Once again the WH heavily censors unwelcomed scientific report

[Skybird]

As the WP has reported

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102302056.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 planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget 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.c...e-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.c...ation=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:

Originally Posted by WP

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_rel...eals-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."

[SUBMAN1]

More propoganda to say they edited this so no one finds out - Rubbish! Every report that goes through the WH is edited - from every administration. This is normal proceedure.

Now go find the reports writer - she stands by the WH edits. So what are you trying to say exactly?

The point is, there is no real story here except for comspiracy theorists.

-S

PS. For you - CDC director denies she was censored on climate report
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/new...ding_1024.html

[Skybird]

I love it when manipualtion of public opinion is being sold as "reasonable routine".

But an earlier version of the written testimony, reviewed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, shows that Gerberding had planned to give the committee a detailed account of the agency's expectations of more frequent catastrophic weather events, diseases and other health effects of worldwide climate change.
(...)
The 12-page draft reviewed by the AJC differs significantly from the final six-page version submitted to the Senate committee.
The shorter version focuses on public health preparedness for climate change, including how the CDC is tracking diseases, doing heat-stroke modeling for cities to predict vulnerable populations and helping local officials plan for environmental emergencies.
The draft version contained an additional six pages explaining why climate change is a public health concern. Deleted passages describe the expected impact of climate change, including new disease patterns and food and water shortages for some people.

If this does not make you question the white-washed official version, if this this still leaves you as an uncritical believer, then i fear nothing will ever will wake you up. And have you imagined that when the Doctor said that no deletetion of content took place - she was concerned about future funding for her organization, and her own job maybe?

again, it is by far not the first time that the Bush government is being found to supress scietific data that it does not wish to see attention being payed to it. Citizens shall never ask "Why?" on issues. It is the most subversive question of all.

Again: http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...eals-0007.html



Good night, sweet dreams and may nothing ever trouble your reasonable mind.

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102401227.html

Originally Posted by Washington Post

White House officials eliminated several successive pages of Gerberding's testimony, beginning with a section in which she planned to say that many organizations are working to address climate change but that, "despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed," and that the "CDC considers climate change a serious public concern."
In another deleted part of her original testimony, the CDC director predicted that areas in the northern United States "will likely bear the brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated airborne pollutants. Populations in mid-western and northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity and duration."
(...)
After Marburger questioned "inconsistencies in the use of language between the [IPCC] report and the testimony . . . the OMB editor decided to transmit a version that simply struck the first eight pages" because there was not time to reconcile the concerns raised by Marburger's office and Gerberding's original statement.
But several experts on the public health impact of climate change, having reviewed Gerberding's testimony, said there were no inconsistencies between the original testimony and the IPCC's recent reports.
"That's nonsense," said University of Wisconsin at Madison public health professor Jonathan Patz, who served as an IPCC lead author for its 2007, 2001 and 1995 reports. "Dr. Gerberding's testimony was scientifically accurate and absolutely in line with the findings of the IPCC."
Just as the CDC director predicted climate change could exacerbate air-pollution-related diseases, the IPCC 2001 report predicted that dangerous summer ozone levels may increase across 50 cities in the eastern U.S., and said, "The large potential population exposed to outdoor air pollution, translates this seemingly small relative risk into a substantial attributable health risk."
Michael McCally, executive director of the advocacy group Physicians for Social Responsibility, said the editing means that the "White House has denied a congressional committee's access to scientific information about health and global warming," adding: "This misuse of science and abuse of the legislative process is deplorable."

I love it when manipualtion of public opinion is being sold as "reasonable routine".

Isn't that what today's press is all about?

Reuters pictures is but one example.

[CB..]

sounds like we're all suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning..it's rotting our brains...not enough oxygen in the atmosphere..too many polutants for the brain to function correctly...and there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere causing problematic climate issues ...what we really need is something that removed CO2 from the atmosphere and replaced it with oxygen....oh dang...there is something ...what was it? ah yes...trees..yes that was it..shame they're chopping them down at the rate they are....yup must be all the polutants in the atmosphere rotting the brain...unless they aren't telling us something...mind you if the powers that be are daft enough to withold information from their own fellow power holders.. and movers and shakers in the political world..then one wonders what the powers that be might be prepared to withold from members of the public..

tell em all to shut up and just plant the dang forests...i still say that if we had done this 50 years ago when the debate first started.. we probably wouldn't have any climate problems at all right now.(or greatly reduced)...even with current CO2 emmissions..etc...

here we are on the bridge of the Titantic argueing over whever we are going to hit an iceburg....there's the ice burg now...are we going to hit it?...no yes maybe? under what circumstance might we hit it and under what circustances might we not hit it?..will the ship sink even if we do hit the iceburg?...will the iceburg melt before we hit it (lol)

mean time no attempt to change course is made right up to and including the moment we hit the iceburg or not as the case may be..

do you slow down when driving in fog? or do you carry on at normal driving speeds... if the climate change details are unclear to some and if information is with held...then this could be described as information "fog"...so under those circumstances ..as with the driving a car in fog image..it is FAR FAR wiser to proceed on the assumption that there is danger ahead than it is to assume that there is none...so plant the forests...if nothing else they will look better than forests of windturbines..and the trees will eat the CO2 from conventional powerstations to boot...areas of natural beauty if you plan them nicely...i don't care if you need to plant areas so large as to cover small countys..i dare say if you added all the square feet of land covered with tarmac car parks and roads in each country that would still exceed the total area of forest in the same country

we have big buisness trading their CO2 foot prints on the global market...sell em shares in your forest...that will save them a few quid...handle it right and your forests will become as much a national resource as any oil field..no imagination some folks:rotfl:

yup it is a conspiracy..a conspiracy of stupidity

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Isn't that what today's press is all about?

Reuters pictures is but one example.

You're deflecting the argument. This isn't about your preferred evil of modern society. The White House is accused of this, so don't go on another 'left is bad' rant before at least acquitting your home boys.

[The WosMan]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by The WosMan

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

My thoughts exactly.... Wait, an apple just hit my head. THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!........................

-S

[CB..]

don't suppose any-ones noticed the strong connection between the climate change debate...dwindling world resources...population explosion...the technological advancement of third world countrys...economic and socail/political/religious globalisation.and the war on terror?

no connection?

dunno wether the sky is going to fall:rotfl:
but the world is SHRINKING:rotfl: