We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

NASA tries to silence its top climate researcher

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:11 AM GMT on January 30, 2006

NASA�s top climate researcher has been told by his superiors to stop voicing his opinions on climate change. Dr. James Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in a New York Times interview that the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since a Dec. 6 lecture at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he gave his personal views that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles. Furthermore, he expressed his opinion that without United States leadership, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

Dr. Hansen is one of the world�s foremost climate researchers. He has published hundreds of papers and testified numerous times before Congress on the issue of climate change. He said that NASA headquarters officials had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists. He was warned of �dire consequences� if his public statements continued. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions, noting that NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

A public affairs official at NASA said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific issues, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Since Dr. Hansen�s December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR). According to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the NASA Goddard Institute, a NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR �the most liberal� media outlet in the country, and that his job was �to make the president look good.� Deutsch denied making the statements. McCarthy disagrees, saying she has no reason to lie.

The effort to control information coming out of NASA echoes similar directives issued last Fall in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when on September 29, a memo aimed all National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees (including those in the National Weather Service) ordered them not to speak to the national media unless the interview request was first approved by public affairs personnel. I talked to a contact at NWS who confirmed that the memo was indeed sent out, and was likely done in response to the political fallout from the Katrina disaster.

Both NASA and NOAA have emphasized that the rules preventing scientists from speaking freely to the media had always been in place, but that the rules were being enforced more rigorously now. I say the new enforced restrictions are ridiculous. Our scientists have never needed these restrictions in the past. Our tax-payer salaried scientists should be free to speak out on more than just their scientific findings without the chilling oversight of politically-appointed officials concerned with �making the president look good.� Climate change is of critical importance to all of us, and we should hear the opinions of those scientists who understand the issue the best.

Jeff Masters

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

You be able to leave comments on this blog.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 161 - 111

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

161. theboldman
11:55 PM PST on January 29, 2006
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
160. arcturus
7:53 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Gotta love those penguins. I hope the earth gets colder for those poor lil guys.

Moon bases by when, mid-March ?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
159. theboldman
11:54 PM PST on January 29, 2006
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
158. ProgressivePulse
7:52 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Funny S*&*!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
157. theboldman
11:51 PM PST on January 29, 2006
give al the credit to aucturus he found it i just made it easier to see
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
156. ProgressivePulse
7:49 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Must have been a german penguin theBold lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
155. ProgressivePulse
7:48 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
I was talking about the harmful gases Cali, should have been more specific, sorry.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
154. hurricanechaser
7:31 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Here is the central premise of Dr. Masters blog and I for one find it inappropriate to write a blog on it when the veracity of it is left in doubt as noted in the comments below. Keep in mind, Dr. Masters continued to shape his blog by expounding upon this topic as though it is an undeniable fact (since when has that stood in the way of liberals).

"A public affairs official at NASA said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific issues, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. Since Dr. Hansens December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR). According to Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the NASA Goddard Institute, a NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR the most liberal media outlet in the country, and that his job was to make the president look good. Deutsch denied making the statements. McCarthy disagrees, saying she has no reason to lie."

Notice that Mr. Deutsch denies making the aforementioned statements in the comments above while Ms. McCarthy says she has no reason to lie. Ok, we can obviously derive from the aforementioned that someone is indeed lying, how can Dr. Masters, the articles editors, or anyone else say unequivocally that Ms. McCarthy isn't the one lying? In reality, none of us can and I find it inappropriate that Dr. Masters chose to post derogatory comments that are suspect which has major implications upon the character of others including the Bush Administration.

Ms. McCarthy says, "she has no reason to lie", and she may very well be telling the truth. On the other hand, there is the same likelihood that Mr. Deutsch may actually be the honest one. They both would have obvious motives in doing so. In Ms. McCarthy's case, shes a reporter that does her job by breaking the big story and is it not possible that she could also have her own personal political reasons to be less than honest with such a story.

In reality, only Mr. Deutsch and Ms. McCarthy know the truth and I for one would not attack another's character when there is doubt as to the veracity of the information outlined above. Then again, I thank God that I have enough respect for others than to engage in this kind of smear campaign at the expense of another's true character.

