The DeSmog UK epic history series continues with an account of how a NASA climate scientist was squeezed out of the White House environmentalย debate.
Just a week after the announcement came from George W. Bush that the US would renege on Kyoto, the then media-shy NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen (pictured) was invited to speak to Vice President Dick Cheneyโs โClimate Task Forceโ.
Hansen took strength from the fact that the task force was manned by a high profile bunch: it was chaired by Cheney himself and included secretaries of state under orders to attend in person rather than send theirย delegates.
Complexย Science
The NASA scientist did not expect to have any friends in the room; Bushโs chief of staff had previously attempted to fire Hanson in 1989 following the scientist alerting media to the fact that the White House had altered his conclusions on global warming โ submitted to a hearing convened by the then US senator Al Gore โ to make them seem lessย certain.
Nonetheless, it was too good of an opportunity to forfeit for the sake of pride orย pessimism.
The first meeting fell on Hansenโs 60th birthday. Despite his lifetime of experience, the worldโs foremost climate scientist was deeplyย anxious.
He and the other two scientists presenting were deeply apprehensive about the complexity of the work they had to present to this non-expert audience and spent the minutes before the meeting critiquing the more complicated aspects of theirย work.
Scepticย Lindzen
Afterwards, Hansen was pleased. He thought he had gained their attention and had been invited to come to the Task Forceย again.
But his optimism quickly died when he was escorted from the building. He was told that at the next meeting he would be joined by none other than tobacco lobbyist and dean of climate sceptics Richard Lindzen.
Lindzen, an MIT professor whose career had been made from talking to businessmen and politicians, maintained a cool and authoritative air in the White House. His presentations more closely resembled a lawyer fighting for his client and are anathema to the scientist, whose main aim is to fairly and accurately represent theย facts.
But when it comes to communicating with beginners, the former method has the upperย hand.
The ‘Right’ย Perspective
Lindzen argued that the climate hegemony kept critical voices โout in the coldโ and that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeโs (IPCC) projections were no better than the Republican/sunspotย analyses.
This was what they wanted to hear and, according to Hansen, the BushโCheney administrationโs policies regarding CO2 appeared to be โbased on or, at a minimum, congruent with, Lindzenโsย perspective.โ
It was three years before Hansen decided to give another public talk. He spent six months preparing to speak to the National Press Club in Washington. Here, he would explain why he planned to vote for Kerry rather thanย Bush.
But sponsors pulled the funding and, in the end, he delivered the speech to a college audience in Iowaย City.
On 26 October 2004, Hansen told the audience: โIn my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it isย now.โ
Our next DeSmog UK epic history post will introduce one young geologist who joined the fight against climate deniers in an effort to support the IPCCโsย findings.
Photo: Adam viaย Flickr
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts