Skybird
10-24-07, 06:36 PM
As the WP has reported
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302056.html
the the White House once again has taklen massive steps to prevent unwelcomed scientific input becoming known to the wide public.
Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention?tid=inf ormline) planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline), according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Julie+L.+Gerberding?tid=informline) submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Office+of+Management+and+Budget?tid=informlin e) for review.
Instead, Gerberding's prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did the director of the government's premier disease-monitoring agency describe any specific diseases likely to be affected, again without elaboration.
A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding's draft "was eviscerated," cut from 14 pages to four. The version presented to the Senate committee consisted of six pages.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process, said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed."
The final version being given to the committee had 6 pages (of originally 14). All passages describing links between the spreading of serious epidemics and diseases in the northern world due to global warming had been supressed.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7c34e37a-8a6f-4753-bc2e-26d19b8a2794
The chairman of the committee said:
The White House continues to say that science should guide us on global warming legislation. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control is one of the country’s leading voices on public health. The Administration should immediately release Dr. Gerberding’s full, uncut statement, because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming. ( http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=cf546177-802a-23ad-4736-5bc8be272061&Designation=Majority )
The German essay that brought me to this, commented that "the WH once again has demonstrated that it understands science only as a political tool that could be abused at will" to promote wanted political agendas."
-----
It has been often complained about that under Bush it has become common practice to manipulate scientific data given to the public, to prevent information that is in opposition to the official lobby-friendly WH polices from becoming known in public. No other field is so heavily suffering from this censorship and manipulaion like global climate changes:
The Bush administration has been accused by government scientists of pressuring them to emphasize the uncertainties of global warming. Earlier this year, climate scientists complained to a House committee that the administration had sought frequently to manage or influence their statements and public appearances.
The story is to be found here: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html
The article clearly shows that especially governmental and national services are getting censored on a large scale, and that independant institutions are less vulnerable to such efforts, but still become targetted as well:
The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."
UCS distributed surveys to 1,600 climate scientists, asking for information about the state of federal climate research. The scientists who responded reported experiencing at least 435 occurrences of political interference in their work over the past five years. Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings. And nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.
In contrast, scientists at the independent but federally-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research, who are not federal employees, reported far fewer instances of interference.
(...)
While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed that federal climate research is of generally excellent quality, respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies. Two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said that today's environment for federal government climate research is worse compared to five years ago. At NASA, three in five scientists reported decreased job satisfaction.
"Every day that the government stifles climate science is a day we fail to protect future generations and our planet from the consequences of global warming," said Dr. Grifo. "We need reforms that affirm the right of scientists to fully communicate their research and to blow the whistle when important science is suppressed."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302056.html
the the White House once again has taklen massive steps to prevent unwelcomed scientific input becoming known to the wide public.
Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention?tid=inf ormline) planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline), according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Julie+L.+Gerberding?tid=informline) submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Office+of+Management+and+Budget?tid=informlin e) for review.
Instead, Gerberding's prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease. Only during questioning did the director of the government's premier disease-monitoring agency describe any specific diseases likely to be affected, again without elaboration.
A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding's draft "was eviscerated," cut from 14 pages to four. The version presented to the Senate committee consisted of six pages.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process, said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed."
The final version being given to the committee had 6 pages (of originally 14). All passages describing links between the spreading of serious epidemics and diseases in the northern world due to global warming had been supressed.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7c34e37a-8a6f-4753-bc2e-26d19b8a2794
The chairman of the committee said:
The White House continues to say that science should guide us on global warming legislation. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control is one of the country’s leading voices on public health. The Administration should immediately release Dr. Gerberding’s full, uncut statement, because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming. ( http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=cf546177-802a-23ad-4736-5bc8be272061&Designation=Majority )
The German essay that brought me to this, commented that "the WH once again has demonstrated that it understands science only as a political tool that could be abused at will" to promote wanted political agendas."
-----
It has been often complained about that under Bush it has become common practice to manipulate scientific data given to the public, to prevent information that is in opposition to the official lobby-friendly WH polices from becoming known in public. No other field is so heavily suffering from this censorship and manipulaion like global climate changes:
The Bush administration has been accused by government scientists of pressuring them to emphasize the uncertainties of global warming. Earlier this year, climate scientists complained to a House committee that the administration had sought frequently to manage or influence their statements and public appearances.
The story is to be found here: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html
The article clearly shows that especially governmental and national services are getting censored on a large scale, and that independant institutions are less vulnerable to such efforts, but still become targetted as well:
The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."
UCS distributed surveys to 1,600 climate scientists, asking for information about the state of federal climate research. The scientists who responded reported experiencing at least 435 occurrences of political interference in their work over the past five years. Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings. And nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work.
In contrast, scientists at the independent but federally-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research, who are not federal employees, reported far fewer instances of interference.
(...)
While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed that federal climate research is of generally excellent quality, respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies. Two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said that today's environment for federal government climate research is worse compared to five years ago. At NASA, three in five scientists reported decreased job satisfaction.
"Every day that the government stifles climate science is a day we fail to protect future generations and our planet from the consequences of global warming," said Dr. Grifo. "We need reforms that affirm the right of scientists to fully communicate their research and to blow the whistle when important science is suppressed."