TLC: Alright. I've let you drone on long enough for you to make a complete and utter fool of yourself.
http://public.cq.com/docs/hb/h...s110-000002614381.html
First of all, note this comment by Gerberding:
A document identified as draft CDC testimony released by Boxer?s office includes paragraph after paragraph of lined out material. A CDC spokesman declined to either confirm or deny the authenticity of material identified by the committee majority as deleted. The spokesman, Tom Skinner, said that despite the impression created by media reports about the edits, Gerberding was able to fully express her views in oral testimony before the panel and that she said everything she wanted and needed to say on the issue. Gerberding told a press luncheon the day after her testimony, "I feel very confident we had a completely honest conversation" with lawmakers. She called press coverage about the edited material "the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard."
Oh boy, I guess you don't pay much attention. All this was basically stated by the OP in his very first link:
"CDC spokesman Tom Skinner sought to play down the White House changes. He called Gerberding's appearance before the Senate panel "very productive" and said she addressed the issues she wanted to during her remarks and when questioned by the senators.
M: Note that information had to be elicited by the senators. Further:
"What needed to be said, as far we're concerned, was said," Skinner said from Atlanta where the CDC is based. "She certainly communicated with the committee everything she felt was critical to help them appreciate and understand all the issues surrounding climate change and its potential impact on public health."
M: Notice the careful wording. What was needed was said but only as far as we're concerned, not necessarily a fact but an opinion, a Bush admin opinion. All she felt she needed to say but not necessarily all there was to say or all that was relevant. It continues: .
."We generally don't speculate and comment on anything until it is the final product," said OMB spokesman Sean Kevelighan. He added that OMB reviews take into consideration "whether they . . . line up well with the national priorities of the administration.""
M: Note that line up well part of the quote. Line up well means conforms to a preconceived opinion. Further from the OP link:
""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 White House in the past has said it has sought only to provide a balanced view of the climate issue."
M: So please note that the uncertainty angle regarding global warming is not original with you. It is the lie the admin is also using along with a few others we will get to in a bit. It's a lie that pretends to balance, a fiction maintained only in a world without data.
TLC: That's what happens when the lefties align their talking points while talking out of their ass. You can thank Barabara Boxter for kicking the whole talking point issue off and being one of her drones.
M: We can see clearly that it's you who is the talking points man.. You just woke up to what you now want to divert this argument into because you reached the end of your rope on the other and went out looking for help. And what did you find but this garbage dressed up as new that I read and comprehended from the beginning.
TLC: Note some of the statements that were cut. They don't focus on disease, they focus on global warming and are highly speculative:
M: I have been quoting from the cut material since forever now. They don't focus on disease alone because they focus on risks to human life which are far more diversified than simply disease. They aren't speculative in some wide eyed airy fairy manner, they are statistical based correlations which tell you if the data is thus the results will be so.. 'If this than that' is what science aims for as best it can based on its best understanding. You don't decide what that is. Science does.
TLC: Lined-out statements included the following: (Chicken is quoting material censored from the report)
? ?Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth?s climate is changing. A broad array of organizations ... is working to address climate change. Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.?
M: I quoted that 9 of my posts ago.
TLC: ? Health effects are expected to be less severe than in the developing world. ?Nevertheless, many Americans will likely experience difficult challenges. Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly; the U.S. population is anticipated to continue to age and move to vulnerable locations such as coastal areas, increasing exposures to specific risks; and concurrent challenges such as water scarcity in certain regions could limit our resilience ...?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty. We'll get to the hurricane fiasco in a bit.
TLC? ?One of the most likely climate change projections is an increase in frequency of hot days, hot nights, and heat waves. The United States is expected to see an increase in the severity, duration, and frequency of extreme heat waves. This, coupled with an aging population, increases the likelihood of higher mortality as the elderly are more vulnerable to dying from exposure to excessive heat. Midwestern and northeastern cities are at greatest risk, as heat-related illness and death appear to be related to exposure to temperatures much hotter than those to which the population is accustomed.?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? ?Future climate projections also show likely increases in the frequency of heavy rainfall events, posing an increased risk of flooding events and overwhelming of sanitation infrastructure.?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? ?Some studies have shown that higher surface temperatures, especially in urban areas, encourage the formation of ground level ozone...Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, and inflame and damage cells that line the lungs.?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? ?Changes in precipitation, temperature, humidity, and water salinity have been shown to affect the quality of water used for drinking, recreation, and commercial use.?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? Ecological changes stemming from climate change could ?alter the range, seasonality, and human incidence of many ... diseases,? including Lyme disease, West Nile virus, and make it easier for ?exotic vector-borne? diseases to spread to the United States.
M: Yup the bugs don't care about GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? Climate change could cause changes in agricultural production. ?This may lead to scarcity of some foods, increase food prices, and threaten access to food for Americans who experience food insecurity.?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: ? ?Some populations of Americans are more vulnerable to the health effects of climate change than others. Children are at greater risk of worsening asthma, allergies, and certain infections diseases...?
