Potential Effects of Global Warming
An interesting piece, ML. First, let's take a look at the source. It's a NASA document from 2002, written by a John Weler. I don't see any footnote concerning his credentials so I don't know what to make of that.
We do know, however, and unfortunately, that NASA has been the scene, dating back to the late 80s, of a struggle over what their scientists can say in public about global warming. This piece reads as a reasonably sophisticated attempt to put the best face on the science from the point of view of the Bush administration. I, quite obviously, don't know that to be the case. Only that it reads that way.
If it were a piece by James Hansen, I would find it much more credible, since the focus from the Reagan administration and from the second Bush administration has been to restrict his access to the public. Hansen has refused to say what he is told to say. And, apparently, has sufficient scientific clout to keep his job despite threats in that direction.
On the Hansen point, you may have read the articles in, I think, early spring, in which a recent Bush appointee, a non-graduate of Texas A&M attempted to censor NASA scientists yet again. And was dismissed. But the administrators who hired that person are still around.
So, I think responsible intellectual efforts on this issue require folk to read widely and think carefully. And be very suspicious of the way the companies who stand to lose very large amounts fund contra global warming statements. And that includes the massive amounts of money they put into funding the two presidential Bush II campaigns, and also funding a variety of other political campaigns of senators and representatives.
I do not like the pin ball strategy of assuming the global warming issue is simply one more political issue that is subject to contra-posting warfare. |
