Scientists Publicly Denounce Latest White House Climate Change Muzzling

Today, scientists are publicly denouncing the White House for the “censoring of science,” after it was uncovered earlier this week that significant edits were made to testimony prepared for a Senate hearing on the impact of climate change on health.

White House officials deleted key portions citing diseases that could flourish in a warmer climate.

“Dr. Gerberding is the lead of the premiere public health agency in the U.S.,” said Kim Knowlton, a science fellow on global warming and health at the National Resources Defense Council in New York. “It's shocking that she was not allowed to say in a public discussion some of these vital details.

“One has to wonder why was this is so threatening to the White House.”

New Scientist slamming the "skeptic scam"

Here's a New Scientist editorial pointing out the absurdity of Dr. S Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's recent PR campaign attacking the science of global warming.

It's behind a pay-per-view wall, so I've pulled a few quotes for those who don't have access to the whole article:

We need climate change sceptics. Not because they are right - at least not on the big issue of human culpability in recent warming - but because they ask hard questions that lead to deeper knowledge. What we do not need from them is misrepresentation and cynical trashing of scientists' work.”

NRSP's Tom Harris on the offensive after CBC "Denial Machine" rebroadcast last night

NASA video: astounding arctic sea ice melt

Here's new NASA satellite video showing the astounding loss of Arctic sea ice.

The Mike Tidwell Dilemma, Part I

What responsibility does an environmentalist and science defender have to criticize one of his or her political allies for inaccuracy and the incautious treatment of complex information?

Must we be equal opportunity critics in all cases, or should we blunt our barbs lest they injure our friends?


Subscribe to DeSmogBlog