Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA extinguishes global-warming fire
Washington Times ^ | Patrick Michaels

Posted on 02/03/2002 1:22:04 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

It really happened. The NASA scientist who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities with his flamboyant congressional testimony 14 years ago, has turned the hose on its dying embers.

There is now no reason for the Bush administration to give an inch on climate change. Sure, energy efficient technologies (like my Honda hybrid) are worth exploring. But there is absolutely no scientific reason for any expensive policy like the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Mr. Bush led the world by being the first to walk away from Kyoto, and science has proven him correct.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
The Times has this in the "commentary" section of their paper. If were of the opposite opinion it would be front page classified as "absolute truth news" in the Wash Post.

For years NASA satellites have shown no significant global warming trend. It really pisses off the ultra liberals at NASA. Their satellites are supposed to prove that business is evil.

1 posted on 02/03/2002 1:22:04 PM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Yep, expect this to be buried by the lamestream media just like all other news that detracts from their manufactured "global warming" hysteria.

There are a lot of careers and agendas to protect.


2 posted on 02/03/2002 1:26:36 PM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Yep, expect this to be buried by the lamestream media just like all other news that detracts from their manufactured "global warming" hysteria.

There are a lot of careers and agendas to protect.


3 posted on 02/03/2002 1:27:11 PM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
It'll be interesting to see how much coverage (if any) this gets in the liberal media.
4 posted on 02/03/2002 1:29:23 PM PST by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
Now if we could only get someone equally eminent to debunk the enviro-nazis screams about low levels of arsenic in water poisoning the earth, we could get back to real science.
5 posted on 02/03/2002 1:30:03 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
le ping
6 posted on 02/03/2002 1:41:12 PM PST by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
search "nasa"
7 posted on 02/03/2002 1:56:46 PM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
--Hansen has gotten a lot smarter in the last few years. His original computer model lacked a few details, if I remember correctly--a Southern hemisphere, oceans, mountains and water vapor in the atmosphere, for example.
8 posted on 02/03/2002 2:00:38 PM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
Bump
9 posted on 02/03/2002 2:00:42 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madfly
bttt
10 posted on 02/03/2002 3:06:15 PM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
And research grants to protect. A good friend of mine has been living off grants for going on seven years now. Not a way to get rich, but if you loathe the idea of competing based on your skills...
11 posted on 02/03/2002 3:34:32 PM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
The only satanic gasses out there come from the left. This will be burried so deep in the basements of the networks that Atlantis will be found first.
12 posted on 02/03/2002 5:21:45 PM PST by satchmodog9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
The scientist held in such high regard by the tree hugging liberals will now become a traitor to the cause. They will not accept this. After years of running around acting so much smarter than the rest of us they won't give it up that easily.

But ya Gotta Love it when the news is good!

13 posted on 02/03/2002 8:57:53 PM PST by Madstrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyT
Global warming, not so hot, says NASA pioneer in subject.
14 posted on 02/04/2002 8:10:06 PM PST by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madstrider
The scientist held in such high regard by the tree hugging liberals will now become a traitor to the cause.

Just as pro-Choicers now portray Bernard Nathanson (once a NARAL founder, now anti-abortion) as a loony guy.

15 posted on 02/05/2002 7:23:47 AM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
bttt
16 posted on 02/05/2002 7:47:51 AM PST by SuperLuminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided "climate skeptics" predicted all along.

If we had an honest, moral media, this would be in the first few pages of every major newspaper in the country. But most of the media is neither honest nor moral, so it will be ignored. I'm very proud of Mr. Hansen; there are still some honest scientists in America today.

17 posted on 02/05/2002 7:51:39 AM PST by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
I'm very proud of Mr. Hansen; there are still some honest scientists in America today.

Good point.

18 posted on 02/05/2002 8:08:23 AM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jpl
most of the media are neither honest nor moral

Ain't that the truth? Ya think this will get ANY coverage? I doubt it.

I hate the press.

