As one who disbelieves the media-hyped consequences of a global climate warming trend because it appears to be based on faulty mathematical models and overblown estimates, projects and assumptions, it is disheartening to hear that the current Administration is actively engaged in turning scientific inquiry into advertisements for the Administration.

WE WANT THE TRUTH...

I want to see the peer-reviewed scientific studies of climatological phenomenon. I want to see the assumptions that are used in mathematical models. I want to see the data and draw my own reasoned conclusions. If global warming is a real problem, I want to know about it just as much as if it is some media-hyped partisan scheme to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich and increase governmental intrusion into the lives of its citizens.

What I don't want is a bozo like Al Gore telling me what I need to know. His information is neither scientific nor accurate and pushes a not-so-hidden agenda.

What I don't want is our Administration running a political shell game on testimony and reporting from its agencies tasked with discovering and disseminating the truth.

That's why the following article from the Associated Press is so disturbing.

"Heavy Editing Is Alleged In Climate Testimony"

"Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents."

"Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review."

"A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding's draft 'was eviscerated,' cut from 14 pages to four. The version presented to the Senate committee consisted of six pages."

"The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the review process, said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly 'heavy-handed.'"

"The deletions directed by the White House included details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC's analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels, according to one official who had seen the original version."

All of which makes we want to read the report. The public is paying for the research, the government works for the people, so barring any national defense considerations like highlighting a disease vector to be exploited with biological weapons, we should be reading the full and complete report -- not some redacted piece of fluff designed as an advertisement for the Administration and its sometime wayward policies.

But reports have a way of getting lost or silenced. Take the multi-million dollar Barrett Report which allegedly linked the Clinton White House to politically and illegally influencing both the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service to quash an investigation into a philandering HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and his mistress.

According to the Office of the Independent Counsel, David Barrett...

"The office of the independent counsel issued a press release along with the final report stating: An accurate title for the Report could be, 'What We Were Prevented from  Investigating'. After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded."

While we can understand why the Clinton Administration tried to limit the Cisneros fallout -- as just one of the many scandals of the day -- there is no reason, other than national security, why a report containing scientific information be withheld from the public.

What can YOU do?

Demand your elected officials and appointees refrain from coloring any report containing scientific information unless it is a matter of national defense.

Demand that the Administration as well as Congress refrain from hyper-partisan interpretation of scientific phenomena, research and findings.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Heavy Editing Is Alleged In Climate Testimony|Associated Press