NASA climate scientist James Hansen has a new paper out, titled "How Can We Avert Dangerous Climate Change," which is actually a slightly-edited version of his testimony before Congress in April. The paper is available online here (PDF), and it's worth checking out, of course. But also interesting is the preamble Hansen included in his email announcing the new paper:
President Eisenhower was arguably the last United States President to seek and value advice of scientists. As discussed by John Rigdon in June 2007 Physics Today, scientists played important roles in the World Wars, but they did not have substantial access to and influence upon policymakers. The brief window of influence under Eisenhower was in the wake of Sputnik, being preconditioned by Eisenhower's tenure as President of Columbia University, where he grew to respect I.I. Rabi. Following Sputnik, Eisenhower established the President's Science Advisory Committee with Rabi as chairman.
Rigdon describes a conversation of James Killian with Eisenhower in Walter Reed Hospital shortly before Eisenhower's death, with the former President surrounded by instruments relevant to cardiac care, and his heartbeats visible on an oscilloscope. Eisenhower asked about "my scientists" and said, "You know, Jim, this bunch of scientists was one of the few groups that I encountered in Washington who seemed to be there to help the country and not to help themselves."
Rigdon is probably right about the lack of substantial influence of scientists on national policymakers today. Congress does not call on the National Academy of Sciences for broad assessment on how to deal with global climate change, nor does the President call on a Science Advisory Committee. Unless the public becomes sufficiently concerned to demand otherwise, it seems that special interests will continue to have undue sway in energy/climate policies.
Until community advisory pathways are sought, we can still try to provoke needed discussions in various ways. [my emphasis]
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Flat
JohnCaley Posted 10:51 pm
26 Jun 2007
Unfortunately his major emphasis and logic re CO2 climate forcing is rather myopic. Paleoclimatic data is not related to human activity, it is a natural phenomenon.
This fact is rather important since the present climatic changes on this planet are related to human activity. What is happening IS a SPECIAL climatic case and it is totally unnatural.
This is evidenced by the extremely rapid rate of climate change we are experiencing.
So trying to tie historical climatic changes (where causes of Ice Ages etc are speculative at best) with current climatic changes can only lead to speculation upon speculation.
True, greenhouse gases are measurably increasing and theory may support some assertions, but that theory remains theory. What will be the outcome of increased CO2 in the atmosphere will really only be known in the fullness of time.
IMO, I would not act upon the assertions of a theory without any real world experimental evidence.
I find it very strange that Dr J Hansen's climate change thrust is towards a CO2 greenhouse forcing, as I expect he is privy to observational data that he seems to be completely overlooking.
Unfortunately I do smell a scientific disconnection, so I have to completely discount any assertions he may make.
It is true the Earth is in trouble, however the why will remain very speculative until all the facts are honestly laid upon the table. This has not happened to date.
There is much misinformation, disinformation and plain downright lies being passed around.... a state of total manipulated confusion.
The only reality is the contortions the world's climate is experiencing. The question remains begging..
"Does the Earth have time to play silly games?".
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 12:21 am
27 Jun 2007
Is there any way we can get them booted? I don't have time to wade through John Caley's garbage.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:04 am
27 Jun 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:11 am
27 Jun 2007
WF
Permalink
ourearthmusic Posted 6:33 pm
27 Jun 2007
Should we keep rebutting skeptics?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/4/04942/93092
I think we should bounce any trolls after three comments denying climate change.
BTW, does anyone know how to see recent comments other than the sidebar on the gristmill page?
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:55 am
28 Jun 2007
As for refusing to understand climate change, probably half the country sounds exactly like Bailo, so it might be important to understand where they're coming from instead of writing them off and kicking them out of the conversation.
Artem
Permalink