19 posted on 02/05/2002 8:10:51 AM PST by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jpl
Want to send Dr. Hansen a "thank you".... NASA Goddard Institute: Personnel: James E. Hansen

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
[ Navigation Links ]
Section: About GISS

Personnel

[photo]

Dr. James E. Hansen

Affiliation: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA

E-mail: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Phone: (212) 678-5500
Office: 750A

Selected Bibliography

Education:

  • Ph.D. (Physics), 1967, University of Iowa
  • M.S. (Astronomy), 1965, University of Iowa
  • B.A. (Physics and Mathematics), 1963, University of Iowa


http://www.giss.nasa.gov./staff/jhansen.html
Dynamically created: Tue Feb 5 12:15:08 2002
Security/privacy statement

NASA GISS Webmaster: Robert B. Schmunk
Responsible NASA official: James E. Hansen
GISS Home NASA Home GISS Home Research Data and Images Publications Education Meetings Reference About GISS
20 posted on 02/05/2002 8:17:01 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ME4W
ping
21 posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:02 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
A New Green Offense

A perfect example was the administration's decision to withdraw the Clinton-Gore proposal to tighten the federal standard for arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb. When this decision was made, there was no serious effort to explain the move, let alone defend it. Asserting the need for "sound science" could not deflect the absurd claims that the Bush move threatened children's health. Within weeks, the administration was forced to retreat. Shortly after the initial announcement, the Bush EPA announced it would issue its own arsenic rule, and that it could be even more stringent than the initially proposed rule.

Defending the arsenic decision should have been easy. Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance in drinking water. In most parts of the country, arsenic levels are well below those linked to adverse health effects. Where arsenic is a problem, individual states are fully capable of setting their own standards, as many have. The primary beneficiaries of a looser standard were not major corporations, but drinking-water systems in small communities that could have been bankrupted by the tighter rule. Should the 10 ppb limit go through — and it still might — many communities would see dramatic increases in their monthly water bills, forcing some to abandon treated water in favor of local wells. This could put more lives at risk than would hypothetically be saved by the Clinton-Gore rule. Indeed, an analysis of the Clinton-Gore rule by economists at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulation found that dropping the standard to 10 ppb could, on net, increase mortality. In other words, by withdrawing the Clinton-Gore proposal on arsenic, the Bush EPA was saving lives, but you'd never know it listening to the Bush officials defend the move.

Many of the Bush administration efforts to curb the Clinton-Gore regulatory excesses could be defended on environmental and public-health grounds. But they aren't. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press after the arsenic controversy exploded, Karl Rove tamely insisted that the administration was not anti-environmental because the administration would tighten the arsenic rule, sign international environmental treaties, and spend billions on other environmental concerns. Listening to Rove one could fairly assume that the measure of a politician's environmental commitment is his willingness to issue regulations and spend taxpayer dollars. Accepting this equation of environmental protection with government largesse is a recipe for disaster. It is bad policy and bad politics.

After eight years in office, why did slick willie wait until January of 2001 to enact stricter standards on arsenic levels in drinking water?

The answer is quite simple and involves billions of dollars of costs to the taxpayer.

To quote Barbara Olson in her book "The Final Days"
"Like a land mine that explodes as it is being removed, the arsenic rule and other Clinton rules had unpleasant political consequences fo Bill Clinton's sucessor. no matter how costly it would be to implement, revocation of the rule put President Bush in an untenable political position of being opposed to reducing the level of arsenic-a poison in the public's mind irrespective of amount-in the water we drink. No amount of explanation could take away the image-or the opportunity for enviromentalist demagoguery and cartoonist punditry."

22 posted on 02/05/2002 8:35:41 AM PST by alaskanfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Madly, thanks for posting this. Not that Mr. Hansen cares (or should care) what I think, but I'm going to send him an e-mail message anyway thanking him. In the modern political climate in America, what he did definitely took courage.
23 posted on 02/05/2002 9:07:08 AM PST by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jpl
Great. I told him I admired his courage for the same reasons.

It's quite refreshing to see accountability.

24 posted on 02/05/2002 9:32:00 AM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: madfly
BUMP - Email Dr. Hansen!
25 posted on 02/05/2002 3:44:50 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird
BUMP

What the heck is President Bush thinking with his latest report on global warming?????

The decisions and gaffes below were bad enough, but now global warming???

No guns for pilots??
No drilling offshore of Florida??
Pooty Poot (President Puten)??
Anti-Terrorism bill with funding for farm subsidies??
Pre-collapse = Kenny-Boy, post collapse = Mr. Lay??
Are there Blacks in Brazil??
Closing the Canadian border to students but leaving the Mexican border open??
Steel subsidies??

He is not making ANY liberal friends and has just about lost my conservative support.

Eaker

26 posted on 06/04/2002 5:36:35 AM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
....There are a lot of careers and agendas to protect....

How can a real scientist back off repeated testimony favoring global warming? Careers must be wrecked for scientific dishonesty. There are proponents in the NOAA who more or less run the place who are now in considerable disrepute. How can they be trusted for small facts when they are so win are so wrong in their large factual positions?

I want blood in the water.

27 posted on 06/04/2002 5:48:54 AM PDT by bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson