This was originally called “CBS News Presents: Global Warming: The Melting
Ice Caps” at the CBS affililiates resource site they call it “CBS News Presents: The Age of Warming” for Sunday.
http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_entertainment/schedule
here is the synopsis of a previous segment “The Age of Warming”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/60minutes/main2631210.shtml
They are focusing on Antarctica on that one. The original aired in April 2007, then they did a “revised” version in August 2007. This may be another “reheated leftovers” of that broadcast. It may be something related to the writers strike. I’m not sure.
Here is their PR on it.
http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_news/release?id=17692
It looks like James Hansen managed to escape “censorship” once again as they say: “He also speaks to NASA’s top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming. ”
Maybe they sent Andy Rooney out to grouse at some penguins too.
One of my contacts on an email list I belong to pointed to this as a possible reason they are airing this special a third time:
“All of this is carefully orchestrated to force a polar bear listing onto the US Fish and Wildlife Service, who knows the science is not there for a listing, but is trying to get sued into doing it anyway. The science is so bad, the final listing decision was postponed another month. Getting a listing is for the greens like capturing the Queen during end game.”
Once you watch the show, you can decide for yourself and contact CBS Media Relations to tell them what you thought about it:
Director, CBS News Communications (“60 Minutes”)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why is everyone talking about global warming only when the bigger issue is the consumption of non-renewable resources. Our planet has been here for millions of years and will be around for millions more – even if we are not. But how are we to survive with no resources? We need to move to wind, small hydro, and solar power. Solar is now as inexpensive as other electricity in the commercial market. Soon it may be for residential as well. Check out these videos – http://solarjoules.com/?cat=3
Evan,
“No text gets released by the whitehouse without some bureaucrat making a whole lot of Sx. They get paid by the X.”
So that makes it OK? If it’s not the original text, but the original author’s name is on it, that’s a “lie.” Also, this policy– no press releases may be issued without White House review– was not in place in earlier administrations. I have to wonder what Bush is afraid of.
“What does a scientist have to do to get the bum’s rush these days, anyway? Grope the staff?”
Comments like this don’t communicate anything or argue well for your maturity.
I will also disagree with Danielle (thank you for posting, though) in that I doubt CBS will gain ratings by preempting one of its most popular shows for a report of this kind. Ratings is what Britney is for.
“So that makes it OK? ”
(Sigh) In a word, yes. But I will explain in detail.
“If it’s not the original text, but the original author’s name is on it, that’s a “lie.” ”
You don’t appear to understand how it works.
If you have not written professionally on another’s behalf, then this is going to be hard to explain. But if you have, your objections simply baffle me.
No professional writing I have ever done for anyone else ever came out of the grinder intact. Only on rare occasions can it have been characterized as “the original text”. When you are writing on behalf an agency and not on your own account (like ALL government employees), you represent THEM as much as yourself. They have a claim on both positive and negative input–and deserve it.
If you cannot live with the inevitable revisions, you must resign. To scream censorship and not resign is what doesn’t speak well for maturity.
I regard Dr. Hansen’s accusations of censorship with scorn. Why? Because he writes his own nongovernmental scientific papers without any restriction whatever from the government. Not an X in sight. Have you been to his website?
It is only when he is speaking–on the behalf of others–that the Xs appear. Not only do the others get to X stuff out, they get to add their own stuff in. Because it is a joint declaration. If a body considers that a lie, he part of it unless he resigns.
Let me try to put it another way. When Dr. Hansen speaks for himself, on his own behalf (including screaming censorship), no one may curtail his expression. If it harms his employer, NASA has every right to can him, but they can’t X him. He does so. He publishes his own work.
But, begorrah, if he speaks on behalf of the government, the government has the right to X and append whatever it pleases like any other employer. And Dr. Hansen has the right to withdraw his work or resign. NASA doesn’t work for him, he works for NASA. If NASA were his private bolt bin, he’d be calling the shots and doing the X-ing, and he’d have a right to. But it ain’t, see?
I don’t see where he gets off with not resigning and then claiming to be muzzled. Have your cake or eat it. Pick one. That True Cross he’s been lugging around is getting old.
Let me try another tack.
“Rev” Anthony has clipped my wings once or twice on this blog. He has a right to! What he allows to appear here is partly a reflection on HIM.
But he can’t do that in MY little corner. THAT would be censorship.
It is my privilege to post here, not my right. Yours, too, I might add. If I can’t live within his restrictions, I can bally well go elsewhere.
But until he drops by and Xs MY blog, you won’t find me dragging around a used crucifix, moaning about the death of the first amendment. Dr. Hansen is a living example of the old Python joke: “Help, help, I’m bein’ repressedI You saw him repressin’ me didn’t you? That’s what I’m on about!”
REPLY: Well said my friend.
Right, WWII wasn’t censored, nether was Korea, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, or anything else from any administration before GW Bush. Every government which ever existed has told the “public” exactly what they wanted to tell them. The difference in this country, and a few others, is that we can usually find out the truth, even if it’s 100 years later.
Reggie, might I ask why you think we are all opposed to alternative energy? We certainly aren’t.
Reggie: If the ability to make due without fossil fuels is there now. As much as it isn’t true, if it is there now, then it will be there later when technology permits it to be more affordable and/or it becomes more affordable due to the scarcity of “natural” resources. If I’m wrong, fair enough. That’d be great. I’m no fan of the oil oligopoly. However, tell them to get out there and market, preferable subsidy free. Please don’t give me some line about the oil companies paying them off, yada, yada, yada.
Danielle: The world is not over populated and we are not depleting our non-renewable resources at an unacceptable rate. If the world was overpopulated, the poulation would be decreasing. Basic economics.
If resource conservation is your worry, fair enough. Just know that CBS global warming specials and the like promote the exact opposite actions you want to promote.
Categorizing CO2 as a “pollutant” just leads to misplaced uses. A simple example. Using oil for elec. generation. Oil is much scarcer and much more versatile than coal. However, oil burns “cleaner”, i.e. less CO2 produced. (I’m ignoring REAL pollutants for now). By classifying plant food, i.e. CO2 as a pollutant, it directs oil into electrical production instead of coal. There are centuries upon centuries of coal supply right here in N.A., which means we do not have to import as much oil from Chavez and the middle east. In addition, the technology to capture REAL pollutants produced by coal fired plants exists today. CBS factoid presentations promotes power generation from a less available commodity, puts up your power costs and does NOTHING for the to lower the earth’s temp. We could extend out our natural resources life much much longer if political costs were removed as drivers of price.
For those of you who insist I must believe in the catastrophic AGW, I’m sorry, I’ve read far too much B.S. on Real Climate, seen too much hiding of facts by the MSM, and really have a hard time accepting some hypothetical tipping point that has never occured in geological history despite higher volumes of atmospheric CO2 to agree to transfer billions of dollars to despot countries like Russia in the name of some grand socialist scheme. The earth is a net negative feedback control system, period. Simple as that. An extra degree of warmth sure won’t hurt anything.
Anthony:
Sorry about the double post. Came up with an error here after I submitted. Was happy it did and did some editing.
If you wish, please delete the first one.
BTW, great work you are doing on the temp. stations.
Cheers
“If you have not written professionally on another’s behalf, then this is going to be hard to explain. But if you have, your objections simply baffle me.”
You speak as if the government is a private entity. I expect the government to represent the people’s interest (as a whole, not every individual) in the same way I expect my credit union to give me honest, unbiased advice. I don’t expect the same from Bank of America.
“Right, WWII wasn’t censored, nether was Korea, or the Cuban Missile Crisis, or anything else from any administration before GW Bush. Every government which ever existed has told the “public” exactly what they wanted to tell them.”
I wasn’t talking about troop movements during wartime. Are you saying that the US government has no more obligation to tell the truth to its people than the Chinese? I believe we should work toward a more open and honest government. If they can’t tell us something, all they have to do is say “no comment.”
Every aspect of those wars was controlled by the government, every piece of news, not just troop movements. Some major events were never reported because the powers that be felt national morale was more important than knowing if your son was dead. I’d say US administrations have been MORE open that previous ones, since there are more and more watchdog groups, instant communication, the Web, etc, they just can’t get away with as much.
“You speak as if the government is a private entity. I expect the government to represent the people’s interest (as a whole, not every individual) in the same way I expect my credit union to give me honest, unbiased advice.”
I speak of the government as an employer.
You tacitly assume that if the government Xs or adds to the output of its paid employees that this is not in the people’s interest–as a whole. But what if it is? Or what if that is in question? If both parties believe they are right?
You need to ask yourself who makes that call. The employee or those in government placed above him?
Public or private entity, it makes no difference. The employer gets to make the call. The employer is the BOSS. The employee can convince his supervisors of their error. Or compromise. Or let it go (which is wrong of him if he thinks that is dishonest).
Or he can quit in protest, publish on his own, call a press conference and yell to the high heavens. If he does that, I may disagree with him–strongly–but he retains my respect.
But one cannot have it both ways.
Dr. Hansen has every moral right to thump on the desk and resign and then bite the hand of NASA. But this spectacle of his biting the hand of his employer even as it feeds him and while simultaneously demanding “his right” to speak on behalf of his employer is simply a Pythonesque embarrassment.
simply a Pythonesque embarrassment.
Oooh, that’s good, Evan. I’ve got to add that to my list of great descriptions. (You will, of course, get attribution if I use it.)
No need. (SIR!)
The term “Pythonesque”, per se, is not mine, but in the common domain. (The “embarrassment” thing is mere application. )
And no need to call me “Sir”, Evan.
There is something that has been puzzling me. On a number of occasions, you’ve described yourself as a “bleeding heart Liberal”, but I have yet to see a comment of yours that would suggest you lean even remotely to the left. In what way/s does the term Liberal apply to you?
Sorry about the OT post, Anthony.
“You tacitly assume that if the government Xs or adds to the output of its paid employees that this is not in the people’s interest–as a whole. But what if it is? Or “what if that is in question? If both parties believe they are right?”
Evan, I think you’re going in another direction here. I’m concerned with the White House’s relation to the public. They hired the guy to do the job. Then non-scientists changed what he wrote and passed it off as if the person credited was the author of the information. No disclaimers that the original words were altered. Wouldn’t that have been the honest thing to do? Or, if they didn’t like what he wrote they should have fired him and picked somebody else, not tried to make the public think the report was his. By the way, did you actually see the show?
And, Jeff, you didn’t really answer my question O.o
it does make a difference.
Well, there are areas where liberal/conservative evaluations simply do not apply.
Facts are facts. They know no politics.
The temperature is either being measured correctly or it is not being measured correctly.
The world is either running out of resources or it is not running out of resources.
Paul Ehrlich’s predictions are either correct, partially correct, or incorrect.
“Supply-side, trickle-down” economics either produce the effects intended or not.
Mankind is better off today than he was 100 (50, 500, 1000, whatever) years ago or he wasn’t.
The “surge” is either working or it isn’t.
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” or not.
War doesn’t “solve anything” or it does.
No. No. Incorrect. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Does.
These are empirical issues. They can be observed. They can be tested. Measured. Calculated. Tracked. Graphed. Evaluated.
They are not liberal Vs conservative considerations. They are demonstrable and not subject to value judgement.
Values are a different question entirely. But this blog deals in, well, facts. (If I were to be identified with one of the current political candidates, I suppose It would probably be Rudy Giuliani. Sigh.)
“Evan, I think you’re going in another direction here.”
Yes. very deliberately. It is a direction that far too few consider.
I’m concerned with the White House’s relation to the public. They hired the guy to do the job.”
Mmm, no, actually. Dr. Hansen is career NASA and was around long before the Bush administration. Dubya did not hire him, he merely inherited him.
“Then non-scientists changed what he wrote and passed it off as if the person credited was the author of the information. No disclaimers that the original words were altered. Wouldn’t that have been the honest thing to do?”
It was NASA itself that X-ed him. Not Dick and dubya in some darkened, smoke-filled room with smirking oil execs lurking in the shadows.
His report was a NASA report. He was speaking as an employee of NASA and on NASA’s behalf. Dr. Hansen could have withdrawn his report or had his name removed. If he could not live with it or felt the report was dishonest he should have resigned. NASA cannot force him to say anything. By the same token, he cannot force NASA to say anything, either.
But what takes the cake is that Dr, Hansen has made his own views known very clearly, very publicly, and in complete detail. When he does that, he is speaking for himself. He has never had anything he says on his own censored. As for that bird-with-a-broken-wing act he is affecting …
“Or, if they didn’t like what he wrote they should have fired him and picked somebody else, not tried to make the public think the report was his.”
In my opinion they should have bounced him out four years ago. (So far as I know, he serves at the pleasure of the president.)
It is totally within NASAs rights to control what is released on behalf of NASA. That is not censorship. It is only censorship if they prevent him from speaking on his own private behalf. They have not done so.
Let me try to explain this another way.
If you work for, say, the New York Times and they spike or alter your story (which they do all the time) they are under zip obligation to announce that fact. ZIP. It would, in fact, be unheard of.
When will you ever pick up a newspaper and read a byline declaiming “well, actually we changed the story around, edited and X-ed it”? You should live so long!
Either the reporter negotiates with his editor or he withdraws the story. If he can’t live with it, he resigns. Heck, maybe the paper gets fed up with him and fires him. The newspaper is under no obligation or expectation to comment one way or the other. THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP. To thus claim is risible.
“By the way, did you actually see the show”
Oh, yes. (Another hour of my life I will never get back.)
Evan,
Great answers to both my question and Pat’s. Most people I know, regardless of philosophical or political stripe, are not only not influenced by “facts” but wouldn’t recognize a “fact” that doesn’t dovetail with their worldview if it bit them in the ass. Your view of things is very refreshing.
You are a retired officer of intelligence. You have spent your professional life acquiring and assimilating facts. As you would know, facts must dictate the worldview, not the other way around.
(When I say “SIR!” what I am saying is, “Thank you for your service.” )
Well, thank you, Evan. You sound like someone I’d like to get to know better.
Well, for balance, here’s another one:
The Great Society housing projects were superior to the slums they replaced or they were not.
In a word, Yes.