Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Nasa 'played down' global warming to protect Bush

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 June 2008
NASA officials censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential election, an internal investigation has found.
A 93-page report by the space agency's Office of the Inspector General reveals that personnel in the agency's public affairs office were guilty of "inappropriate political interference" in their attempts to play down climate change findings.

Th
e staff, who were appointed by the White House, "marginalised or mischaracterised" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, denying media access to top global warming scientist James Hansen, cancelling a press conference about a space mission that was set to monitor ozone pollution and, on more than a dozen occasions, unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases on climate change.

Nasa's top management was not part of the censorship, nor were career officials within the department, the report noted. The problem centred on two names who have subsequently left Nasa – one of whom, the agency's former press secretary Dean Acosta, now works for the aeronautical giant Boeing.

"Climate change scientists and the majority of career Public Affairs Officers strongly believe that the alleged actions taken by senior Nasa headquarters public affairs officials intended to systematically portray Nasa in a light most favourable to administration policies at the expense of reporting unfiltered research results," the report concludes.

Mendacious officials "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalised, or mischaracterised climate change science made available to the general public," it noted.

The report – which was drawn up at the request of 14 senators concerned at Nasa's censorship – concluded that "inappropriate political posturing or advantage" was behind some of the actions, prompting criticism yesterday on Capitol Hill.

"Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust," complained the Democratic senator Frank Lautenberg.

At the heart of the issue is Mr Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and arguably the world's leading global warming researcher. He has long campaigned for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases – views that are considered politically embarrassing. He cites the accelerating rate of ice-thaw in the Arctic and Antarctic as proof that global warming is harming the planet – and argues that the causes are man-made because of the ozone-depleting carbon dioxide that is emitted from fossil fuels.

He theorises that man has less than a decade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the levels reach a "tipping point" that cannot be reversed.

His interaction with the public and media had been subjected to what he claimed was censorship after he made a speech in 2005 that complained: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Nasa downplayed the report yesterday, saying that it related to a problem that has since been fixed and that the agency's new policies have now been hailed for openness by the US Government Accountability Office.

Mr Acosta, who was accused of telling underlings that there were "too many" global warming news releases, denied manipulations. "My entire career has been dedicated to open and honest communications," he said.

The report came as the Senate opened debate on climate change legislation, which could see new measures to cap the production of greenhouse gases – a move that the Bush administration is opposed to.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 June 2008 11:16 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Space science
 
1

truthsleuth,

04/06/2008 00:43:33
No doubt the deniers will claim this is yet another environmentalist plot.

It makes sober reading.
2

Hemingway,

Ayr 04/06/2008 01:19:50
1 truthsleuth

Nevertheless humans have little if anything to do with natural global climate change. Follow the money to the alarmists. If it makes you feel better to believe the hype, all the best.
3

Richardinho,

04/06/2008 01:44:05
#2 It's a real shame that you let your political prejudices blind you to scientific truths. As this article shows, their is a massive industry dedicated to denying and covering up the scientific facts about climate change.
4

Scullion,

Canada 04/06/2008 01:58:49
Even if global warming were disproven, which I highly doubt, we would all be better off if we yet adopted the lifestyle changes touted by its champions.
Use less, live better.
5

,

04/06/2008 02:06:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Guga II,

Rockall 04/06/2008 02:19:27
If you want to read the truth about how NASA manipulates temperature data, via a buddy of Al Gore, read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
7

,

04/06/2008 02:37:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 04/06/2008 06:07:47
"According to Jim Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to whom many political and environmental leaders turn on climate-change questions, we must reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent within 12 years or it will be too late to prevent a climate catastrophe. Hansen thinks this won't happen because it simply costs too much. When I explain this to elected and appointed officials, business leaders, fellow scientists and others who operate in the public eye, they have two reactions. Publicly they maintain the position that this is a critical problem that requires "serious and immediate greenhouse-gas emissions reductions." Privately they ask me, "What can we do without losing jobs and going back to an 1850s lifestyle? Is there a way to get us more time to shift away from carbon-based fuels?" Happily, there is. It is not a silver bullet, nor is it a permanent solution. But we can give ourselves four or five decades to solve this problem while maintaining our lifestyles and continuing to expand our economy. The response to a climate-change emergency will be geoengineering" --"Buying Time on Greenhouse Gases," ScrippsNews.com
9

Brad Arnold,

St Louis Park 04/06/2008 06:19:04
"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
10

,

04/06/2008 07:12:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

11+failed,

the pans 04/06/2008 07:47:23
I suppose they are talking about that false claim, based on faulty statistical manipulation, by NASA that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded in the USA.
12

Guga II,

Rockall 04/06/2008 07:49:57
#11. Why a butterfly? Why not a crow, or an eagle, or a sparrow, or even a bee, a wasp or a moth? Maybe it is even a cow with flatulence.

13

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 07:50:23
"The staff, who were appointed by the White House, "marginalised or mischaracterised" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, denying media access to top global warming scientist James Hansen, cancelling a press conference about a space mission that was set to monitor ozone pollution and, on more than a dozen occasions, unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases on climate change."

