-
-
-
-
- dcsmitty
- added this
- added October 24, 2007
- flag
-
Here is the full version, with the edited bits highlighted for easy reading!
-
Are we honestly suprised those climate crisis deniers in the White House wanted this information cut? Thank you for the above link, abbym0308
-
-
-
-
- The_Awesome
- 1 year ago
-
-
This is nothing more than hyped up trash. dcsmitty... did you actually read what got cut from the report?
Everything that was cut dealt with conjecture. Your critical thinking skills should have helped you notice the use of words such as "predicted", "anticipated", "may", and the repeated use of "likely".
The text that remained in the report contained details of what the CDC is actively doing to prepare for the murky future.
Shouldn't all reports in the public record deal with fact instead of conjecture?
-
Well look, they even sent out their Press Secretary to state that there will be good things happening because of global warming.They will do anything to protect their interests no matter the consequences... which in this case is truly stupid because the consequences will effect them as well.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 1 year ago
-
-
According to a White House spokesman, Gerberding's testimony was altered not because it contradicted the President's ideology, but because it did not match science produced by the International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations commission convened to produce scientific consensus on global warming. Now, according to the IPCC, warmer and more frequent hot days and nights are "virtually certain," and it's likely that "future tropical cyclones will become more intense." Gerberding also wanted to warn us that future hurricanes could disrupt sewage treatment plants and taint water supplies, exposing large numbers of Americans to deadly diseases.
And the U.N. report? It issues the very same warning, citing the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "where contamination of water supplies with fecal bacteria led to many cases of diarrheal illness and some deaths."
On every point, Gerberding's testimony coincides with the IPCC report. It was censored not because it contradicted accepted science, but because it reflected that science.
-
Timesunion.com classifies Jay Bookman's piece as "OPINION". Let's stick to the primary sources.
Mr. Bookman appears to have been referencing Dana Perino's 10/24 press briefing:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071024-8.html
(Search "Back on the CDC testimony" to get to the relevant bits)The most telling quote is:
"Q Can you just describe what the problem was? I mean, was it going too far? Were these alarmist --
MS. PERINO: No, I think what it is, is when you take -- when you try to summarize what is a very complicated issue and you have many different experts who have a lot of opinions, and you get testimony less than 24 hours before it's going to be given, you -- scientists across the administration were taking a look at it, and there were a decision that she would focus where she is an expert, which is on CDC. "
As I said in my first post, everything that was cut from the original text was fluff. It read like conjecture and contained all manner of "hedge" words.
Think of it this way: Imagine that Julie L. Gerberding was to write a piece on the painting techniques of Degas. She turns in a 14 page report consisting of two sections: a ten page section on the mores of French Ballet, and a 4 page section about the painting techniques of Degas.
Sure both sections are related... but the ten page section isn't relevant.
I love Current TV because it deals with primary sources, and I'm worried that the website will have a hard time taking off if people burden it with the horrifically banal.
Where is the journalistic skepticism?
