BigSqwert

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/...r=1&oref=slogin By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: January 29, 2006 The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said. Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts." He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Mr. Acosta said other reasons for requiring press officers to review interview requests were to have an orderly flow of information out of a sprawling agency and to avoid surprises. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination." Dr. Hansen strongly disagreed with this characterization, saying such procedures had already prevented the public from fully grasping recent findings about climate change that point to risks ahead. "Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic." Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute in Morningside Heights in Manhattan. Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore. 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. He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry. But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide. In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, 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." He said he was particularly incensed that the directives had come through telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents. Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied." The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions. After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews. Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews. Mr. Acosta said the calls and meetings with Goddard press officers were not to introduce restrictions, but to review existing rules. He said Dr. Hansen had continued to speak frequently with the news media. But Dr. Hansen and some of his colleagues said interviews were canceled as a result. In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute. Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority. But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, at NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so. Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations, he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta. Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog in this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?" Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred. "He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public." Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled. In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views. "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." The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone. Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing. One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems. In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identified the views as his own. "One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff," he wrote, "is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing."

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 12:43 AM) Hey.... remember that part of the speech everyone loved about lowering our dependence on foreign oil 75% over the next 25 years? Yeah, not so much... http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...shington_nation What a joke. How can you believe anything this guy says?

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Of course it will, but not nearly in the sense that a lot of people believe in. With the amount of oil left buried all over the planet, numerous generations could live with the same oil demand if they put up with a moderate increase in prices. I just think it's ridiculous that we are still relying on some old ass technology from 1906 (or whenever the combustible engine was developed...too lazy to google) to transport people around. So apparently we're supposed to dig up the entire earth looking for more oil, polluting our air and water which contribute to poor health. And don’t forget dealing with wacko nations who like to kill Americans. We need to wean ourselves off this form of energy. The sooner the better. There has to be a better way.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) Oil is simply not going to disappear How is that? Eventually it will.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 1, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security>Defense Spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well luckily Bush is shooting for permanent tax cuts. Apparently all these programs are free.

Link Nearly half of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops, poll finds BY DREW BROWN Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - A new poll found that nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and most favor setting a timetable for American troops to leave. The poll also found that 80 percent of Iraqis think the United States plans to maintain permanent bases in the country even if the newly elected Iraqi government asks American forces to leave. Researchers found a link between support for attacks and the belief among Iraqis that the United States intends to keep a permanent military presence in the country. At the same time, the poll found that many Iraqis think that some outside military forces are required to keep Iraq stable until the new government can field adequate security forces on its own. Only 39 percent of Iraqis surveyed thought that Iraqi police and army forces were strong enough to deal with the security challenges on their own, while 59 percent thought Iraq still needed the help of military forces from other countries. Seventy percent of Iraqis favor setting a timetable for U.S. forces to withdraw, with half of those favoring a withdrawal within six months and the other half favoring a withdrawal over two years. "Iraqis are demanding a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, and most believe that the U.S. has no plans to leave even if the new government asks them to," said Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the poll. "This appears to be leading some to even support attacks on U.S.-led troops, even though many feel they also continue to need the presence of U.S. troops awhile longer." "If you put it all together, it's clear there is a center of gravity, not towards immediate withdrawal, but for the U.S. to be there in a way that affirms their intent to withdraw eventually," he said. "There is real consensus on that point." The poll was to be published Tuesday by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a Web site that reports on public opinion from around the globe. The survey was conducted Jan. 2-5, with a nationwide sample of 1,150 Iraqis from country's main religious and ethnic sects. According to the poll's findings, 47 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces, but there were large differences among ethnic and religious groups. Among Sunni Muslims, 88 percent said they approved of the attacks. That approval was found among 41 percent of Shiite Muslims and 16 percent of Kurds. Ninety-three percent of Iraqis oppose violence against Iraqi security forces, and 99 percent oppose attacks on Iraqi civilians. "They're pretty much the same results that have been going on since 2003, so it's consistent with a lot of the attitudes that exist," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and a longtime Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a center for national-security studies in Washington. "We're not seen as liberators by the Sunnis, but what else is new?" Previous samples from Shiites who supported attacks on coalition troops have been much lower in the past, Cordesman said, but support for U.S.-led forces even among Shiites - who were oppressed under Saddam Hussein, a Sunni - has been mixed from the beginning. "It was clear after the invasion that about a third or more of Shiites did not see us as liberators, and did not see the war as justified, and somewhere around 15 percent supported attacks on coalition forces then," he said. "We're also seen as creating all kinds of internal problems without creating any kind of internal solutions." U.S. officials have acknowledged in the past that the mere presence of American troops in Iraq has helped fuel the insurgency, which is dominated by Iraq's Sunni minority. U.S. officials have sent mixed signals about long-term American intentions. During a visit with U.S. troops in Fallujah on Christmas Day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said "at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases" in Iraq. "It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government," he said. According to the poll, 80 percent of Iraqis overall assume that the United States intends to keep bases in Iraq. The breakdown of people who have that belief is 92 percent of Sunnis, 79 percent of Shiites and 67 percent of Kurds. More than 80 percent of Sunnis favor a six-month withdrawal period; 49 percent of Shiites favor a longer withdrawal. Just 29 percent of all Iraqis surveyed say U.S. forces should be reduced only as the security situation improves, though more than half of the Kurds surveyed favor that option. The survey will be available at www.worldpublicopinion.org

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:34 PM) What was with that Rock-esque eyebrow from Tim Kaine? If you smelllllllllll what Tim Kaine is cookin'!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) How is not paying taxes capitalism? How about balancing the budget instead of buying votes by promising you money and benefits? If a candidate paid each voter $50 he'd be in jail, if he promises to give everyone $50 in tax cuts and have someone else pay for it, he's a genious. Somebody had to pay for those cuts, with interest and it's going to be you and me. We pay taxes to pay for our government, we don't collect taxes to stimulate the economy. Let's not pay for anything, let's borrow trillions of dollars, that's the Republican way. Amazing that now it's the Democrats that want to balance a budget and the Republicans that keep promising someone else will pay the taxes in the future. Spoken like a prodigy.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:30 PM) Politics aside, Im most pleased with the President getting serious about ramping up alternative energy research. That, above all, was what I wanted to hear. I concur. Hopefully it's not just talk.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:36 PM) "If there are people in America talking to Al Quada we want to know about it. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again!" I have yet to hear a Dem disagree. It's the sidestepping of the law we have a problem with.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:20 AM) some of you may remember that i got kicked out of my house about 1 month ago.... since then ive, dissapeared from the internet, moved into a 2 bedroom apartment with a friend, and just today got a house phone and net connection so lets all in a roudy (or quiet/non-existant) fassion welcome him back!(i love talking in 3rd person... since im so f***ing egotistical) all ive got to say, is thank you to the accademy, to all my fellow soxtalkers, my family.... and of course... THE WORLD MOTHER f***ING CHAMP WHITE SOX! BIIIIITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hide your children!!!

Enjoy! http://ilksubaru.ytmnd.com/

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jan 30, 2006 -> 12:58 PM) Shouldn't it say 'biased against'? Good catch.

Doesn't surprise me at all. Most racist white people I've met throughout my years seem to lean right. EDIT: And I am not saying all white republicans are racist.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 29, 2006 -> 11:42 PM) Old school sox logo, white cap? Also, f***ing awesome special by Gaffigan one of the best I've seen in sometime. Who knew a 5 minute Hot Pocket routine could be so funny? Yeah that was me. Hilarious show. I pre-ordered the dvd. Comedy Central edited some of it out for tv whereas the dvd will be uncut.

Anyone catch the Jim Gaffigan special on Comedy Central? They had a shot of me in the audience wearing my sox cap. During the hot pocket bit.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Who said that and when? For the months leading up to the war this administration dropped the name Osama Bin Laden out of their vocabulary. Iraq and 9/11 became synonymous for them. All they talked about was fighting the war on terror and Iraq was the first name that kept coming up.

Oh my. What a stud.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) We should poison BigSqwert too!

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 01:36 PM) Who is attacking your freedom? You must have slept in on 9-11. :rolly Still waiting for evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 08:14 PM) Dude...do you not see the irony between you finding a problem with her joking about poisoning Stevens and you saying someone should poison her? It is my opinion that she would really want Stevens to be poisoned whereas I am just saying it about her in jest.

Link LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court's most liberal members. "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said. "That's just a joke, for you in the media." Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views. At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I'm not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice. She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."

Link I thought i was the f*** king?? Asian with rude-sounding name changes it CHICAGO, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- A Chinese immigrant from Hong Kong has legally changed his name to Andy Kwok because everyone laughed saying his real name -- Fuk King Kwok. Kwok said that in China, his name translates to a very good meaning and nothing at all like the vulgar English pronunciation. The first name is pronounced in Cantonese with a long o sound, rather than a short u, the Chicago Sun-Times said. And my middle name is terrible, too, Kwok acknowledged. That combination becomes very terrible. Monica Pinas, 21, made the same decision as Kwok. She tired of hearing her name pronounced like penis instead of the Spanish peen-yas, and paid $328 in Chicago to have her name changed to Monica Star. Similarly, April Showers became Denise Moore last year, the newspaper said.