So this is the excuse that Hansen uses for fabricating his thoroughly discredited 'hockeystick' graph? The man has been disowned by NASA as a one-man climate fundamentalist. NASA's chief has gone on record to say that he does not believe humans contribute to GW. Where is this in the above report?
14

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 07:52:24
#9, You need to get a grip on reality. You have the stance of the opposing sides confused. There is no evidence linking human CO2 emissions with the past warming (up to 1998). If you have evidence to the contrary then you are indeed a very unique individual.
15

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 07:56:51
"Adopt the precautionary principle: you know it makes sense."

How so? The precautionary principle is that used by ignoramuses through the ages. Indeed we would still be living in caves if humans used this sorry-assed excuse for lack of progress. But of course I forgot, it's one of the greens guiding principles greens and explains why they have contributed zero to the development of human progress.
16

traprain,

04/06/2008 08:11:02
16 Unimpressed one
I don't know why you bother! Have you heard that fable from Rulesbutnotrulers about how oil was created by a visitation from outer space? Most of his ideas have the same credibility.
17

Green booger,

04/06/2008 08:56:11
Man-made global warming is a fraud.
18

George.,

04/06/2008 09:22:05
The report actually reads "No evidence was found showing that officials higher at NASA or in the Bush administration were involved in interfering with the release of climate science information"
James Hansen was quoted in over 5000 published articles in 2004, 6000 in 2005, 6500 in 2006 and over 9000 in 2007. If this was him being suppressed how many could he have had if he wasn't.
19

livilion,

livingston 04/06/2008 09:53:20
We have natural global warming due to precession of the earth's axis and by a 100,000year natural cycle shown in ice cores and by core samples from below the deep oceans.

We can see from these that the planet is near a historical tipping point into another ice age, so why don't we just push it a wee bit more to see what happens?

BTW this is not about trying to save the planet, it will go on fine no matter what we do, but we may be creating the conditions that put us right where the dinosaurs ended up.
20

livilion,

livingston 04/06/2008 09:58:55
16 Unimpressed one
Aye, jumping off high buildings is completely safe, impacting the ground at high speed on the otherhand is often fatal.
Only the very foolish fail to identify the connection between the two. The precautionary principle.
21

PJ,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 10:10:04
Are they trying to say NASA, who put man on the moon censored and suppressed scientific data on global warming? The very thought of it!! ha-ha
22

livilion,

livingston 04/06/2008 10:28:01
19 George
In 1975 Harold Wilson's government was saying that Scotland without the rest of the UK would soon be like a communist Albania. No evidence was found for another 30 years that the very opposite was true.

Saying that you can find no evidence just might mean it suits your purposes not to find such evidence, like Nelson putting a telescope to his blind eye and declaring he could see no ships.
23

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 10:35:51
SO, the usual claims not backed up by any evidence.
Anyone got any new theories as to why AGW isn't happening? Give us something new, it would be interesting.
24

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 10:45:34
George #19- I have the report here in front of me. Where are you quoting from? Or are you taking the mickey?
25

Neil,

Glasgow 04/06/2008 12:27:34
Amazing how much publicity Jim Hansen global warming alarmist & ice age alarmist gets for somebody being censored.

As John Simpson said on C$ news when the Stern Report came out "we are going to have a discussion putting all sides" & then proceded to have a debate with himself & 3 alarmists (admitedly of varying degrees of alarmism). That is real censorship & the fact that C$ have not issued a report saying so proves where the agenda has been placed.

Rules #11 do I read you correctly in saying that the "precautionery principle" requires that we spend £400 million a day (Kyoto's cost) stopping butterflies flapping their wings just in case or does your nonsense only apply to human beings & other things you don't like?
26

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 13:15:23
Why are the glaciers melting away?
27

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 13:20:12
'ozone-depleting carbon dioxide'

a mis-quote surely?
28

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 13:25:50
#19, Livilion, Jumping off a building at height involves instinct not risk. The first man to propose a parachute ignored the precautionary principle and then just jumped. So it is with human progress. The greens ae an entirely diffrent species. They would have us living in caves without even attempting to try using fire.
29

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 13:27:05
OMG, you jumped from #19 to 20! Sorry George.
30

George.,

04/06/2008 13:45:44
"The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0508/0508globalcooling.htm
So the last thirty odd years were during a warm phase of the PDO. This has to have a major role in any increase in temperature. The effect of the PDO has not been taken into account with the climate models as they all show increasing temperatures over the next 20 or so years.
31

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 04/06/2008 15:30:17
Funny how GEorge ignores both my question regarding his claim in comment #20, and the fact that the PDO isn't the only thing going on in the climate, and in fact climatologists already know that. Indeed, if the warming was down to the PDO, the northern hemisphere wouldn't be warming the way it has done for the past 30 years.
32

BeTheChange,

U.S. 04/06/2008 16:56:12
Bush runs his government like the old Soviet Union. Don't count on the government to address anything that is no self-promoting.

With that, take these steps to reduce your own carbon waste as well as energy expenses too. Not all of these apply for everyone, so please keep that in mind.

1) $(save) For "A/C" in the summer, open the windows at night and close them during the day

2) $(a little more) buy recycled products if you can find them- support recycling;

3) $(same, better quality) buy local products & produce (http://www.localharvest.org)- if they are not transported, that saves gasoline and also supports the local producer. Also, for grass-fed, local meat (the way it is supposed to be done), try Eat Wild (http://www.eatwild.com/products/index.html);

4) $(free) composting turns garbage into fertilizer and prevents formation of methane, which is 23 times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of climate effect;

5) $(save) Unplug all adapters and turn off anything that is on 'Standby'- use powerstrips with a switch for multiple plugs, if needed;

6) $(20, save) use a rake instead of a leaf blower: they are quieter and provide exercise too;

7) $(20, save) use a clothesline (http://www.laundrylist.org) instead of the dryer- many benefits: cleaner clothes, clothes last longer, don't get wrinkled, and each load saves 5 kWh off of your electric bill;

8) $(40, save) replace incandescents with CFLs- saves on A/C costs in summer too;

9) $(80, save) use a REEL lawnmower, which you push to cut the grass and requires no gasoline;

10) $(280/ton, even) if you have a wood burning stove, try biobricks (http://www.biopellet.net) - pellets for a wood burning stove- these burn more cleanly with less ash and are easy to start (available in New England and NY) ;

11) $(4.00/Gal, a little more) try to use biodiesel (http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/) for your furnace/boiler/car;

12)
33

BeTheChange,

04/06/2008 16:58:10
Continuing on....

12) $(4000, save) get a solar hot water heater (http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/water_heating/index.cfm/mytopic=12850)- fastest payback of all renewables;

14) $(10,000, save) replace drafty windows, if you can. If you cannot, use plastic ($10) or close the curtains at night ($0) during the winter; and

15) $(15,000, save) trade in the SUV for a car or even a hybrid vehicle, if you need a car- buy used to save money.

Start out with something small and try bigger items as you feel more and more comfortable with these changes.

There are many possibilities, and they may seem overwhelming. Some ideas are more effective than others: #1 will work if your house is shaded.... but it depends on what you are willing to do. Start with the smaller items, and as you see how it works for you, move to larger items. My family has done all of it (#3 is happening now, and the veggies are much fresher, #11 will happen when I can find some in my area, and #12 starts in 2008). In doing all of these things, our electric bill is only 200-400 kWh/month, and our carbon footprint is less than half of the average American's use.

"Ozone-depleting CO2....." they are separate issues and unrelated.
34

ebbi,

spain 04/06/2008 18:30:52
can anyone in all honesty show any respect for us administration ? can anyone trust them anymore?what do they take us for?
american politics together with british are full of dishonest and corrupt politicians who would sell their mother for power and financial gain.
it makes me sick and i am sick of this s**t system.
35

Unimpressed one,

04/06/2008 18:45:35
#27, "Why are the glaciers melting away?"

Oh Fred you've certainly posed a tough one there. However let's hazard a guess eh? Probably the same same reason they formed in the first place - the level of heat from the sun.
36

John Blackley,

Florida 04/06/2008 20:47:07
This is a very neat, if news-barren report. Neat because the 'culprit' no longer works for NASA. News-barren because of course NASA manipulated data to suit the administration's policies. Who on earth do you think controls NASA's budget?
37

Jock Scot,

East Lothian 04/06/2008 23:22:26
Global Warming what about the effects of Global Dimming.

Clouds are formed when water droplets are seeded by air-borne particles, such as pollen. Clouds formed in polluted air, airborne particles like soot, ash and sulphur compounds results in clouds with larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. This then makes those clouds more reflective reducing the amount of light reaching the earth, cooling the planet.

In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains. Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made the oceans in the northern hemisphere cooler and as a result, less rain formed in key areas and crucial rainfall failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa.



38

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 05/06/2008 11:30:18
#unimpressed #36- and of course, you can't provide any evidence showing how there is increased heat from the sun....
Ahh well, its too much to expect people to think, I suppose.
39

livilion,

livingston 08/06/2008 01:29:44
39 Guthrie
Pristine polar ice cores and deep ocean bed soil samples have been used to record atmospheric conditions going back millenia.
Global climate change is happening now, is extreme in geological terms and is well documented and peer reviewed.

Point is, if you're right no problem, but if you are wrong your kids and their's and everyone else's are condemned to hell on earth and they will look back to you and say thanks for everything Gramps thanks a whole bundle we hope you enjoyed your life of bliss in ignorance.

Are you willing to bet the existance of life on this planet as we know it that you are right?
40

livilion,

livingston 08/06/2008 01:33:22
29 Unimpressed one,
Aye now we're into the Darwinian theory of evolution.
The ones who don't assess risks generally die off and so don't get to pass on their suicidal genes to further generations.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.