Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion | |
|
Author: Oropan |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:36:51 12/12/07 Wed In reply to: Mo' Green 's message, "House Oversight Committee "Describes Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science" Link provided unlike some posts." on 12:12:26 12/11/07 Tue The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom By SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007 Comments Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks. The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind. Adrift: Polar bears on melting iceberg "Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace". "It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. "If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. "Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken." Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said. He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet. The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations. His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped. A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change. But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon. Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right. In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion. In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius. "The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced. >For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and >Government Reform Committee has been investigating >allegations of political interference with government >climate change science under the Bush Administration. >During the course of this investigation, the Committee >obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White >House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the >Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, >and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the >information made available to the Committee has never >been publicly disclosed. > >This report presents the findings of the Committee’s >investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads >to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration >has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate >climate change science and mislead policymakers and >the public about the dangers of global warming. > >In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an >internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: >“Victory will be achieved when … average citizens >‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] >recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the >‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has >acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan >were its mission statement. White House officials and >political appointees in the agencies censored >congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of >global warming, controlled media access to government >climate scientists, and edited federal scientific >reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into >discussions of climate change and to minimize the >threat to the environment and the economy. > >The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists >The White House exerted unusual control over the >public statements of federal scientists on climate >change issues. It was standard practice for media >requests to speak with federal scientists on climate >change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House >approval. By controlling which government scientists >could respond to media inquiries, the White House >suppressed dissemination of scientific views that >could conflict with Administration policies. The White >House also edited congressional testimony regarding >the science of climate change. > >Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the >Committee: “Our communications people would render a >view as to whether someone should give an interview or >not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, >a career public affairs officer at the National >Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests >related to climate change issues were handled >differently from other requests because “I would have >to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice >was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. >Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the >Department of Commerce not want scientists who >believed that climate change was increasing hurricane >activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There >was a consistent approach that might have indicated >that.” > >White House officials and agency political appointees >also altered congressional testimony regarding the >science of climate change. The changes to the recent >climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the >Director of the Centers for Disease Control and >Prevention, have received considerable attention. A >year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of >National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the >House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also >heavily edited by both White House officials and >political appointees at the Commerce Department. He >was not allowed to say in his written testimony that >“modern climate change is dominated by human >influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown >territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is >very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are >largely responsible for many of the observed changes >in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is >playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity >became “may play.” > >The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change >Reports >There was a systematic White House effort to minimize >the significance of climate change by editing climate >change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and >other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the >Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change >Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific >uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the >importance of the human role in global warming. > >The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft >Report on the Environment that were so extreme that >the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate >change section of the report. One such edit was the >inclusion of a reference to a discredited, >industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice >President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to >begin to refer to this study in Administration >communications on the science of global climate >change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held >by many in the climate science community that the past >century was the warmest in the past millennium and >signals of human induced ‘global warming.’” > >In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went >beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate >change section of the report. > >Other White House Actions >The White House played a major role in crafting the >August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to >regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James >Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. >When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of >Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the >last several decades are likely mostly due to human >activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes >are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal >case being made.” The first line of another internal >CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA >legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The >final opinion incorporating the White House edits was >rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in >Massachusetts v. EPA. > >The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA >Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it >followed the White House line on climate change. >Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating >an unsupported assertion that millions of American >jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were >ratified. > > >href="http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653">htt >p://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| Subject | Author | Date |
| The Pope?? "84 percent of evangelicals support legislation to reduce global warming pollution levels" | Mo' Green | 11:31:17 12/13/07 Thu |
|
||
| Re: a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion | billvon | 09:15:08 12/14/07 Fri |
|
||