Our administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said




Quote :

"In 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 is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

"This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

:x

Hansen said the scientific community generally agrees that temperatures on Earth are rising because of the greenhouse effect — emissions of carbon dioxide and other materials into the atmosphere that trap heat.

These rising temperatures, scientists believe, could cause sea levels to rise and trigger severe environmental consequences, he said.

Hansen said such warnings are consistently suppressed, while studies that cast doubt on such interpretations receive favorable treatment from the administration.

He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. "This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science," he said.




read the full report on space dot com

the scotsman and dailystar also have a bit on it

'Suppressing Threat of Global Warming'


To appreciate how deep the skepticism of the scientific community is towards the current administration, one only need look at the world's two most prestigious science journals, Nature, an English peer-review journal, and Science, the American equivalent. Along with scientific reports, they offer science based opinion and news pieces. As such, not only does the science in these journals get wide readership but so too do the opinions, particularly on the relationship between politics and science. With regards to the current administration, both these journals have repeatedly expressed concern over its overt political influence on science.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development confirms the state of climate change when it says: "The frequency and impacts of natural disasters are on the rise, driven in part by an unpredictably changing climate. The poor are the most threatened by these catastrophes and the least equipped to recover."

It was not that the world was not aware of the potential threat to our security stemming from this phenomenon. Pursuant to the UN Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol was devised in order to address the harmful effects of global warming. More than 180 nations of the world had agreed to subscribe to the protocol in 1997 in Kyoto, but, until just recently, the protocol had not received the minimum 55 states' ratification that would make the it operative.


Russia, by ratifying the protocol has become the fifty-fifth nation accounting for at least 55 percent of developed country emissions, the minimum required to allow Kyoto's entry into force. By doing so it has infused life into what many had given up as a moribund agreement. With Russian ratification, the second threshold has now been met. Interestingly, the US alone accounts for most of the global GHG emissions
and interstingly again the protocol has not been ratified by the US, which disassociated from it in March 2001 when the new administration decided to pull out, ostensibly on the grounds of enlightened national self-interest, but which, according to some, was motivated primarily by the current leaders compulsions to preserve the interest of the big US corporate bodies that are the biggest contributors to his party and also to global warming. One wonders how much will the global community be able to achieve without the active participation of the single largest source of the threat, the US
One of the top NASA Nasa scientists, Hansen has spoken out against the party policy. Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that “fit predetermined, inflexible positions.” He also said reports that outline potential dangers of global warming are edited to make the problem appear less serious. “This process is in direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science,” he said.

Launch window,

Do you have anything to say yourself?

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

As per the FAQ, it's best to just provide a URL to the article(s) rather than paste large segments of copyrighted text.

Thanks Wolverine from now on I'll put in the URL's

as to what I think, it's terrible. I don't think any party either Republican or Democrat should be allowed go ahead in Suppressing our Scientists and their real information and twist them for political means and to keep the public uninformed.

The skepticism of the scientific community might be very correct, I look forward to hearing more on this news item

Unfortunately, many scientific issues are also intensely political. Without getting into details because of board limits, I'll just note that I have agreed with both this administration and the prior one on their position on some scientific issues, and disagreed with both on others. Given that some of these subjects are extremely complex and different groups have their own agendas, this sort of thing is a fact of life.

In this case, there are definitely major factions on both sides of the global warming debate that I don't trust very much. I know what I would do, but it is also a political issue, so I don't see much chance of it happening:

I'd make a major push to get rid of fossil power plants and move to a nuclear energy base. Aside from the CO2, there would be a lot less of other junk in the ground and in the air, later I'd start phasing out hydrocarbons for transportation. Of course, most of the folks that are biggest on Global Warming are against nuclear power, so good luck. Frankly, I'm not sure how much the climate would improve, but I'd sure like to get away from dirty fossil fuels.

It seems to me that this topic is basically an opinion piece about politics and policy and not necessarily about the science behind the assertions. But, before this thread gets locked or at least moved, I have a few comments about the artcle referenced: I assume that Mr. Hansen is a climatologist, or at least directs the activities of similarly qualified individuals? What if the "predetermined, inflexible positions." are positions that the results must be backed up by sound scientific data and reasoning applied to that data?

The statement that the "the US alone accounts for most of the global GHG emissions" is, I am pretty sure, not true. I am sure that the US is the single largest producer of GHG emissions, but we don't produce 50%+. If you have data to back up that claim, I will defer.

(edit for bad english)

__________________
There's never a Greek philosopher around when you really need him.

The USA is by far the largest producer of GHG (as of 2000) but not 50%. See link below. It shows the US as producing around 20%. Scroll down to global emissions.

With the exploding industrial growth in China this is no longer accurate.


http://newsroom.wri.org/mediakits_te...ContentID=2864

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Well first of all Kyoto was defeated 95-0 in the Senate. The Bush Administration was more vocal, but to all extents and purposes it was dead in the US before they moved in.

It was always my understanding that the vast majority (something like 80%?) of all greenhouse gas emmissions were produced by cars. The cars are built by corporations but pretty much most things are, so saying that "corporate bodies" are the "biggest contributors" to "global warming" seems a little misleading.

Maybe the Bush Administration believes that ecologic progress comes from economic progess. The environment is a luxury just like any other good, that needs money to help pay for it. An example, a hybrid car is more expensive than a normal car (although if gas prices continue upwards...) so it costs extra money to buy. If you don't have that money, you have to buy the other car. Same with the economy, the cost Kyoto would impose on it would hurt ecologically friendly products and new technological developments.

Given that vast swathes of the world are exempted from Kyoto how is the world community actually going to "achieve" anything anyway on Kyoto? China is like a vacume for raw materials right now to feed its expanding industry and it'll keep on producing more and more emissions.

The US should do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I think Kerry's got some good ideas on that. But Kyoto's a bad treaty and no one, Democrat or Republican, is going to be able to get it ratified.

__________________
When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

not much will change , GW is holding fast to his rejection of curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rapidly rising to new highs. This week, a four-year study of the Arctic is showing that region is warming rapidly, affecting global climates
From NASA photos the net loss of ice was estimated to be 51 cubic kilometers a year, but could be even higher now. The area know as the Arctic Perennial Sea Ice could be gone soon, vanish by the end of this Century. NASA study finds that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought -- at a rate of 9 percent per decade. Ice reflects light from the sun.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/arctic_temp_trend.jpgAs polar ice caps melt, less sunlight gets reflected into space. It is instead absorbed into the oceans and land, raising the overall temperature, and fueling further melting. Josefino Comiso has been working in NASA to check this out, the Arctic Ocean appears to be opeining up off eastern Siberia and northern Alaska.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5...p_19990101.jpe
Nature reported a substantial reduction in the area of Antartic sea ice during winter. A 3 km long ice core from the Antartic, gives the climate history of 740,000 years of our Earth, the report is bad we haven't had CO2 levels as high as they are now for 440,000 years. The Antarcticis not warming a whole lot however like Greenland was slow to change this is in line with the predictions of most climate models, there are areas of the Antarctic are warming rapidly, notably the Wordie Ice Shelf and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center has collated all the available small mountain glacier mass-balance data. Their findings show that, not only are these glaciers melting, but the rate of melting is accelerating. The joint NASA and United States Geological Survey study has revealed that "The great majority of the world’s glaciers appear to be declining at rates equal to or greater than long-established trends". Glaciers on Mt. Kenya and Kilimanjaro have lost over 60% of their area in the last century and accelerated retreat has been reported for the Peruvian Andes Hastenrath and Greischar have done some reports and Mosley-Thompson have recent findings. You can find the news report on on the tropical and sub-tropical glaciers of Africa and South America by an English news paper here
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/i...440211,00.html
The glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in east Africa and the Andes of Peru are melting so fast that they could disappear within 10 to 20 years.
The news follows other warnings that the Arctic ice field is both shrinking in area and thinning in depth. A glacier in Antarctica has also retreated dramatically in the past decade.

How do we know that arctic warming isn't due to the lessening tilt of the axis of the earth that is causing the arctic and antarctic circles to shrink in diameter? It seems the arctic regions are warming much faster than the earth in general, which would be the expectation from a shrinking arctic region. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eischao.html

This administration has co-opted the term "sound science" to mean "their science" in these matters, over the preferred "good science" term.
Also, 35% of the Environmental Protection Agency's staff is eligible to retire in the next four years, allowing current Administrator Leavitt "...to remake from the inside out the agency that takes the lead in enforcing air and water pollution and the cleanup of toxic dumps..."
http://tinyurl.com/62e3y
Follow the money these next four years, especially.

[opinion]It doesn't seem likely that such a small change would cause that much difference in the polar climates, especially considering that both poles are showing warming. Alterations in radiation patterns (such as those caused by altering the composition of the atmosphere) seem much more likely to have the described effects.[/opinion]

__________________
"I am Meteora, supreme goddess of weather" - Meteora, in The Unchained Goddess

One nice thing about being a meteorologist who also likes astronomy is that the sky is always interesting!

You obviously didn't read the whole article. It says:

"By the same token, the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle are currently moving poleward at the same rate. The world's temperate zone is expanding at the expense of the tropical and Arctic zones at the rate of some 1500 km2 per year! This is the Milankovitch cycle happening right before our eyes. "

This is direct measurement of the sun's elevation, not theory.

The changing tilt of the earth affects the amount of sun hitting both poles!

Wasn't James Hansen the stooge of Al Gore? And didn't he retract what he originally said a few years ago?

And why is it that statements about suppression of science in favour of AAGW is splattered across the headlines but there is hardly a murmour about Sir David 'Lysenko' King trying to censor Russian scientists who criticise AAGW?

Very clever. Yes, temperatures are increased because of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide and other materials trap heat. All of that is true. It is interesting how they use a simple statement about how the Greenhouse effect works to imply AAGW despite no actual implication from the phrase.

Actually they didn't. They reported that ice was melting "twice as fast as expected", an expression which means precisely nothing. What they didn't say was that Arctic temperatures were not as high as they were in 1940.

Over four years? Is this meant to be a climate study? By the way the cliche "worse than previously thought" is sooo overused. Time to find another meaningless phrase to scare the public with.

Last year neither the NorthWest nor NorthEast passages opened at all, the first time in 50 years this has happened.

Except that the ice cores are depleted for carbon dioxide and spurious corrections are made to the results to eliminate high readings (some 40%) which give values for CO2 greater than the modern value.

Since they already know that CO2 wasn't as high in the past, why do they go to the trouble of measuring it and throwing data away to prove what they already know?

For more fun and games with ice cores, see a real scientist about them:
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

...in complete defiance of global warming models which says it should rapidly warm...

Reality check: 98% of Antarctica is actually cooling except for the tiny bit of the Antarctic Peninsula which is not within the Antarctic Circle and most exposed to ocean currents, which is warming. The West Anatarctic Ice Sheet is actually gaining mass - which means that it must be safely ignored while we worry about the Larsen Ice Shelf...

All of these glaciers have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th Century, more than a hundred years before the dread Industrial Revolution.

But the temperatures are not rising in the Arctic - could it be that the Arctic ice thinning is a result of the release of heat accumulated before 1940?

Name that glacier. Let me guess - its right at the top of the Antarctic Peninsula :roll:

__________________
"If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
how come things can move fast in the dark?"
-James Driscoll (Spaceman), kook, imbecile, idiot.

Has anyone ever seen a reference to a specific paper that has been "suppressed"? I have not, and I distrust anyone who makes a claim of political supression of science without an actual example.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

Ah, here's an example. It was the one I was thinking of but it shows that Hansen didn't remain as steadfast to AAGW as Gore.

Here's another.

No! They've been suppressed! Their absence is clear evidence of the suppression.

I think that when someone makes this claim, they really mean that science is being suppressed when policies are being debated or presented. For instance, I believe this administration removed a number of scientists from an EPA advisory board and replaced them with people whose views mirrored the administrations. (sorry, no citation for this)

In my opinion, that is a far cry from "suppression of science". That's just politics as usual. A true suppression of science would involve arrests, stoppage of publications (as demigrog suggests), shutting down of journals, etc.

But that kind of selectivity happens on both sides of debate.

Exumptly

If Chinese economic and industrial growth continues then Someday it will be China that becomes the number one producer of greenhouse gases. I hope China doesn't follow the example of GW and actually does sometimes to protect the globe from Climate change due to man, reducing Co2 emissions, and protecting the enviornemnt...as we could see from the Chernobyl disaster or the Testing of atmoic wepoans in Nevada man can have a real influence on the Enviornment, so I think this should be taken seriously.

Diamond I can see you like all that corporate sponsored science, I wonder if it was Shall-oil or Taxaco that backed some of those anti-Climatechange studies ? The slight changes in Antartica are moving along side predicted climate models, also at higher elevations, some of the glaciers have thickened, because of increased winter precipitation due to warming. Reality check Diamond the Antarctica has been actually warming but not significantly some of those oil-backed science folks will try to corrupt or twist data by comparing temperatures to when the Antarctica region was unusally high and they'll then declare shock-horrror the South pole is cooling rapidly. I can also show you the papers of a few China scientists that say Smoking is good for you and Cancer is a myth you see like oil is a big thing in texas, tobacco is really big with Chinese so you get plenty of sell-out scientists which tell you smoking is fine because they are in it for the money.


The UK Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, David King has condemned the current US administration for "failing to take up the challenge of global warming. Back in the USA, the Environmental Protection Agencyhas said the White House's top climate advisors are like foxes "guarding the chicken coop". In the Artic there are rather large changes, one of the bigger disappearances of ice so far has been over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, north of Canada and Alaska. Some parts of the Arctic have warmed more than others (e.g., some parts of Alaska have warmed at 5-10 times the global average over the past 30 years) while some have even cooled slightly, this is why people call it climate change not global warming.
The scientists say that Alaska and other far northern continental regions should warm about twice as much as the average for the globe. There are two main reasons because of this as ice and snow melt, less heat is reflected amplifying warming. And at these latitudes, the atmosphere is more stable in winter and spring and so it confines more heat to its lower layers. Whatever the combination of causes of Alaska's warming, the catalog of effects is substantial. Thirty years ago, the temperature at Fairbanks reached 80 degrees for only about a week in the summer. Now it hits or exceeds that mark for a total of about three weeks. On average a summer day is about 11 percent warmer than it was three decades ago.
In the last two decades, the number of sub-40-degree days has dropped substantially compared with the three preceding decades. In the Bering Sea, scientists have found, the amount of sea ice has decreased by about 5 percent over the last 30 years. In Nanana, inland near Fairbanks, people since 1917 have taken great pains to record the exact moment when the Tanana River ice breaks up each spring. A lucrative lottery depends on the result. Four of the earliest breakups in that 81-year span have been in the 1990s. Arctic Ocean will be completely devoid of summer ice before the 21st century has ended, a NASA study predicts. The American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate has been looking into this and reporting that NASA's satellite images show dramatic shrinking of the perennial Arctic ice pack. Retreating Arctic ice, 1979-2003, based on data collected by the defense meteorological Satellite http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ation1_med.gif
It is true that scientists don't know whether this shrinkage is caused by real man made CO2 emissions
if it is natural climate change, by human activity or by some combination of the two. However there are many at the EPA who are very unhappy about the way the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) censored passages on global warming in a major EPA report last year. It is now know that senior members of the council had close ties with the oil industry - one as a former lawyer who had represented the industry, another as a former executive of the American Petroleum Institute - there has been a mind-boggling conflict of interest if you just think about it for a second.

