Yeah, He Was Muzzled, Alright

========================
Climate scientist sees cover-up

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 20,
2007

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
...
Mr. Hansen yesterday said the Bush administration threatened him and his office over his stance on global warming.

"It was an oral threat made to a public affairs person in New York and relayed to me," said Mr. Hansen, who is listed as a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and consulted on Mr. Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
...
Mr. Deutsch, who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons.

Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews, Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions.
...
Mr. Hansen refused to denounce earlier comments he made referring to the White House as a "propaganda office," and saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."
========================

Let's see - Hansen says he was denied an NPR interview [1 out of 1,400 others, a whopping 0.07%], yet we discover that the denial was due to his violating NASA policy, a violation he admits.

Yeah, that is so "Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union."

Supposedly, he received some horrendous threat.

Given orally
To someone else
Somewhere else and
Relayed to him

So, it was a "threat" that he heard from someone else that was said by some third party.

Yeah. What a threat...

So, this guy was "muzzled" for one interview out of 1,400 because he violated policy and he heard he was threatened by some guy who heard it from someone else.

Gee, sounds like anthropogenic global warming science at its best...

Consensus Might Be The Problem

Because it is being used as a club to beat down - or up - dissenting views;

========================
Scientists
threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned
mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have
been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global
warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists
and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true
environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five
deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was
affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued
to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western
governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they
feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a
sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling
us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It
has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared
in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several
scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a
"religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard
Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their
work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University,
agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change.
It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start
micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein
could not have got funding under the present system."
========================

Death threats?
Loss of funding?
Derision?
Insults?

Is this the cost of "consensus?"

"Consensus" is feeding us BS because many scientists would have their bread and butter snatched away if they dare dissent - or, they might even be killed. What sort of "consensus" is that and how is it a good thing?

About Fluff Science

Seems NASA has an opinion on global warming models.

Current models "must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy[.]"

Sure, let's jack with the US economy based upon the data from models with a less than 10% accuracy...

Oh, wait, it's NASA. Sheesh, what do they know?

A Turncoat In The Ranks!

Braving the potential consequences, Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, a former promoter and supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming, has had a change of heart and mind.

From the article;

[T]he many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.

Failed dismally.

The religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is slowly being exposed for the facade that it is.

Unfortunately, the fanatic believers have their own Inquisitions to ridicule, denigrate and oppress any view that opposes their credo. Many follow this creed not out of any scientific foundation, but out of sheer faith. They believe that Man causes Global Warming, therefore it is so.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

Faith is wonderful when it comes to exploring the Beginning of All Things or to provide insight as to why we are here, but it is a poor substitute for science when trying to explain the scientific.

Faith has no place in scientific inquiry. Yet, the anthropogenic global warmers have replaced science with faith in order to justify and rationalize their oppressive "answers" to a warming climate.

If You Don't Agree With Me...

...you're biased.

So says AlGore.

"Balance as bias?"

So, if journalists present both sides of an issue, they are being biased?

Obviously, we must suppress opposing views. After all, to present opposition is to be biased and we can't have that.