Cheney's office strips report of health effects

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
As if this is really any surprise....

Vice President Dick Cheney?s office was involved in removing statements on health risks posed by global warming from a draft of a health official?s Senate testimony last year, a former senior government environmental official said on Tuesday.

The former official, Jason K. Burnett, made the assertion and described similar incidents in a three-page letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who is the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He then stood with her at a news conference at which she excoriated the Bush administration.

?History will judge this Bush administration harshly for recklessly covering up a real threat to the people they are supposed to protect,? Mrs. Boxer said.

Mr. Burnett, a lifelong Democrat, resigned in May from his post as an associate deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and chief adviser on climate to Stephen L. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator. Mr. Burnett has previously criticized the administration?s climate policies and endorsed and contributed to Senator Barack Obama?s presidential campaign.

In the letter, while declining to name individuals, Mr. Burnett said the offices of Mr. Cheney and the White House Council on Environmental Quality ?were seeking deletions? of sections of draft testimony describing health risks from warming. The testimony was prepared by Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for a hearing last October before Mrs. Boxer?s committee.

Mr. Burnett?s letter said the council ?requested that I work with C.D.C. to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change.?

The changes were made before the testimony was delivered. At the time, the E.P.A., complying with a Supreme Court ruling, was finishing a document assessing whether carbon dioxide, the main emission linked to global warming, endangered public health or welfare as defined under the Clean Air Act.

At the news conference, Mrs. Boxer strongly chided Dana M. Perino, the White House press secretary, for asserting last year that the changes in testimony were justified because the statements did not comport with the influential review of climate risks by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ?This was a lie,? Mrs. Boxer said.

She demanded that Mr. Johnson turn over all documents related to the assessment of carbon dioxide?s risks, or else resign.

White House officials bluntly rebutted Mr. Burnett and Mrs. Boxer.

?We stand 100 percent behind what Dana said,? said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman.

?Senator Boxer should not throw around charges like lying in cases where there might be a difference of opinion,? he said.

Marc Morano, a spokesman for James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the ranking minority member on the Senate environment committee, also said the criticism was unjustified.

?All administrations edit testimony before it is submitted to Congress,? he said, describing incidents during the Clinton administration involving Roy W. Spencer, a NASA scientist at the time who questioned the dangers of human-caused warming. Mr. Spencer said his superiors told him not to express his views about the dangers of global warming in testimony.

Mrs. Boxer insisted that the efforts last year by the White House constituted a ?cover-up? and ?censorship,? and she announced plans for more hearings.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
If you don't believe that GW is real, or at least caused by man, then you won't believe that you should list the 'health risks' caused by it right?

As the WH said, it's a matter of opinion.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
And the adminstation has a habit of taking opinions conttary to reality. See Iraq.

 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you don't believe that GW is real, or at least caused by man, then you won't believe that you should list the 'health risks' caused by it right?

As the WH said, it's a matter of opinion.


Wait Wait Wait......

You can't be serious can you?

I don't think the issue here is that a GW report itself was altered, whether its true or not, I think the issue here is that Cheney and Co. are arbitrarily deciding what is 'opinion' and what is not. Are you not the least bit worried about this? Do you understand what kind of precedent this can set? This is defacto a communist move by our government. Experts weigh in, but we just change their information.

This is EXACTLY how the USSR handled Chernobyl. They said it posed 'no health risks' because they felt like saying that. And I know firsthand since I lived in Eastern Europe at the time.

This government of ours, particularly this administration REEKS of commie tendancies. Please prove me otherwise.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
This issue, again?

Here's the testimony, including the redacted portions:

http://www.scienceprogress.org...or-julie-l-gerberding/

As you can see, those portions were removed because they were highly speculative. These statement alone have little scientific backing and there are climate studies that run counter to those claims:

Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe,...

Climate change is anticipated to alter the frequency, timing, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and floods.

The testimony still contains more than enough information to raise awareness of the potential damages from climate change. Testimony based on highly speculative statements with little to no scientific credibility at this point amounts to nothing more than a sort of fearmongering. What next? Somebody's going to testify to Congress based on Astrology?

And jeez, this is old. Are the Dems that desperate that they have to re-erect old issues and put a fresh coat of paint on them?
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^umm read the OP the precedent was set by Clinton ;)

Aren't you the one that always says 'two wrongs dont make a right' ?

So because Clinton did it, Cheney can act like Clinton too? What are you now, a liberal?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
LOL at the usual suspects. Head still so far up this administration's ass they can't smell the shit anymore. Bottomfeeders
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This issue, again?

Here's the testimony, including the redacted portions:

http://www.scienceprogress.org...or-julie-l-gerberding/

As you can see, those portions were removed because they were highly speculative. These statement alone have little scientific backing and there are climate studies that run counter to those claims:

Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe,...

Climate change is anticipated to alter the frequency, timing, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and floods.

The testimony still contains more than enough information to raise awareness of the potential damages from climate change. Testimony based on highly speculative statements with little to no scientific credibility at this point amounts to nothing more than a sort of fearmongering. What next? Somebody's going to testify to Congress based on Astrology?

And jeez, this is old. Are the Dems that desperate that they have to re-erect old issues and put a fresh coat of paint on them?

+1 :thumbsup:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
No non Prof John, two wrongs to not make a right even if your assertion about Clinton setting any precedents is dubious.

If nothing else, if the health effects of GW is a matter of opinion, it should have been listed in the report as opinion, and not censored out.

Because if the opinion of GW ends up being true, then the health effects will be real, if the opinion of global warming ends up being false, then the health effects will be false.

But omitting the health effect report then becomes the logical equivalent of denying the opinion of GW.

And Cheney may have the dubious scientific right to assert that GW is only an opinion, but he has NO DAMN RIGHT TO ASSERT GW IS DEFINITELY FALSE.

Be it resolved and proved, Cheney is exceeding his authority and governmental responsibility. But everyone with any brains already knows Cheney is an idiot and a liar.