| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hX3jIWodMsIwJRO21Y6IXAimn9AgD91Q0NK80
Cheney wanted cuts in climate change testimony
By H. JOSEF HEBERT – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.
The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Burnett's assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.
Boxer, in a news conference on Tuesday, went so far as to say White House press secretary Dana Perino had lied about why the White House had pushed for the deletions. That, in turn, prompted Perino to demand an apology from Boxer.
"I have never said such a thing about a fellow public servant, and I wouldn't if I didn't have all the facts," Perino said from Japan, where President Bush is attending a meeting of world economic leaders. "I think I deserve an apology."
Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.
"The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change," Burnett wrote.
At her news conference, Boxer maintained that the heavy editing of the testimony given by CDC Director Julie Gerberding last fall was the first part of "a master plan" aimed at "covering up the real dangers of global warming and hiding the facts from the public."
Burnett declined to comment beyond what he described in the letter and said he didn't want to identify the people he had talked with in Cheney's office or elsewhere at the White House. "I'm not interested in pointing fingers at individuals," he said.
White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said the White House stands by its explanation for the deletions, and noted that science adviser John Marburger had raised concerns.
Marburger issued a summary of his concerns at the time, but at a Senate hearing a few weeks later said he had not recommended deleting six of the 14 pages as was done.
Megan Mitchell, the vice president's press secretary, dismissed the allegations by Burnett and said, "We don't comment on internal deliberations."
Burnett, 31, a lifelong Democrat, resigned his post last month as associate deputy EPA administrator because of disagreements over the agency's response to climate change.
He appeared to be an odd choice for the EPA post, which included liaison with the White House on climate issues. Currently a supporter of Barack Obama for president, he has contributed nearly $125,000 to Democratic candidates since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Burnett, an economist who had written a number of papers on government regulation while at the Center for Regulatory Study, a joint effort by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, first joined the EPA in 2004. He resigned two years later because of objections to an EPA rule on soot.
He was asked to return in 2007 by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who put him in charge of coordinating the agency's response to a Supreme Court ruling on whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In his letter, Burnett describes concerns at the White House, including in Cheney's office, about linking climate change directly to public health or damage to the environment.
Nowhere was that more apparent than in the heavy editing of the CDC testimony in October.
The White House, at the urging of Cheney's office, "requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change," Burnett wrote.
"CEQ contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony," he wrote.
But he said he refused to press the CDC on the deletions because he believed the CDC's draft testimony was "fundamentally accurate."
Burnett said Cheney's office also objected in January to congressional testimony by Johnson that "greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment." An official in Cheney's office "called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed" but that it was kept as it was.
Burnett also described in greater detail than previously reported the White House's refusal in December to accept a draft EPA finding concluding that carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, is endangering human health.
After he sent the e-mail with the draft finding attached, he said he received a telephone call from the White House asking that he "send a follow-up note saying that the e-mail had been sent in error."
"I explained that I could not do that because it was not true," Burnett wrote.
Boxer said the draft finding was now "in limbo" and not available for public review.
More than a year ago, the Supreme Court directed the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare and, if so, begin to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. That process is not likely to continue until the next administration. |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:09 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Lots of claims, no proof. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:29 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:52 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| You get your "news" from comedy central? That explains a lot. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:27 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:34 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
What was the estimate I heard this morning? Something like the federal archives believes that the Bush administration has deleted as many as a quarter of a million emails.
Why would they leave proof around? |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
|
Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:04 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
| Dem....of course they were all "junk" and spam...<eye roll> |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:05 pm |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
It doesn't surprise me, nothing from this administration surprises me.
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:33 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Perhaps he read some factual info on the subject instead of relying on Algores movie.
And of course this guy probably didnt fudge any data .
quote:
Burnett, 31, a lifelong Democrat, resigned his post last month as associate deputy EPA administrator because of disagreements over the agency's response to climate change.
He appeared to be an odd choice for the EPA post, which included liaison with the White House on climate issues. Currently a supporter of Barack Obama for president, he has contributed nearly $125,000 to Democratic candidates since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heres one of many experts who dispute the whole notion.
THE GLOBAL WARMING MYTH- Prof David Bellamy
The Global Warming Myth
By Prof David Bellamy
Am I worried about carbon induced global warming? The answer is no and yes. No because there has been no sign of global warming in New Zealand since 1955, this year snow has fallen in Portugal for the first time in 52 years and 3 US states are united by the fact that they have recorded their lowest temperatures ever. Yes because it has become a political football that has lost its foundations in real science.
What especially worries me is that if anyone dares to question the dogma of the global warming doomsters who repeatedly tell us that C not only stands for carbon but for climate catastrophe, we are immediately vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.
