Saturday September 20, 2008, 8:36 am

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

Saturday September 20, 2008, 8:39 am



The White House Is Censoring Science!

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

Censoring science


White House should not hide the facts

October 30, 2007

Although President Bush has every right to have his policy goals articulated by his appointees, recent reports of top scientists being censored by the administration are indeed troubling. Altering presentations does not alter reality.


The White House has a considerable record of charges that it attempted to edit or censor scientific information to conform with political goals. Among them:


Earlier this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was accused of censoring experts on polar bears about the potentially harmful effects of climate change on the creatures.


Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen said earlier this year that Bush administration officials had attempted to stop him from delivering a speech in which he urged prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.


As he was leaving his position as U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona testified before a House committee that the White House would not allow him to speak on aspects of stem cell research, comprehensive sex education, emergency contraception or other politically charged topics.


In 2003, Council on Environmental Quality Director Philip Cooney is said to have made more than 300 changes to an Environmental Protection Agency report on global warming, supposedly exaggerating uncertainties about global warming.

The latest example of questionable political involvement in matters of science involves Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gerberding, a highly regarded infectious disease specialist, was set to deliver written testimony to a Senate panel on how climate change could effect the spread of disease.


Gerberding was prepared to present 12 pages of testimony to the committee, but after submission to the Office of Management and Budget for review, the testimony was reduced to six pages. Gone, among other statements, was one stating: “Populations in Midwestern and Northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity and duration.”


White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters Gerberding's testimony was cut because, “in the draft there were broad characterizations about climate change that didn't align with the IPCC.” The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which periodically issues reports on climate change research, including two this year. A number of scientists at UCSD's Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been involved in drafting these reports. Further examination, however, revealed no inconsistencies between the IPCC report and Gerberding's speech.


At this point, more than 12,000 scientists have signed a statement criticizing the Bush administration for manipulating science. With the many public health challenges confronting the nation and the world, Americans have a need and a right to know the truth. All our lives could depend on it.

Link To Full Story:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071030/news_lz1ed30bottom.html

Please Note this Care2 News Story:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/577339509/538113

Saturday September 20, 2008, 8:49 am


The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

Saturday September 20, 2008, 9:02 am

I can't see my comments posted until I re post them and when I do this it's posted two times? Care2 there is a massive glitch here.

Viewing this from multiple screens and it's very odd.

Saturday September 20, 2008, 9:53 am
noted TY,
There is a glitch in my friends notes as well, they will not take a count.

Saturday September 20, 2008, 9:55 am

It seams like it is working now Jenna F thank you for the response :)

Saturday September 20, 2008, 10:18 am
President Bush should take a walk with every citizen in our USA to find out how it is out there for the homeless, people wrongly put in prison, the disabled, the elder people who have so little, those who have no insurance, the flood victims and every person who desperately needs help TODAY.
Shirley H.

Saturday September 20, 2008, 10:53 am

Race To Help Children In Need


Each free click helps Care2 sponsor a child for one month in partnership with Children International. Click daily to help sponsor all 14 kids.

http://children.care2.com

At no cost to you, you can help a child in need

Saturday September 20, 2008, 12:35 pm
Thank you Mari, that gave me chicken skin.

Saturday September 20, 2008, 9:03 pm
Mari, that was awesome Namaste!!!!

Saturday September 20, 2008, 9:11 pm
Wonder how he would react if he actually did take a walk in the 'real world'? Do you suppose he has heard (and listened) to this song yet? He should! Thanks for this Mari.

Sunday September 21, 2008, 4:20 am
Who hasn't the bush administration put a gag order on?
I mean that they haven't the right. They gagged the NYCFD
Scientists, NASA.
They should have gagged ann coulter & bill oriley with the rest of the faux news

Sunday September 21, 2008, 10:04 pm
There is absolutely nothing "Dear" about this president. His life of pampered privelege has erased any conscience he may have had. This man actually sleeps when he's awake.

Monday September 22, 2008, 9:29 am
Why should you vote for Barack Obama in 2008?

In a 2005 post on the liberal weblog Daily Kos, Barack Obama argued that Democrats must not only try to defeat the Republicans, they must work to build trust in government: "The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job...whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate."


Obama's campaign for President is built on the premise that the Democrats must "disagree without being disagreeable" and unite America to solve issues of historic importance. He focuses on his ability to overcome partisan bickering, to work across the aisle, and to produce real results. The idea that someone would be able to unite America and get the government to productively work on important issues sounds idealistic. Understanding that cynicism, Obama stresses that Americans must embrace the 'audacity of hope.' Hope is an irrational belief, a faith in optimism, but hope is also a unifying emotion, one that resonates with people across the globe. By emphasizing that we should all believe in the possibility of a new type of politics, Obama has converted many people, including Republicans, to believe in the possibility of the anti-Bush, a non-ideological leader that respects those who disagree with him and works to find not the Democratic solution, not the Republican solution, but the best solution. Campaigning to replace Bush with a unifying leader, he has struck a chord across the country—as shown by polls, book sales, enormous crowds, and website groups. In this crucial juncture in history, he has the potential to improve how Americans perceive politics, leading to more trust in government and solving some very difficult problems.

All of the Democratic candidates more or less support the same issues and hold similar values. The candidate's Iraq plans, health care plans, energy plans, ethics plans, and education plans differ in details, but they all aim for the same general progressive goals: pulling out of Iraq, introducing universal health care, reducing America’s dependence on oil, battling climate change, strengthening national security, ridding Washington of corruption, and improving our schools. The specific details of the plans aren’t too significant; what matters more is the actual ability of the candidate to create the political will for change. Obama, unlike the most of the other candidates, has a history of working across the aisle and listening to opposing viewpoints, and is stressing a united America within his campaign.

If he was elected, Obama would do a better job of not only passing the necessary legislation by incorporating other peoples points of view, but also persuading the American people that he is acting in their interest. An American president who is elected by saying, ‘we’re all in this together and we all have a stake in each other’ will do a better job of persuading the American people that America is moving in the right direction. Even some of Bush's strongest Republican supporters concede that Bush isn't the best salesman. When Obama gives a speech, he can really connect with the audience. Obama understands the issues, where we agree and disagree, and he has the intelligent policies, along with the charisma and political talent, to persuade the American people.

Obama's broad appeal will improve the long term image of the Democratic party. If Obama’s nomination fails, another Democratic may be able to win the presidency, but the Republican voters would not respect— four out of ten Republicans voted for Obama in his Illinois Senate Race —the other Democratic candidate as president as much Obama.