John, I AGREED with Alan. Read my post again. I agreed that the Ecowatch people are alarmist nutjobs who do not know what they are talking about. I suggested to Alan that he not read their crap, although, if he is like me, he might check it once in awhile just to see what the misinformation out there is from cherrypicking things without knowing or caring about all the facts (which Ecowatch is very good at).

That's why I directed him to a creditable resource that at least looks at all the available information. I know many NASA people and have worked with them, in fact, on a number of issues.

Alan, did you understand that I was agreeing with your opinion of the Ecowatch people? I think that by lambasting the nutjobs, it can be said that you are stooping to their level, also. I would much rather see you post reasons why you disagree, for example, with some of the conclusions that have been reached by NASA, using your own scientific knowledge that you have researched over the years. At least we can then have an intelligent discussion about the facts. I know that you have done a lot of work in the area, and I am anxious to hear you discuss the science rather than waste your time discussing the Ecowatches of the world.

Milt, you have an excellent point. I just consider that Hansen is as frustrated with all the misinformation, pseudoscience, and convincing (to some) charlatans as others are coming from the other side of the discussion. I don't think that he is politically motivated in the true sense of the term. Remember, he was appointed and did most of his best work under the Reagan administration. You don't get to be honored by the National Acadamy of Science by being a slouch in science, or by not presenting accurate information and analyses.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.