I note that the column’s thrust is that Hansen is right about climate and that his political activism while using his government title is the problem. The second part is a valid point, but the first part — the ready acceptance of Hansen’s science — remains typical NYT claptrap.
Nor am I impressed by Hansen’s “courage”. If this guy has been silenced, how come I hear so much from him?
I note that the column’s thrust is that Hansen is right about climate and that his political activism while using his government title is the problem. The second part is a valid point, but the first part — the ready acceptance of Hansen’s science — remains typical NYT claptrap.
Nor am I impressed by Hansen’s “courage”. If this guy has been silenced, how come I hear so much from him?