Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Saturday, July 01, 2006

The Messenger

The 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

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Credit: Ben Baker)
Multimedia
•  C02 and the 'Ornery Climate Beast'
•  Video: Scientists speak out about the threat of global warming and how to deal with it.

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.

[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next »
July/August 2006

Would you like to read more articles from the July/August 2006 issue?

This article is from the July/August 2006 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Another Messenger Shot
    Guest (Erich J. Knight) on 07/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/epa-titus/
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • another propaganda piece
      Guest (kitk) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      however well-meant (and I doubt it, this piece drips of politics and inconsistencies), it is propaganda. the first rule of propaganda is to lie without blushing. 'the best scientists', it says, meaning: only those in political agreement with the premise. none of these seem to seriously take into consideration solar cycles or geologic/volcanic activities. all man, has to be all man's doings. and of course, they have a solution which is politically correct, if factually shakey. the world is more complex and durable than their models.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Another Point of View - William Gray
        Guest (ldskid) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO, tends to differ with Dr. Hansen. See his testimony before the Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works:

        http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?&id=246768
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Point of view of Hurricanes
          Guest (saythetruth) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          The increasing power of hurracanes will tell you the truth about how industrialized countries are destroying the planet. Move to Florida and let's see if you keep saying this is propaganda.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • Is Prof. Gray an authority in this area?
          Guest (-John) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          I did a brief search on Prof. Gray. Nearly all of his research publications (statistics) are published in the AWS journal "Weather and Forecasting". the web site describes this journal as:
          "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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Natural or manmade Induced CO2
        Guest (Mike) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Based on the graph shown, I would say the planet will shake us off like a bunch of pesky fleas anyway. Wether the data is true or not, or the VP ignored CO2 and followed the "soot" - is irrelevent. Cheney represents big business and will be dead way before the crap-hits-the-fan, so why should he care?

        The main point is simple - we have limited resources, so why not use them more effectively and economically?
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Why are you so certain your gut is more accurate than science!
        Guest (Vick Fisher) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Did you ever consider that these hundreds of studies done by hundreds of scientists might have tried to collect data to verify these specific hypotheses (geologic activity, solar cycles, etc), but found that the data doesn't support them?  You seem to have reached a conclusion based on your gut feeling, regardless of what scientific data has been collected over the last thirty years!
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Climate Change 101 - graphs & simulations for kids
        Guest (IHC) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Propaganda????! Please click http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/sources.htm - check out the animated graphs and interactive animations we created for children, to explain the Carbon Cycle (with and without various human intervention); play the 'Fishing Game' found on this page: http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/tragedy.htm in order to develop an understanding of the "Tragedy of the Commons."
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • models and accuracy
          Guest (Rich M) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Cute little propaganda game based no doubt mathematical models, using data and assumptions.  Recent news reminds us once again how useless these things are.  For the longest time modern science has denied the existence of giant “rogue” waves.  Mathematical models indicated that they may occur once every ten thousand years.  Now direct satellite evidence shows there may be 10 in the world at any given moment.  How close was that model? You do the math. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Science/516349.html
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Data and models are useless? Huh?
            Guest (Greg) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            That is the most misinformed comment that I have read on the internet in _ages_, and the fact that you are old enough to have typed it indicates that the failure of science education has been going on for some time.

            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.
            Rate this comment: 12345
      • global warming
        Guest (Bernardette) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Yes, but we were not burning fossil or cutting down trees.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Global Warming
        Guest (David A. Fay) on 08/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        This is the problem isn't it - Rome burns while Nero fiddles.  Everyone has an agenda and everyone has an opinion.  I do believe that to the uninformed we have to consider both sides.  I do agree that the phase best scientists is a label that carries with it a statement typical of Ann Coulter.  However, there are some magazines like the MIT Technology Review that carries the same respect as MIT.

        David A. Fay
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • CO2 follows, doesn't lead the past
      Guest (Ferdi) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The graph shows nothing more than that CO2 *follows* temperature changes with a lag of some 600 years during the ice age - interglacial transitions and with several thousands of years at the onset of a new ice age. Thus temperature changes *cause* changes in CO2 level. That doesn’t say anything about the possibility that CO2 has an influence on temperature. Of course, as there is a huge overlap in near all cases of warming/CO2 rise and vv., climate modelers like Hansen can include a huge feedback of CO2 on temperature. But there is one interesting period at the onset of the last ice age (at the end of the Eemian), where temperature (and methane) levels were already near their minimum, and ice sheets near their maximum, before CO2 levels started to decline. The subsequent fall of ~40 ppmv CO2 doesn’t cause a measurable drop in temperature. That points to a low influence of CO2 on temperature…
      See http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • cyberbugs?
        Guest (Ferdi) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Did hit the submit only once, but see my message repeated? Please delete the overflow...
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Human-caused "Global Warming" will set the environmental movement back fifty years!
    Guest (P'od Patriot) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    When the "Global Warming" debacle is finally revealed as the epic snow job it is; one that was foisted on the public by a what amounts to a religious cult fueled by anti American/ Capitalist/ Self-loathing humans...

    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?!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Which don't you believe?
      Guest (JC) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      You don't believe that humans are the greatest source of CO2 emmissions?  or you don't believe that C02 traps heat in the atmosphere, raising global temperatures? 
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • which don't you believe
        Guest (tom) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        The former has never been proved.
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Efficiancy
    Guest (Tim) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    We need to be a lot more efficient in our use of all resources. China and India must be part of any solution. It was nice to see that Dr. Hansen shows how warming comes first then the CO2 rises in every case except for the current. So in this current glacial interlude (roughly 15-20 thousand years per 100,000 of iceberg planet) we will go higher in the warming than we have in the past.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Gray
    Guest (RJ) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Gray is one of the leading skeptics on the warming theory in climate science. The numbers have considerably dwindled over the last 5-10 years. His critiques of climate modelling, particularly the handling of the deep ocean cycle & water vapor are worthwhile. On the other hand, he doesn't have anything to say about the ice core and seabed research that has increasingly backed up the warming theories.
    So "propaganda" doesn't seem an adequate response to the recent climate science.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Inteligent designer
    Guest (John) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Maybe it is time for the "Inteligent Designer" to come back and do something.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Here I am
      Guest (IntelligentDesigner) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Already did something, an auto-balancing planet... you make pollution the planet will make you pay the bill.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Closed Air System CO2 Absorbsion - Macro System
    Guest (Mike) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    There are products available today that scrub excess CO2 from closed air systems (SCUBA, Subs etc). Is it possible to make a "nano-particle" version of these products, scatter them high in the atmoshpere and allow them to suck up the excess gasses and then have the fattened particles fall harmlessly to the ground? I believe the products are white in color and would reflect excess solar heat away as well.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • That's the work of plants
      Guest (nanobuilder) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Plants do the work of collecting the CO2, and are absolutely much cheaper than any high tech technology. The problem is we have been destroying the forests for years and the rate of destruction is increasing.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • CO2 Scrubber
        Guest (Mike) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I realize plants are the normal (and natuarl) way to remove the excess CO2, but can a solution be man made that is quicker and more efficient? Maybe even genetically altering some plants to be more efficient at using CO2.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • No
          Guest (nanobuilder) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          The answer is no. The solution is reforesting.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • this article smacks of algore
    Guest (busted) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Mark Bowen didn't write this article...algore did...whatz up with democrat mindset...they can't control the weather or the way anyone uses energy, they just want to control you...and me...and delete silly posts that don't agree with them...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • this article smacks of reality!
      Guest (Vick Fisher) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      When thousands of data points and studies all point in one direction, it's not a conspiracy, it's called reality.  Why has science become politically incorrect in certain circles?!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • global warming debunked
        Guest (busted 4xs) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        One-sided reporting
        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. 
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • bull
          Guest (Rick) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          that "report" by one of the ridiculous right, is being compared to a peace published in a per-review journal. Amazing the lack of understanding the right has on science and scientific method. The right will do anything they can to discredit anyone who speaks out about global warming for one reason only. IT WILL COST THEM MONEY. and they don't want to give up their money for something like saving the environment for some left wing grandkid...
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Democrat Osterich and thought control
            Guest (multi busted) on 07/27/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            seems democrats skew science for marxist control of mentality...I for one of the majority do not appreciate the series graphic that umbrellas and distorts the issue that global warming is cleearly an natural process...cycle:
            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
            Rate this comment: 12345
          • name calling does not serve science and progress
            Guest (biogas_future) on 08/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            <<that "report" by one of the ridiculous right,>>

            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.
            Rate this comment: 12345
  • busted is right
    Guest on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I posted a comment last night saying global worming isn't a big deal since if even 90% of humans die that still leaves 60 million humans. It has been deleted.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • there you go again...deleting posts
    Guest (busted) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    You invite them and then you delete them...if the are in disagreement with your article or a guest...what's the deal here Hillary?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • [no subject]
      Guest (jmmathieu) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      yeah, wow...didn't know that Technology Review was in the habit of censorship...
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Why We Delete Comments
    Guest (Jason Pontin, Editor in Chief) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    We do not delete comments lightly: but we do ask contributors to abide by basic rules of civility. In this case, busted's repeated name-calling (addressing those he disagrees with, and Tehnology Review, as "algore," and "hilary")was neither polite nor really very funny.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • nor is the unproven scam of global warming funny
      Guest (busted thrice) on 07/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      say now Jason...didn't you recently work for the new york times...?  And I would bet you are a Democrat...and will not disclose the fact that you are...I had asked Vick to prove the Global Furnace was or was not a regular process of nature...and if it was man-made, then whose fault would it be...China or the USA?  Since China is truly poisoning the world with her political agenda and her cold disregard for environmental concerns and the USA, the clear Cleaner-Upper, is under pressure to be the sole sausage  indicted by the Kyoto Agreement?  What say you Jason...is that too NeoCon for you?   Just answer the question, Vick...unless the bias of cold censureship will let me ask it?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • You speak like Bush
        Guest (gotcha) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Are you Mr. President?
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • How did you know?
          Guest (busted thrice) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          That's right, I'm your president Bush. I just didn't wanted anyone to know my real identity, but now you know the truth. I was posting here with my nick name "busted".

          Regards! And thanks for your support to the war against terror.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • forgery
            Guest (multi busted) on 07/27/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            cute...using my monikers to democrat the issues...
            Rate this comment: 12345
      • political science
        zenkat on 09/12/2006 at 2:09 AM
        Posts:
        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.
        Rate this comment: