It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush administration tries to censor NASA

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   


NEW YORK (Reuters) - NASA's top climate scientist said the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, The New York Times said on Saturday.

Link



[edit on 29-1-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
A NASA spokesman....denied any effort to silence....

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs:

"That's not the way we operate here at NASA, we promote openness
and we speak with the facts."

Rather, the restrictions applied to ANY AND ALL NASA personnel
who could be seen by the public as speaking for the agency.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
There has been an effort - it is at least a decade old - to prevent a reasoned discussion of the effects of greenhouse emissions on the Earth's climate. Indeed, part of this effort asserts that there has been NO impact of pollution upon the environment.

It doesn't take a genius to know where this effort comes from. If information about the effect of pollution upon the weather becomes widely known, there is one portion of the population that would be hurt by this revelation, and that's the oil/petrochemical industry. These happen to comprise the most powerful lobby in Washington. Last year was a tough year for these industries: Haliburton's profits actually fell below 10 billion dollars for the first time in half a decade. DuPont Chemical's profits went DOWN to 4.5 billion dollars.

We've seen that Jack Abramoff, a relatively small player in the Washington lobby business, was able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have special amendments placed in legislation and to have meetings set up with the Bush Administration. How much more do you think the petrochemical industry could have done using a hundred times the dollar amounts Abramoff was throwing around?

I'm surprised that we're not reading stories in the newspaper about how automobile emissions can cure acne.

As long as corporate money drives government, we will never know the truth about our world.

For those of you who think that the major political battle is between Democrat and Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative, you are being sold a bill of goods. Partisan politics is just a distraction from the real political divide, the one between corporate greed and the rest of us.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I agree this is not only about politics of like some has said Corporate power.

Now some can really are the ones in power and running things around in our country.

Is not a surprised actually.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Cycles, next time, you report news like this, please add your thoughts on the matter, believe it or not, iut does get more people posting.
Even if it is just to argue against you.
Just saying this so a mod does'nt have to waste there valuable time doing so.


Now, onto the matter at hand.
It really would not surprise me if the current administration did that, or something similiar. It's what happens when you get a person elected who thinks armageddon's right around the corner, no love for the enviroment.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
There are many people who believe humans have a far smaller impact on "global warming"than is believed. I thought I'd post some links to those opinions just to balance things out. Although these may not be the best links, they will do for now. (I had some better links saved, but unfortunately I can't find them anymore
).

Scientists Debunk Fairy Tale of Global Warming

Debunking Global Warming

The Sunday Telegraph

I also found this article: 2003 Ozone 'Hole' Approaches Record which I find interesting. Here they claim the following; "However, the atmospheric abundances of ozone destroying chemicals are beginning to decline. As a result, the Antarctic ozone hole should disappear in about 50 years." The reason I find it interesting is that the hole in the ozone layer seems to fluctuate, and the only way they know how to explain it is by saying that the chemicals are beginning to decline. If/when the ozone hole either closes up before their expected 50 years, or if it gets bigger, or if it does not change in size, how do they plan to explain it? Will they continue to blame man?
Just some thoughts.






[edit on 2-2-2006 by 2manyquestions]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
You actually believe this is possible in a country with infinite possibilities to spread the news and the facts! Censorship, give me a break, whats stopping this man from speaking at colleges, on news channels, etc etc etc etc? Quit your paranoia.

Train







 
0

log in

join