Hansen has previously acknowledged that he supported the "emphasis on extreme scenarios" regarding climate change models in order to drive the public's attention to the issue, but Pelley's "60 Minutes" report made no mention of that admission.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200603\POL20060323a.html On 3/22/06, Cameron Childress wrote: > Yes, I watched most of that 60 Minutes episode. During the episode, > they essentially said that the White House isn't actually denying that > global warming exists, but it is trying to control information about > global warming as it comes out of NASA and other agencies. > > At some point during the Bush administration, the White House decided > that they need to review any public statements that are going to be > made by NASA regarding global warming. Repeatedly during the show, > they showed copies of NASA Press Releases with handwritten notes on > them (written by white house lawyers) changing words like "dramatic" > and "significant" to things like "potential" and "unknown". > > The real problem I have with this is that an attorney is editing a > scientific paper. I think that the scientific peer review system > pretty well handles proving data and theories right or wrong. I'm not > really sure why attorneys are even involved. The White House has the > right to be informed of data, and maybe even to have a little > influence over it's release schedule, but I don't really see why > non-scientists are hand-editing scientific papers. > > -Cameron > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:201336 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