I am quite happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on bigotry.
I don’t like being called a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. There are no facts linking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming there are only predictions based on complex computer models.
Name calling may be acceptable in political circles but it has no place in the language of science, indeed what is happening in the annals of global warming smacks of Macarthyism complete with witch hunts.
Robust science is carried out in a robust way through reasoned argument based on well researched data and although it may dent the ego of the loser it does not smear the name of science.
I offer two simple data sets that are already in the public domain.
The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.
The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970.
The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about a catastrophic ice age just around the corner. Our end was nigh! As soon as the temperatures took an upward turn in the 1980’s the scaremongers changed their tune switching their dogma to imminent catastrophic scenarios of global warming all based on computer models some that were proved to be as bent as the hockey stick which no longer features in IPCC’s armoury.
I used to discuss climate change with my undergraduates and point out that there was much good scientific evidence that the latest of a string of ice ages had affected the climate and sea levels around the world. Thank goodness it began to come to an end a mere 18,000 to 20,000 years ago The Romans grew grapes in York and during the world wide medieval warm period when civilization blossomed across the world, Nordic settlers farmed lowland Greenland (hence its name) and then got wiped out by the Little Ice Age that only started to wane around 1850).
Back to the data, how can a sixty-year cycle of changing temperature give any credibility to claims that carbon dioxide is causing an inexorable march towards a climate Armageddon.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen throughout this time frame, yet the temperature has gone up and down in a cyclical manner. How can this be explained unless there are other factors in control overriding the effect of this greenhouse gas? There are of course many to be found in peer reviewed literature, solar cycles, cosmic ray cloud control and those little rascals El Ninos and La Ninas all of which are played down or even ignored by the global warming brigade. As are the positive aspects of carbon dioxide in the growth of plants.
Add to that the fact that since 1998 the world’s average temperature has shown a tendency to fall not rise. This fact the warmers play down by arguing that you need a 10 year period, or better still a 30 year period to register a convincing change. Well 2008 is just around the corner and sadly another 20 years on the next natural cycle will have done its best or worse vindicating carbon dioxide as the villain of the piece.
Turning to Al Gore’s doom and gloom laden Oscar, I will pose but two questions. Why scare the families of the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence that there are now twice as many of these iconic animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years ago? Why cry wolf on a rise in the spread of malaria thanks to rising temperatures when this mosquito borne disease was a main killer of people throughout the Little Ice Age in Britain and northern Russia?
To date it has cost the world around $ US 50 billion to spread global warming doom and gloom. However now thanks to questions asked by we the sceptics The New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s Dr Jim Renwick has spilt the beans that "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: " The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two." The spin of a coin starts a rugby match the spin on 50 million greenbacks surely deserves an unbiased referee.
New Zealand leads the world in the eradication of feral plants and animals making restoration of the natural ecosystems that kept the biosphere in balance long before the IPCC was invented. Habitat destruction and the loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest threats to climate and landscape stability. I beg your government to continue to lead the world in this sustainable endeavour.
In the words of a great mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer, “Don’t be scared be prepared”.
David Bellamy June 2007 |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:01 am |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
You're not going to trot out this whole MYTH thing again, are you?
Unbelievable.
I'd like to know what rare wisdom you have that makes you think 99.9% of the world's scientists are wrong.
Here's what your illustrious author says more recently.
Bellamy: Flying not to blame for global warming
Thursday, June 26, 2008
James Clegg
Controversial environmental campaigner and botanist David Bellamy has claimed the world is getting colder and aviation should not be blamed for climate change.
An outspoken critic of claims that global warming is man-made, he was talking during Haven Holidays’ Big Green Weekend event last week, designed to promote eco-friendly domestic tourism.
“In the next 24 hours the amount of deforestation will pour the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as eight million people flying from Britain to America. So stop the logging and we can stop the problem,” he said.
“There is more proof that global warming is natural climate change and we have to adapt to it. In the past 17 years the temperature has actually gone down.”
What an f'ing idiot. He also claims there's more ice at the poles than ever before. LOL |
_________________
I'm no model lady. A model's just an imitation of the real thing. - Mae West |
|
|
Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:20 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
99%???? cmon Dem lets not get carried away 
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"
When: 10 AM, Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC
Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."
Folks should recall that this petition was first circulated in 1999 garnering more than 19,000 signatures. The alarmists discounted its significance because there were some duplicate names, and some of the signatories apparently weren't scientists -- or so the story goes.
With over 31,000 now on the list, all with degrees in science -- including 9,000 PhDs! -- what might this do to the nonsensical premise of there being a consensus concerning this issue?
Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:12 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