There is also new data out from Atmospheric scientists who discovered that some 4,000 tons of a new synthetic greenhouse gas have been released into the atmosphere; the gas, which takes 1,000 years to degrade, may be a by-product of weapons production. President George broke a campaign promise when he decided not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, humiliating Christie Whitman, his EPA administrator, the EPA are very unhappy with the whitehouse. The CEQ's intention is now to include controversial new research undermining claims about global warming, and to remove text approved by the US National Academies of Sciences reinforcing those claims. Jeremy Symons, a former EPA climate adviser has spoken out against the Bush policy saying "They basically wanted to sow confusion" into climate change. The US administration becoming increasingly isolated over international climate policy, the science of global warming looks set to grow politically ever hotter.
When we first found that Ozone was staring to vanish from Earth there was a large effort to cut down on harmful chemicals that would damage the ozone layer, the hole was indeed photographed by NASA satellites, reducing CFCs did indeed help things out and slowly the hole seems to be starting to shrink although it will take a lot more time to repair naturally.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/earth/...ll_090600t.jpg
People think that warming could be slowed by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Arctic ice is half as thick as 30 years ago, the report found. In the same period the distribution of ice has shrunk by 10 per cent, however there is also new data which shows that some so-called greenhouse gasses are actually contributing to a type of global cooling to ****er the effects of global warming by the molecules in the atmosphere reflecting the suns energy back into space, whatever the finding it seems Climate change due to man is indeed real.

Would that be the same David King that through a temper tantrum at a Russian scientific conference because opponents of AAGW were allowed to speak? He insisted that only supporters of his hypothesis be allowed a say.

That man is no scientist. He is a Lysenko.

Does it matter? Does this invalidate their data?? I would argue that this is a form of "supression of science".

Don't get me wrong --- I think researchers can have a bias in how data is interpreted, and I think therefore that you always need to read conclusions with a grain of salt, but it makes no sense to me to throw out data solely because you don't like the researcher. If you don't trust the researcher then look to see if someone has duplicated the results. Check the researcher's methods to see if bad techniques were used. Check the assumptions to see if the data is being mis-interpreted. Methods and assumptions can be and should be critically examined. But data is data.

yep good point, I don't believe the Earth has been tilting and causing this, but I'm willing to see more info on this
to prove or reject the tilt-idea

Urban heat island effect refuted.

A few problems. First, no reference at all is made to the high altitude weather balloon or satellite data, which doesn't show warming and is the basis for suspecting the ground based readings of being less reliable. Second, this is all about effect and none about cause. I wouldn't be surprised at warming. I'm more surprised by sceptics who say there is no warming than warmers who say there is. We're emerging from a glacial period.

Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...e_measurements

Not sure what you mean by this. My understanding is that the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

It has been my understanding that the change in the Earth's climate due to changes in the orbit of the Earth was thought to be less sudden. For example it takes about 100,000 years for the orbit to change from rather elliptical to rather circular. As many of the folks here will explain the also Earth rotates on its axis and wobbles somewhat but in a very slow fashion for example our planet's wobbling effect means that the Earth is at times closer to while at times further away from the Sun, affecting the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth at a point. We now think that our current tilt points the Earth towards the North Star, Polaris SAO..whatever HD catelogue...anyway you know the star I'm talking of. It is thought that maybe it takes about 12,000-14,000 years for the tilt to point towards another North Star. So I could be wrong but I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence which says the melting of polar ice caps is due to the Earth's tilt. As far as I know I think loandbehold is pretty correct by saying the last one ended 10,000 yrs ago. I have also heard the arguement that city heat may have had a large influence on temperature because back in 1860, early 1910 and 1930 a lot of data was collected but I have been reading some reports before that said the meteorological info should actually be a lot cooler because of the places these temps were recorded, and urban heat would have corrupted data which might tell us about an overall warming or cooling trend, what we really need is correct and sufficient data that will tells us about the global mean standard temperature, let's level the political mega-corps out of it and find out if the GMST is really changing .