This will be my last post in Dr. Masters blog for I have very little respect for this blog nor those who get such pleasure out of attacking others.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
151. Califonia
7:31 AM GMT on January 30, 2006

Posted By: ProgressivePulse at 7:17 AM GMT on January 30, 2006.

...it is proven that greenhouse gases are not healty for the enviornment.

There are several different types of greenhouse gasses. The major ones are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.

While we could certainly get by without methane or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, the other 2 are not only "healthy", but downright "absolutely necessary".

All plant life needs carbon dioxide to live, and that represents both the basis of our food chain, and the only source of oxygen in our atmosphere.

And just where did you read that said water vapor is not healthy for the environment?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
148. ProgressivePulse
7:41 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
At the zoo in Dresden, Germany, 21 Humboldt penguins were moved from their minus 6 outdoor environment into a building where the temperature was a more comfortable 32 degrees to ensure their feet didn't freeze, zoo director Karl Ukena said.

Thier feet didn't freeze! for gods sake it is a freaking penguin.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
147. globalize
7:44 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Temps aren't so cold for Europe this time of year. Paris high 44, Vienna 33, etc. Check them out.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
146. ProgressivePulse
7:40 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Sophisticated Penguin's
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
145. ProgressivePulse
7:39 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Media is always there for a good laugh every once and a while.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
144. ProgressivePulse
7:38 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
That is the funniest story I have read in a while, haha.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
143. theboldman
11:37 PM PST on January 29, 2006
lol penguins normall can survive sub zero temps at least then do in the wild (march of the penguins)......... LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
142. ProgressivePulse
7:36 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Smart Germans lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
141. ProgressivePulse
7:34 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Vienna's subway tracks cracked, German authorities shut a key canal to ships after it iced up, and a zoo moved its penguins indoors Tuesday as a deadly deep freeze tightened its arctic grip on much of Europe.

You know it is bad when you are moving freaking Penguins indoors lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
139. ProgressivePulse
7:33 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
But it helps!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
138. arcturus
7:29 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Even a vehicle emmission reduction of 50% in five years, if such a technological achievement was possible, wouldn't be close to enough with everbody and their mother wanting a car
in China.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
137. ProgressivePulse
7:29 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
F*&( those daym tunnels lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
136. hurricanechaser
6:59 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Hey snowboy,

It is a shame that you can comprehend the obvious points I am making that not only is your alarmist view completely unprovable but that we ONLY have two hundred years of weather records to compare to in understanding what the norm truly is.

Therefore, this global warming trend(whether NATURAL or human induced as you want to believe)would NATURALLY change climatic events, but not to the absurd degree that you and other alarmists expect.

In short, it is truly ridiculous to insult others intelligence by suggesting that any weather events that take place now or in the future that are seemingly abnormal in comparison with an incomplete two hundred year record is DIRECTLY the result of human activities when it can and most likely the DIRECT result of NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY.

The fact is you can't deny that the current warming phase could actually be DIRECTLY caused by NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY. Since it can't be denied(to your displeasure of course), you can't HONESTLY say that ANY and ALL seemingly abnormal weather events aren't be DIRECTLY caused by NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Honestly, you all are showing your true liberal colors and why you can't look at this issue objectively and the personal attacks on President Bush, conservatives, Christians, and the like eliminates any credibility you have on this issue.

You have succeeded in encouraging me not to associate with such mean spirited people who can't have an intelligent debate on the merits of an issue without name calling and questioning another's honesty as Dr. Masters himself has done by publishing something he can't prove is fact that demeans another's character and has encouraged this mean spirited political forum that should've never have taken place in my personal opinion.

In my humble opinion, life is too short to spend it associating with people who get so much pleasure out of attacking others personally with name calling as seen below.

I will post the comments I referenced from Dr. Masters blog and I'm done trying to rationalize with the irrational.:)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
135. globalize
7:25 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Yeah Arcturus, you may have hit on something with the lunar earth shade. If Congress were to authorize forty billion to Halliburton, that would mean Halliburton would cut a check for at least $28.50 to the builders. Think we could do it for that?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
134. F5
7:18 AM GMT on January 30, 2006

There have been a number of suggestions put forth for responding to severe climate change. I don't know that any of them are truly workable, nor do I believe that anyone knows the repercussions of attempting to control the climate. One such suggestion was to put a series of mirrors in space that could be turned to reflect some of the suns energy away from the earth. An interesting proposition, but not really workable, at least with today's technology. Tomorrow, who knows. I've read a number of articles about the carbon nanotubes as well. The last was about building space elevators with these unqiue, remarkably strong tubes. Again, the technology isn't there yet, but could be in the near future.

The real question is, should we be more prepared to adapt to whatever changes the earth is going to go through regardless, or should we attempt to exercise control over the earth's climate, regardless of whether we know or understand what such an undertaking really means. What if doing so solves the problem, at least temporarily, but then causes greater problems down the road? Or, what if it solves it for most places but causes greater issues or doesn't solve it for a few areas. If that area is Antarctica, maybe no one cares. But what if it's China, or India, or the USA, or some other populus region. Who gets to decide who will be the sacrificial lamb?

What we should be doing is pushing forward with research into new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, and reducing pollution to help preserve our water and air quality. Those are areas we know we can affect with advanced technology.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
133. ProgressivePulse
7:17 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
The US is in the Denial Phase, we need to skip the Acceptance Phase and React. Reguardless if it is Humans or not, it is proven that greenhouse gases are not healty for the enviornment. Be it a wake up call, last ditch, who cares! Pass it off again as a climate change, the greenhouse buck has been passed for several years now. Yes there were climate shifts in the past and active Hurricane seasons, but none to justify Katrina and Wilma in the overnight hours away from observation. And the formation of our last 3 storms in conditions unforseen that are irrelavant because no recon was performed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
132. theboldman
11:27 PM PST on January 29, 2006
tunnels is enough dont neeed moon factories lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
131. arcturus
7:26 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
130. theboldman
11:24 PM PST on January 29, 2006
lol guys dont let cyclone get a wif of this
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
129. arcturus
7:21 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Especially if we contract out to Haliburton.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
128. globalize
7:17 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Right Arcturus, that could be finished by mid-March if we could start next week.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
127. arcturus
7:17 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
The same evil corporate empires that control the world can build those moon factories. Isn't it funny how everything
works out.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
126. F5
6:37 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Well, clearly we see now the difference between those who actually want proof and those who want action, regardless of cost, regardless of knowing the possible repercussions, regardless of any facts whatsoever, so that they can satisfy their moral superiority.

Let's see what we've got. We've got posts by hurricanechaser, myself, and a few others who claim there is no proof that humans are inducing global warming, stating the FACT that global warming/cooling is a natural climate variability, and stating that the discussion should really be centered over reducing pollution, vs a bunch of name calling posters who demand action despite a lack of proof.

From snowboy's own comment..

"the weather is clearly abnormal but they're absolutely insistent on making the lame point that it can't be PROVEN to be caused in any way from human activity. As if the lack of proof matters."

As if a lack of proof matters? A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. Anthropogenic causation of the current global warming trend is NOT a fact. It is a theory. It will never be a FACT. And the theory itself may or may not be true. No one will every be able to prove it without having a duplicate earth identical in history to the one we live on, but never having humans on it, and comparing the differences, if any, between the two. Since that can never be done, you can never prove anthropogenic global warming. Ever.

As I said before, I won't be dragged into a political debate. The fact that you all have been reduced to ad hominem attacks simply proves that you lack support for your point of view, and are now attempting to distract attention by changing the subject entirely. How sad really.

As for learning something snowboy, I learn new things every day. That's the beauty of life. I will freely admit that I am no master on the subject. I read what I can in the time I can spare. I've read from both sides of the debate, and found your position to be lacking. The links I provided summed it up pretty neatly. You yourself posted exactly the same way that the alarmists always do. Instead of trying to provide additional insight into why you believe what you do, you (and the other posters here tonight who I don't even recognize) simply attack the dissenter. We are both better off when we are open to discussion. It pushes the topic to the forefront so that people can become more informed and help push forward the research. I've tried to post my thoughts on the subject and I'm open to continued discussion. You do not appear to be open to discussion. The only thing you do appear to be willing to do is to dismiss and denigrate those who do not agree with you. That is a popular tactic taken by those who are in your camp, but not one that is productive for science and humanity as a whole.

