Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[Charon]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/26/pol-promo-house-hansen-oliver.html

Due to the Canadian Conservatives' onslaught against scientists to support their anti-environmental policies for profit. This should not be surprising.

[Argus]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/26/pol-promo-house-hansen-oliver.html

Due to the Canadian Conservatives' onslaught against scientists to support their anti-environmental policies for profit. This should not be surprising.

Who cares? He's one more tree-hugger who thinks you can power cars with self-righteousness alone.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Argus

[Charon]

Ex-Nasa scientist with intelligence vs right wing drool.

Hmmm....

[Guest Derek L]

Who cares? He's one more tree-hugger who thinks you can power cars with self-righteousness alone.

Indeed, everyone knows that the future is cars powered by recycled hemp and the laughter of children

[BubberMiley]

You can tell they have no argument whatsoever and want to keep the debate remedial when they use the term "treehuggers." Is a treehugger someone who understands that trees are essential to the production of oxygen?

[Charon]

How about we call them Petrol Lubricators, Bumper Humpers, or something just as silly?

Edited April 27, 2013 by Charon

[Guest]

Canadian Energy Minister calls NASA scientist's arguments "nonsense".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/26/pol-promo-house-hansen-oliver.html

It's all in the presentation.

[Guest]

Ex-Nasa scientist with intelligence vs right wing drool.

Hmmm....

Because it's obvious that if the pipeline doesn't go through, US oil consumption will drop by the exact amount that the pipeline would carry, right? It just makes sense.

[Charon]

Canadian Energy Minister calls NASA scientist's arguments "nonsense".

Iow Canadian whore to the oil industry appointed as Energy Minister by the Cons tries to ignore science as per Conservative government policy.

[Guest]

Iow Canadian whore to the oil industry appointed as Energy Minister by the Cons tries to ignore science as per Conservative government policy.

Sure, if you want.

[Guest Kenneth]

NASA is one of the worst polluters. I've done background checks on lists of supporters for climate change denier organizations and I seem to recall there being a fair number of people affiliated with NASA and the aerospace industry.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Kenneth

[Charon]

And yet without Nasa we'd never have a photo of the Earth from orbit, and humankind would be even less conscious than it already is about the fragile biosphere we all inhabit.

[August1991]

I'm sorry but at this point in modern life, James Hansen is simply another guy.

He is not "NASA".

-----

The 2008 financial crisis was in part due to the abuse of "credit ratings". People bought financial paper because it had a good rating: A+++, or some such.

Well, back in the real world, we should be just as suspicious of claims with the "NASA" (or "UN") stamp of approval as a A+++ credit rating. As in credit ratings, nefarious people seem to seek and abuse an "official" imprimateur.

Edited April 27, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

I don't actually see how the science of climate change makes a good argument against the Keystone pipeline anyway.

The science of climate change might make a great argument for reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. However, until such time as consumption of fossil fuels is eliminated, moving fossil fuels from place to place will be a necessity.

As for Canada's Conservative Party being neanderthals, I think that's hyperbole. However, I believe there have been a number of incidents during their time in office where government-employed scientists have complained that their work was being suppressed when it produced results that the government didn't like. It's one of the things that has reduced my enthusiasm for the Harper government.

-k

[Guest Kenneth]

And yet without Nasa we'd never have a photo of the Earth from orbit, and humankind would be even less conscious than it already is about the fragile biosphere we all inhabit.

Actually artistic concepts of Earth and other objects in space were fueling imaginations for decades before any polluting rocket was actually launched by NASA.

from 1941:

Edited April 27, 2013 by Kenneth

[TimG]

However, I believe there have been a number of incidents during their time in office where government-employed scientists have complained that their work was being suppressed when it produced results that the government didn't like.

The media only ever reports the anti-Conservative side of these issues. I looked into this because I more or less expect to be lied to by the major media on topic like this and as far as I can tell the facts are:

1) Scientists are free to publish in journals as they see fit.

2) Scientists that wish to speak with the media need advance approval.

3) Approval, if granted, takes time so when it is granted the media have moved on so the scientist loses an opportunity for self promotion.

There are cases were approval is not granted but I have not found any evidence that the results were suppressed - the govt only restricts the activist-scientists ability to play up their findings in the media.

If what I say is correct then I think the conservative approach is reasonable and certainly not anti-science.

Edited April 27, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

What you've described is the public being denied information about scientists' findings: ie, it isn't about the scientists, but about our right to information.

[cybercoma]

The science of climate change might make a great argument for reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. However, until such time as consumption of fossil fuels is eliminated, moving fossil fuels from place to place will be a necessity.

-k

I just said the exact same thing to an overly zealous environmentalist recently. It's like, I get that you're going to reject everything to do with fossil fuels and anything even remotely related to pollution, but we're entirely reliant on fossil fuels at the moment. What's the alternative? He didn't have an answer for that, but I didn't expect him to have one either. Nobody has the answer yet.

[jacee]

kimmy, on 27 Apr 2013 - 01:58, said:

The science of climate change might make a great argument for reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. However, until such time as consumption of fossil fuels is eliminated, moving fossil fuels from place to place will be a necessity.

-k

I just said the exact same thing to an overly zealous environmentalist recently. It's like, I get that you're going to reject everything to do with fossil fuels and anything even remotely related to pollution, but we're entirely reliant on fossil fuels at the moment. What's the alternative? He didn't have an answer for that, but I didn't expect him to have one either. Nobody has the answer yet.

I agree, and people being humans, and corporations being inhuman, the necessary large scale innovations won't be made until oil or the infrastructure that supports it are scarce.

Impeding highway development, pipelines and oilsands development, however, can contribute to scarcity.

[eyeball]

Impeding highway development, pipelines and oilsands development, however, can contribute to scarcity.

That's the ticket.

[Argus]

You can tell they have no argument whatsoever and want to keep the debate remedial when they use the term "treehuggers." Is a treehugger someone who understands that trees are essential to the production of oxygen?

But doesn't realize that energy is essential to the continued health of an economy, not to mention the life of a modern society.

[Guest]

I agree, and people being humans, and corporations being inhuman, the necessary large scale innovations won't be made until oil or the infrastructure that supports it are scarce.

Impeding highway development, pipelines and oilsands development, however, can contribute to scarcity.

Prices go up, corporations make more money. You surprise me.

[PIK]

And still alot of info out there about a cooling coming like a 100 years ago. Everybody is panicking over the temp rising 1-2 degrees, now if it drops 1-2 degrees then we are in real trouble.

Edited April 27, 2013 by PIK

[Charon]

I just said the exact same thing to an overly zealous environmentalist recently. It's like, I get that you're going to reject everything to do with fossil fuels and anything even remotely related to pollution, but we're entirely reliant on fossil fuels at the moment. What's the alternative? He didn't have an answer for that, but I didn't expect him to have one either. Nobody has the answer yet.

Electric vehicles.

Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro-electric (powers 90% of B.C.'s energy) etc.

[Bryan]

Ex-Nasa scientist with intelligence vs right wing drool.

Hmmm....

James Hansen and intelligence are not words that go in the same sentence together. The guy is a liar and a fraud. If our government is ticking him off, that all by itself means we're doing the right thing.