Thursday, October 25, 2007

White House Censorship Of Global Warming Science Nothing New

By MARC MCDONALD

The White House has come under fire for censoring congressional testimony on the public health challenges of global warming.

But it's not the first time the Bush administration has tried to censor the inconvenient truths of global warming.

In October 2004, NASA's top climate scientist revealed that a senior administration official told him in 2003 not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures.

The New York Times reported in January 2006 that the NASA scientist, James E. Hansen, said the Bush administration tried to stop him from speaking out after he called for "prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming."

The Bush White House's war on global warming science continues to this day.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported the White House "severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents."

No one should be surprised that the Bush White House is lying about global warming and is furiously working to censor the science. After all, George W. Bush is in the pocket of the oil corporations and other Fortune 500 companies who put him in power (and which fiercely oppose any government action on global warming).

What's amazing, though, is despite the lies, spin and misinformation pumped out by Bush (and the rest of the NeoCon propaganda machine), the American people are STILL alarmed by global warming and want the government to step in and deal with the crisis.

For example, a survey taken last year by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University revealed that almost seven in 10 Americans say the government should do more to address global warming. And what do you want to bet that those remaining 30 percent are the same Kool-Aid drinkers who get all their news from Rush and Fox?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Instead of spending $2.4 trillion on the Iraq War disaster, we could have used that money to convert our economy over to solar and wind power and thus could have completely weaned our nation off of Middle East oil forever.
But try explaining that to a right-wing "Let's kill all the Sand Niggers and nuke Mecca" knuckle-dragging, Rush-listening Republican.

Anonymous said...

Gee, all that money so we can have power only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Let's start thinking nuclear.

Marc McDonald said...

re:
>>Gee, all that money so we can
>>have power only when the sun is
>>shining or the wind is blowing.
>>Let's start thinking nuclear.

You Rush Ditto-Heads really love nuclear power---and it's clear why. You associate it with "Liberal" anti-nuke protests back in the 80s.
One thing you don't realize, though, is that the general public was alarmed by nukes, not just "liberals."
I think most people weren't necessarily against all nuclear power---just poorly run nuclear power plants.
Another thing you don't seem to realize is that the U.S. is already "thinking nuclear." Nukes are on the verge of a big comeback in the U.S.--although the new plants will be built by Japanese companies, (as the U.S. has frittered away its high-tech manufacturing base since the 80s).