As always, you are free to post whatever you like. But if you think that the personal attacks will stop me from posting my opinions, you would be incorrect in your assumption. I'm only sorry we can't seem to have a civilized discussion on the topic.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
125. arcturus
7:12 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
The atmosphere is, to put it lightly, a big place. Doesn't matter if its normal climate variability or us. Either way we
arent going to stop it or it's too late to stop it. We either have to adapt or create an easier way to get into space so we can build the carbon nano tube plants on the moon to construct the giant sun shade the earth needs. Simple.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
124. theboldman
11:13 PM PST on January 29, 2006
yeah globalize it was for you thanks
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
123. globalize
7:11 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
No Boldman. Graphics are cool. Was that my gold star back down the road? Multo Grazzi!
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
122. txcyclone
6:35 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Wow, I'm shocked. I never expected to see the weather afficianados who frequent this board (some of whom are quite knowledgeable in meteorology and frequently post valuable information) in such denial over talk of greenhouse gas emissions.

Weather is not a political issue, no matter who tries to use it as such. It just demonstrates how far the current administration will go to further its politically, not policy-driven, agenda.

What's so hypocritical about this denial by the administration of greenhouse emissions and their contribution to global warming is the fact that the Pentagon has a contignency plan for abrupt climate change. The paper itself mentions "human influence on the climate" as a factor(link below).

As to the suppression of scientific data and quieting the voices of those who dedicate their lives to studying disciplines that affect our literal existence, we're in big trouble folks. As someone mentioned earlier, this is not a Communist regime.

The issue of human influenced global warming brings to mind Bob Woodward's interview with President Bush when he asked, "What will future historians say about you?" To which the President replied, "Who cares? We'll all be dead by then."

Check out the Pentagon link at:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
121. theboldman
11:10 PM PST on January 29, 2006
i hope my little graphics arnt bothering you guys if they are ill stop
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
120. globalize
7:04 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Wow, I wish I could focus like Hurricanechaser. I'd write my book.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
119. ProgressivePulse
7:05 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
40 feet high and sheesh the depth of it would cut into the french quarter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
118. arcturus
7:02 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
I say in ten years we will know if its normal climate variability. If most of us are dead, we will know without any doubt.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
117. ProgressivePulse
7:04 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
I would love to see the levee to withstand a CAT 5
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
116. globalize
6:59 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
There is little of the area of greater New Orleans which is not prone to flood. Most of the property has little value, especially now that the instability of the levee system is known.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
114. ProgressivePulse
6:59 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Will you acknowledge a catagory 6 Hurricane Chaser? Wilma was and I have a hunch at least one, maybe two more were this year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
113. ProgressivePulse
6:57 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
I think Mayor Nagin was talking about the color of the water that was and should be flowing through the city.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
112. globalize
6:57 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
The French dislike anyone less French than themselves. But you have to admit, they know how to live.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
111. hurricanechaser
5:31 AM GMT on January 30, 2006
Hey Weatherwannabe,

You know your screen name suits you very well, wannabe.

Yes, there are alot words written in my previous post which is simply a continuous reiteration of the same FACTS that are cast aside, because they can't be denied nor are appreciated by the alarmists like yourself, snowboy, and too many others.

I specifically chose to be redundant in hopes that repetition of these obvious facts might be successful in freeing yourself from believing everything you hear coming out of the scientific community and the main stream media which are very liberal as a whole.

One more time for you and the rest who can only resort to political attacks and personal ones as well, with those you can't intellectually debate on the merits, or in your case, the lack thereof.

It is impossible for anyone(this includes every scientist)to ever know IF the current warming trend globally was even affected by human induced causes much less the absurd alarmist view that says that this warming was a DIRECT result of it.

Please, someone, anyone, tell me how you can PROVE your unsubstantiated GUESS of human induced global warming as the DIRECT cause of it?

The FACT is you can't and never will be able to do so. Simply put, we have no idea whether the current temperature increases wouldn't have occurred(or to what degree)had we never released any greenhouse gas emissions, plain and simple.

Those like snowboy who keeps believing in the computer model predictions, that in reality, are only as good as the knowledge we currently have and the speculative information we put into them don't PROVE anything other than what could be possible according to the erroneous data put into them. The real travesty is that the computer models predicting this unrealistic future warming have given results based upon information that was intentionally unreasonable(using the idea of more than double the current CO2 releases which have not risen but have decreased since the 1990s)and other skewed data. This has led to the assumption by those like yourself who have accepted such uncredible modeling data at face value, because it fits into your own political desired point of view.