Yep there are many strange crew on this boat , one little blue gem called earth and who gets to protect it...the UK ministers close to Blair have been very outspoken saying it's like having Foxes protecting the chicks in the hen-house, having a Gale norton good idea or bad idea ? Well she's already championed drilling for oil in Alaska and questioned the science of climate change, tell you what why don't we have a look at Chernobyl, a look at the toxic fumes and oil smoke produced when Saddam started the first gulf madness and have a look at the pollution over the major Chinese cities across the globe and then let's continue to say man can not influence the enviornment. But we have new records which contradict population density, we now have Texas the top of the charts as the smoggiest in America. There has been much debate and reaction about the enviornment since the Valdez oil spill along the Alaskan coast line. What is one disturbing factor in the USA, is how for a 1st world nation ( unlike China which has had a backward past and is still developing ) but in the US as a 1st world nation... how little people have the ability to use clean drinking water without dirt or arsenic in sinks and pipes for drinking. If the CO2 levels only double, although in reality, much greater increases are likely, as China, Russia and India develop their industries we can expect maybe warming of 2-8 degrees, 1-3 feet increases in sea levels, worsening droughts and floods and storms, just remember global warming does not mean better weather this is why many refer to it as climate change. Many now believe they have identified a mechanism which can explain the thinning of the Arctic sea ice. The ice is melting from down below, rising air temperatures, possibly the consequence of cliamte change, are melting the ice from above. And warmer water is also rising from the depths to attack the ice from below. The NASA Climatological Data Files have show big changes in the ice sheets around the North pole. The NASA study has been finding out that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought, it is staring to vanish at a rate of 9 percent per decade. People at NASA have said if these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century.

Some have said that pulling the plug on Kyoto is payback for the energy industries which backed him, and due to the breaks given to the big companies parts of Texas were so engulfed by a black, smoke so thick that drivers had to use their headlights during daytime this was reported by the Guardian newpaper and Observer of London they also report Secretary Don Evans a man raised in oil has been doing little for Mother Earth. May have been shocked by the volte-face on carbon dioxide and disturbed also by the announced scrapping of regulations reducing arsenic levels in drinking water. Who knows maybe Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will come up witha way of cleaning up the water by putting "schwarzenegger's Conan the Bacterium" into our food chain, or maybe the possibility of employing anthrax microbes to radically reduce polluted waters or to reduce the toxic effects of radioactive waste, this was actully something they have started to consider. No this ain't science fiction folks it was actually one of their ideas in the Forrestal Auditorium, Washington, DC. What next drastic measures should we take maybe shooting our sheep so wild dogs won't eat them would sound sane to some but simply wrong to others? The world has already got invaluable data from NASA's past missions which examine Earth such as the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). Great information from this, combined with ground work helped in determining the root cause of ozone loss over the Antarctic--man-made chlorofluorocarbons (a compound consisting of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon) and halons , nowdays there is a much wider awareness of the dangers of mass productions of CFCs. There is also evidence that our Ozone layer is slowly starting to heal itself naturally. Can mankind do something to lessen this "Global change" on the Earth's climate ? Maybe so, it seems to be already working for CFCs so why not the reduction of CO2 emissions. The melting of ice cover in the Arctic circle has been displayed visually using data from the SSMI (Special Sensor Microwave Imagery) instrument and great details from NASA. It seems that the US has indeed contributed to much of climate change, and soon in the future it will be growing industries and economies like China and India that will make this world a whole lot dirtier and polluted, this is why I think it is important that the USA leads by example, maybe this is why some leading scientists and some at NASA have been outspoken.
.

The tilt of the Earths axis changes by less than one degree over a 41,000 year cycle. This should not be confused with the precession of the Earths axis which does not change the tilt. Precession changes where the axis points in the sky. It does not change the amount of insolation at the poles except for an effect related to the elipticity of the orbit. Currently the tilt is such that the north pole is pointed away from the sun when Earth is closest to the sun, around Jan 6, IIRC. The precession cycle is about 26,000 years. In 13,000 years the north pole will be tilted towards the sun during periapsis which will have the slight effect of giving warmer summers in the northern hemisphere. However, the effect is more than balanced by the fact the Earth spends more time near apoapsis (see analemma) and the southern hemisphere will have slightly cooler summers as a result. The net effect is zero. The tilt of the Earth is not changing in any way that accounts for climate change in the present day or any time that matters. It is a spurious argument.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.