem an adequate response to the recent climate science.
Guest (John) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (IntelligentDesigner) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (nanobuilder) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (nanobuilder) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (busted) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Vick Fisher) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (busted 4xs) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
by: assumglupak 07/17/06 10:58 pm
Msg: 3 of 4
This is interesting, given the fact that a U.S. House of Representatives Energy Committee report was just released last Friday in which 4 independent, non-paid statisticians found that the basic data model used by climatologists (including the UN) to reconstruct historical temperature data is mathematically invalid.
(http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf).
I don't see an article about this on Yahoo. Seems one-sided to me.
Guest (Rick) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (multi busted) on 07/27/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The Earth's temperature has been behaving in a cyclical fashion for hundreds of thousands of years.Global warming is real. Humans aren't the cause if it. It predates humans mass producing greenhouse gases or anything else.Here is a good graphic on the earth's temp in history, based on core drilling at the Vostok station:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Guest (biogas_future) on 08/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Lift your brain up to a higher mentality, please. Bullying for global warming was tried once before just a few years ago...except it was called global cooling then...Did you vote for global warming right before you voted for global cooling? Make up your mind.
Guest on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (busted) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (jmmathieu) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jason Pontin, Editor in Chief) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (busted thrice) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (gotcha) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (busted thrice) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Regards! And thanks for your support to the war against terror.
Guest (multi busted) on 07/27/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
zenkat on 09/12/2006 at 2:09 AM
2
When exactly did science in the USA become so politicised?
The _MIT Technology Review_ is not a publication of the Democratic Party. Nor is the _Economist_, _Science_, or any of the dozens of other serious, peer-reviewed journals that have treated the threat of global warming as a serious concern. To believe otherwise is sheer fantasy.
The administration's attacks against Jim Hansen smack of the tactics used by the Soviets to silence the scientists who threatened the ideology of that odious regime. Ironically enough, our local troll's ad hominem attacks against the Editor of this fine journal mirror these tactics as well.
I certainly hope all patriotic Americans will soundly reject these slimy political attacks and focus on factual debate. Our fine country has seen too much of this politically-motivated divisiveness over the past ten years.