Bush Administration Coverup Video

Tue, 2006-08-01 15:31Sarah Pullman
Sarah Pullman's picture

Bush Administration Coverup Video

There's a great video over at YouTube… which you can watch right here. Check this out if you're interested in whether or not the US government is involved in covering up the evidence about man-made global warming.

Previous Comments

The U.S. government spends a few billion dollars a year on climate change research. That is a funny way to run a cover up.

I watched that video and give it zero stars. Whomever made it wsas trying to peddle a silly theory that the U.S. presidential election in 2004 would have had a different outcome if the arctic climate report had been issued before the election. Anyone who feels the presidential election in 2004 would have been altered by that report has a coo-coo bird flying about in his head.

The report also points out that the people on this ice island have lived there for almost 4,000 years, and now they are going to have to evacuate the island because it is erroding at a rate of 10 to 25 feet a year. The election stuff is up to speculation and interpretation, no doubt, but how would a vocal “skeptic” as yourself account for the melting of this island?

Those are old people! Seriously, all the usual possibilities apply.

I am inclined to agree that this would not have been a swing issue in the 2004 election. But if it wasn’t, how do you explain the suppression of the report?

Also, I’m curious about “The U.S. government spends a few billion dollars a year on climate change research.” How do you reach that total? Does it include all information that might be useful in tracking climate change (i.e. weather reports)? Or is it limited to research proposals that were CC specific. And who’s making that judgment?

I’m not convinced it was suppressed. The report was created by a commission of something like 8 countries including such longtime American friends like Russia, and the chairman of the commission, who was not American, said it was not delayed because of the American election. It came out in November of 2004 in any case so if the chairman is lying, the suppression was very very brief, a few weeks at most. To me the suppression charage has the ring of politics about it. As to the money, the US Government appropriates funds annually for climate change research. It is a line item in the budget. The government has done this since a law was passed during the first Bush administration, in 1990, to create a climate change research initiative. The actual allocated dollars each year vary but the amount budgeted annually is very very high - several billion. Departments like the National Weather Service are funded through a different appropriation. The total US climate change budget is really much bigger than this sum, which I referenced because it was simpler to cite than figuring out total US climate change research spending. If you include such things as tax credits promoting hybrid vehicles and other things intended to lower emissions you get another huge number, I understand several billion more. There is a lot of information online about spending. This paragraph barely melts the iceberg.

… but again without a source:

“The actual allocated dollars each year vary but the amount budgeted annually is very very high - several billion.”

 I agree, that’s quite a bit of money. And I’d be grateful for a specific reference – any year, any reputable source – that shows many billions of dollars being spent on climate change research.

You claim a ‘scientific consensus.’ Where you thinking of three absentminded professors in a garage somewhere, living off bologna sandwiches and a stipend from a maiden aunt? Maybe atmospheric temperatures are taken by latter day Benjamin Franklins flying homemade kites with little thermometers attached to them? Your ‘consensus’ should be made of sterner stuff.

These budget numbers are not a secret.

I stuck in ‘climate’ at the White House website just for you and got these, but there is a great deal more-



I went to Google for you



The US Congress website Thomas has appropriations information also. You do not need me to tutor you. The information is there. Just reach for it.

These are big numbers - well-padded by $5-billion nuclear fusion adventures that have little to do with conventional climate change research - but big numbers, nevertheless.

And I grant that there is inevitable inflationary pressure on this kind of line-item spending whenever an issue is, if you’ll excuse the expression, hot. Bureaucrats and researchers who were laboring away at some vaguely related task suddenly recast their work as “climate change research” and try to get on the bandwagon. Every government budget cruncher should be on guard for such manipulation (although the current administration appears to be aiding and abetting - adding every side-line item to the CC research total to make it look like they are taking the file seriously).

But I still find it incredible (by which diplomatic-sounding word, you may infer the meaning: bullshit) that there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to invent a non-existent climate crisis. You are implying that the entire international academic community is intellectually corrupt. You’re proposing, in effect, that they would fudge their data in hopes of creating or sustaining a resarch-funding gravy train.

I am not so naive as to believe that the world is free from intellectual corruption (see any recent post on the National Centre for Public Policy Research), but let’s talk motive: While the best route to scientific success is to do really, really good science, the ONLY route to ExxonMobile’s success is to sell more oil – and to stand in the way of any initiative that might compromise the fossil fuel market potential.

You’re a clever interlocutor: you tell me which team is more likely to cheat on their finals.


In December 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released long-awaited coal ash safety standards designed to increase the reliability of coal ash disposal sites. These standards had been years in the making, but stopped short of classifying coal ash as a hazardous waste material, which many advocates had been hoping for....

read more