Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Are the "wrong"(s) that Waxman "udders" homogenized? Does Norm Crosby know you've stolen his act? | |
|
Author: Mo' Green |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:47:48 12/13/07 Thu In reply to: Oropan 's message, "LOL!" on 12:01:55 12/12/07 Wed A socialist, really? What business has Waxman said he wants to expropriate? What "alter" do I worship at again? Now mind you, I do alter my opinions, based on the facts. You should try it some time. Maybe if you became literate it would help. >I never believe a wrong that Waxman ever writes or >udders. He is a committed socialist and eveything is >partician with him. And I doubt that the Bush admin. >has control of all these scientists from all over the >World that dispute manmade global warming. I guess >that hard for people like you that worship at the >alter of global warming to understand. There is no >scientific facts to prove manmade global >warming....only the wishes of those that want to >believe it for their own goofy religious beliefs. Yes, >nutty environmentism is a religion. > > > > > > > > >>For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and >>Government Reform Committee has been investigating >>allegations of political interference with government >>climate change science under the Bush Administration. >>During the course of this investigation, the Committee >>obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White >>House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the >>Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, >>and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the >>information made available to the Committee has never >>been publicly disclosed. >> >>This report presents the findings of the Committee’s >>investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads >>to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration >>has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate >>climate change science and mislead policymakers and >>the public about the dangers of global warming. >> >>In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an >>internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: >>“Victory will be achieved when … average citizens >>‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] >>recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the >>‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has >>acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan >>were its mission statement. White House officials and >>political appointees in the agencies censored >>congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of >>global warming, controlled media access to government >>climate scientists, and edited federal scientific >>reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into >>discussions of climate change and to minimize the >>threat to the environment and the economy. >> >>The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists >>The White House exerted unusual control over the >>public statements of federal scientists on climate >>change issues. It was standard practice for media >>requests to speak with federal scientists on climate >>change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House >>approval. By controlling which government scientists >>could respond to media inquiries, the White House >>suppressed dissemination of scientific views that >>could conflict with Administration policies. The White >>House also edited congressional testimony regarding >>the science of climate change. >> >>Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the >>Committee: “Our communications people would render a >>view as to whether someone should give an interview or >>not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, >>a career public affairs officer at the National >>Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests >>related to climate change issues were handled >>differently from other requests because “I would have >>to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice >>was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. >>Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the >>Department of Commerce not want scientists who >>believed that climate change was increasing hurricane >>activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There >>was a consistent approach that might have indicated >>that.” >> >>White House officials and agency political appointees >>also altered congressional testimony regarding the >>science of climate change. The changes to the recent >>climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the >>Director of the Centers for Disease Control and >>Prevention, have received considerable attention. A >>year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of >>National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the >>House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also >>heavily edited by both White House officials and >>political appointees at the Commerce Department. He >>was not allowed to say in his written testimony that >>“modern climate change is dominated by human >>influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown >>territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is >>very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are >>largely responsible for many of the observed changes >>in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is >>playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity >>became “may play.” >> >>The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change >>Reports >>There was a systematic White House effort to minimize >>the significance of climate change by editing climate >>change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and >>other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the >>Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change >>Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific >>uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the >>importance of the human role in global warming. >> >>The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft >>Report on the Environment that were so extreme that >>the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate >>change section of the report. One such edit was the >>inclusion of a reference to a discredited, >>industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice >>President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to >>begin to refer to this study in Administration >>communications on the science of global climate >>change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held >>by many in the climate science community that the past >>century was the warmest in the past millennium and >>signals of human induced ‘global warming.’” >> >>In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went >>beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate >>change section of the report. >> >>Other White House Actions >>The White House played a major role in crafting the >>August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to >>regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James >>Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. >>When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of >>Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the >>last several decades are likely mostly due to human >>activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes >>are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal >>case being made.” The first line of another internal >>CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA >>legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The >>final opinion incorporating the White House edits was >>rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in >>Massachusetts v. EPA. >> >>The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA >>Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it >>followed the White House line on climate change. >>Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating >>an unsupported assertion that millions of American >>jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were >>ratified. >> >> >>href="http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653">ht >t >>p://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| Re: Are the "wrong"(s) that Waxman "udders" homogenized? Does Norm Crosby know you've stolen his act? | Oropan | 05:13:22 12/14/07 Fri |