M: No science here that needs to be suppressed because of GW uncertainty.
TLC: The material removed also identifies particular areas of the country as being at greater risk, and also certain populations, such as minorities, because of where they live and their socioeconomic status.
M: Yup no uncertainty in GW will change the fact that it will have disproportional effects regardless of what effects there are. No need for these facts to be suppressed.
TLC: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said earlier this week the edits were made because of inconsistencies between the draft testimony and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was convened by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.
M: You expected he was going to say they censored the data for policy reasons because they don't want to budget to prepare for global warming or cast public approbation of corporations that are screwing up our world?
TLC: Boxer countered that statement by releasing an analysis pointing to IPCC conclusions she said were consistent with the deleted material (See related story, CQ HealthBeat, Oct. 25, 2007).
M: From
http://ap.google.com/article/A...4ecfdaA-wDYGJMdlIfeVUA the following:
Several Democrats on Thursday challenged White House officials' claim that they removed large parts of proposed congressional testimony on global warming because the material conflicted with findings from a U.N. scientific panel.
Sen. Barbara Boxer released a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the phrases that the White House removed and the U.N. panel's report this year on how climate change affected public health.
The comparisons showed striking similarities.
Both raised virtually identical concerns: heat stress on vulnerable populations; the likelihood of respiratory illnesses from increased air pollution; the spread of waterborne infectious diseases; and more injuries from severe weather events such as wildfires.
At issue is testimony Tuesday by Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Boxer heads.
"This administration wants to downplay the threat global warming poses to the American people," said Boxer, D-Calif. Joining her at a news conference were Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Citing the California wildfires, Klobuchar said it was troubling that one of the deleted paragraphs said with global warming "forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution and duration."
She said the U.N report also cited the increased likelihood of wildfires as a result of climate change.
"Time and time again this administration has changed scientific reports that do not align with their position," said Boxer, D-Calif. Her committee is developing legislation that would limit the release of "greenhouse" gases linked to global warming.
The Bush administration opposes mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
The Associated Press reported that Gerberding's draft testimony was edited heavily during a White House review. The White House on Wednesday acknowledged that significant sections were deleted. Six of the deleted pages detailed how global warming might affect Americans and they included a section with the title, "Climate Change is a Public Concern."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said the deletions were made because John Marburger, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology, and his staff raised concerns that the sections were not in line with the findings of the U.N. panel.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has led worldwide research on global warming.
"The draft information did not comport with ... the science that was in the IPPC report," Perino said.
That brought a sharp rebuke Thursday from Boxer, D-Calif., and the other two senators. Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, also has strongly criticized the White House explanation.
Boxer said she had been provided a copy of the original draft testimony from the CDC, the government's premier public health and disease monitoring and response agency.
In a letter to Marburger, Gordon disputed suggestions that the U.N. report and the original CDC draft testimony were in conflict.
"We are particularly interested in your reliance on the work of the IPCC, which you have questioned on a number of occasions. However, it appears that the IPCC did support CDC's conclusions," Gordon wrote in the letter late Wednesday.
Gordon said the U.N. panel said that a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature, there will be an "increasing burden from malnutrition, diarrheal, cardio-respiratory, and infectious diseases, increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods, and droughts and changed distribution of some disease vectors."
"This appears to support the deleted sections of Dr. Gerberding's testimony," Gordon said.
TLC: However, Marburger said Friday there were ?important differences.? The IPPC research does not provide a basis ?for a link between hurricane frequency and climate change,? he asserted. Instead, the IPPC refers to hurricane intensity and talks about some weather events becoming more frequent ? a reference, Marburger said ?that may be accurately applied to certain weather events, but not, based on current science, to hurricanes.? He also said the draft testimony?s reference to food shortages does not ?reflect the full and complex consideration of agricultural impacts? in IPPC working group reports
M: So now we see at last why global warming uncertainty resulted in the suppression of so much scientific data on health related risks. The CDC says:
"Health effects are expected to be less severe than in the developing world. ?Nevertheless, many Americans will likely experience difficult challenges. Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly; the U.S. population is anticipated to continue to age and move to vulnerable locations such as coastal areas, increasing exposures to specific risks; and concurrent challenges such as water scarcity in certain regions could limit our resilience ...?"
But the OMB says IPPC said the DCD statement that "catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly; the U.S. population is anticipated to continue to age and move to vulnerable locations such as coastal areas, increasing exposures to specific risks; and concurrent challenges such as water scarcity in certain regions could limit our resilience ...' would be OK if they took hurricanes out because the data on hurricanes isn't certain. Hehehe! It takes a real moron to think that all the other scientific data got censored because of that and some different words on food supply risks. No, Chicken, you continue to show yourself to be a genuine idiot.