In contrast, other computer modeling data and studies suggest a completely different result and those are ignored because they contradict what the liberal minded scientific community and main stream media want others to believe.

As a result of all of the aforementioned, no computer model, scientist, politician, janitor, car salesman, or any other person for that matter can ever PROVE the concept of human induced global warming. It still comes down to nothing more than a consensus subjective opinion of a majority whose natural allegiance is to a liberal political perspective.

Moreover, this is why you will never see anyone ascribing to this alarmist point of view, being able to provide any substantiated proof, because it is inherently impossible to prove it in the first place.

I personally believe in the undeniable and FACTUAL cycles of NATURAL climate variability for which no one can or has denied has actually occurred numerous times in the past and will NATURALLY do so again. This is a FACT not simply based on subjectivity, but observed FACT. Therefore, it seems far more logical for any objective person(without a distorted view based upon political loyalties)to expect that we are in a current warming phase of these NATURAL climate cycles.

That being said, I have not once said that it is impossible that human induced greenhouse gas emissions have had ZERO effect on our climate. On the other hand, I believe that any such effect has been and will continue to be relatively insignificant and possibly unnoticeable(if we could've compared today's temps with those of the past century without any greenhouse gas emissions)in comparison with these NATURAL observed climate changes.

If you will notice one thing about my posts, I don't suggest anything is FACTUAL that is not undeniable nor has not already been proven (does my BEST EDUCATED GUESS sound familiar to anyone). In my personal opinion, a simple majority of peoples subjective opinions is a very poor standard by which to declare anything, much less this issue, as fact.

Please let me clarify, I personally believe we are in a warming phase of NATURAL climate variability that has occurred many times before and that human activities MAY have had a very minimal effect upon this NATURAL climate cycle. Please notice how I didn't say that it is IMPOSSIBLE that greenhouse gas emissions have had some effect on global temperatures, but simply that it is highly likely that whatever effect if any, has and will be minimal at best.

The biggest problem I have with those like you, snowboy, and the rest of you alarmists is that you are accepting the idea that human activities are the DIRECT cause of it,and not simply a secondary effect upon it. This is not only unprovable and completely unsubstantiated, but defies common sense to be quite honest when one considers the obvious effects of NATURAL climate variability.

Now, I want someone here to PROVE that there is NO WAY that NATURAL climate variability is not the actual DIRECT cause of this global temperature increase. Simply put, you can't no matter how you try to manipulate this debate.:)

Ok, I have purposely chosen to once again be repetitive so that you may actually use your God given common sense rather than your self appeasing blind faith in something that is completely unprovable and illogical when assuming it to be the DIRECT cause of global temperature increases.

However, you have the absolute right to believe that humans are the DIRECT cause of it if you like, just as you have the right to believe in the tooth-fairy, Easter bunny, and Santa Clause as well.:) In other words, the TRUTH (whatever it may actually be)will not and cannot change regardless of anyone's personal opinion of it.

Please don't mischaracterize that statement to suggest that I am saying I know the TRUTH (in this case), but rather that none of us do and it is absurd to read such articles and posts suggesting that human induced global warming is indeed factual, when objectivity and simple logic alone suggests it's at the very most a secondary effect on the NATURAL climate changes.

One more thing, I have spent the past nine years studying and researching on this very topic and that is why I am so adamant about my beliefs on this issue. It is important to note that I too began my study by simply accepting what has been the popular alarmist view being propagated by the main stream media and other various sources for the past couple of decades. I look back and wonder why I could've blindly accepted something at face value, that is not only unprovable but very illogical in regards to it being a DIRECT result of greenhouse gas emissions.

I also want to take a moment to say that I won't be able to post for a few weeks as a result of my current living situation and that I believe F5 does an excellent job of sharing my point of view and the logical reasons for it. Therefore, I hope each of you have a great week and I look forward to talking with you again when I am able to do so.:)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 161 - 111

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Category 6™


Cat 6 lead authors: WU cofounder Dr. Jeff Masters (right), who flew w/NOAA Hurricane Hunters 1986-1990, & WU meteorologist Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Mountain wave clouds over Labrador
Labrador ice