Nasa climate change expert makes personal appeal to Obama

Is doing nothing and being wrong worth the risk?? I think not.

sadly, there are a percentage of people who STILL don't believe that man-made climate change is even real...

as long as it's fashionable to make fun of global warming and attack the science behind it, as well as the scientist who have dedicated their life to studying it, we will not see the changes necessary to prevent a global catastrophy for the next generation.

Hansen is the subject of Mark Bowen's book Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming (Dutton 2008).

Incidentally, there's a big campaign going on to keep Michael Griffin as head of NASA. Griffin was not the baddest of the bad, according to Bowen, but he certainly was complicit in the censorship.

from someone who's lived on this earth for 58 years I say blah blah blah.

Well Mr Hansen, good luck with that.

Will the puppet masters let Obama read it and react to it though?

I wonder if he will get the same form letter back everyone else does with a donation form attached.

For the last decade, rumors have circulated that NASA has had the inside track on climate change, but instructed to sit on their findings if they want their missions funded. Reasons: we might start using less fossil fuels while developing multiple forms of sustainable energy, we're beyond the tipping point of reversing the damage we've done to sustain our ever expanding population or basically, we can't handle the truth. When govt’s play God, it usually doesn’t end well.

This is the problem: "NASA was instructed...." NASA is an organization. Organizations, like nations, can't "say" anything. And organizations, like nations, can't be "instructed." They're legal/philosophical abstractions.

The honest scientists at NASA, like Jim Hansen, wanted to talk. The unqualified or game-playing political hacks wanted to be loyal to Cheney. Don't blame the abstraction. Don't blame the scientists. Blame those who cared more about ideology and or political favor than they did about science or the planet.

I believe we are beyond the tipping point regarding glacier melt which is setting up other effects much more rapidly. Which is why certain people in the know like James Hansen are pushing for more urgent action. And yet, those political ideologues that allowed this to get so far will not be held accountable for it.

It would be wise to focus our attention and resources here on this planet. We have so many problems to face here at home. However, we choose to send billions of dollars into the great unknown that is our universe. Was SPACE beyond our stratosphere meant to be a mystery?
In no way do I want to belittle NASA scientists. I appreciate your capacity for knowledge. But let us now focus on how to improve life here.
Did you know that 4 children die every day from child abuse in America alone?
Where do our priorities reside? At home or in space?
Kudos James Hansen for making things personal.

Not quite as simple as spending money "here" or "there." Four quick instances. First, technology developed to get *there* is then also used *here*. This site is ugly in terms of design, but it lists lots of good examples:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Second, technology used in space is also turned around to study earth and help us better understand what's happening here:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/newsletter/1999.06/nasa....

Third, other bodies in our solar system are rich in mineral resources that will be increasingly needed on earth.

Fourth, the universe is a single system. What happens there affects us continually, and potentially catastrophically. For instance, our weather, electrical grid, electronic, and communications systems are at the mercy of solar flares. An asteroid impact like the one that exploded in Tunguska, Siberia, in 1908 could easily trigger a global nuclear war. An asteroid like the one that destroyed the dinosaurs could destroy humanity just as easily.