Full Version of White House "Edited" CDC Climate Report - with highlights!

“Edits” does not even come close to describing the grammatical massacre the White House undertook with CDC Director Julie Gerberding's Senate testimony on the public health effects of climate change.

These were not minor edits the White House PR spin machine would like us to believe. The word-count for the CDC Director's Senate testimony went from 3,107 to 1,500 after the White House got through with it.

Whole sections on health related effects to extreme weather, air pollution-related health effect, allergic diseases, water and food-borne infectious diseases, food and water scarcity and the long term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects were completely wiped out of the testimony.

Here's the unedited testimony, with the “edits” in highlighted in red:

Climate Change and Public Health Statement of Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Administrator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 am Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Introduction Good morning Madam Chairwoman, Senator Inhofe, and other distinguished members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Nation’s leading public health protection agency located within the Department of Health and Human Services. Thank you for the opportunity to present on climate change and human health and to highlight the role of CDC in preparing for and responding to the health effects of climate change. Background

The health of all individuals is influenced by the health of people, animals, and the environment around us. Many trends within this larger, interdependent ecologic system influence public health on a global scale, including climate change. The public health response to such trends requires a holistic understanding of disease and the various external factors influencing public health. It is within this larger context where the greatest challenges and opportunities for protecting and promoting public health occur.

Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth’s climate is changing. A broad array of organizations (federal, state, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and nongovernmental) is working to address climate change. Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.

Climate Change is a Public Health Concern

In the United States, climate change is likely to have a significant impact on health, through links with the following outcomes:

• Direct effects of heat,

• Health effects related to extreme weather events,

• Air pollution-related health effects,

• Allergic diseases,

• Water- and food-borne infectious diseases,

• Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases,

• Food and water scarcity, at least for some populations,

• Mental health problems, and

• Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects

The United States is a developed country with a variety of climates. Because of its well developed health infrastructure, and the greater involvement of government and nongovernmental agencies in disaster planning and response, the health effects from climate change are expected to be less significant than in the developing world. Nevertheless, many Americans will likely experience difficult challenges.

Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly; the U.S. population is anticipated to continue to age and move to vulnerable locations such as coastal areas, increasing exposures to specific risks; and concurrent challenges such as water scarcity in certain regions could limit our resilience. In addition, climate change is likely to alter the current geographic distribution of some vector-borne and zoonotic diseases; some may become more frequent, widespread, and outbreaks could last longer, while others could be reduced in incidence.

Heat Stress and Direct Thermal Injury

One of the most likely climate change projections is an increase in frequency of hot days, hot nights, and heat waves. The United States is expected to see an increase in the severity, duration, and frequency of extreme heat waves. This, coupled with an aging population, increases the likelihood of higher mortality as the elderly are more vulnerable to dying from exposure to excessive heat. Midwestern and northeastern cities are at greatest risk, as heat-related illness and death appear to be related to exposure to temperatures much hotter than those to which the population is accustomed.

Extreme Weather Events

Climate change is anticipated to alter the frequency, timing, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and floods. The health effects of these extreme weather events range from loss of life and acute trauma, to indirect effects such as loss of home, large-scale population displacement, damage to sanitation infrastructure (drinking water and sewage systems), interruption of food production, damage to the health-care infrastructure, and psychological problems such as post traumatic stress disorder. Displacement of individuals often results in disruption of health care, of particular concern for those with underlying chronic diseases. Future climate projections also show likely increases in the frequency of heavy rainfall events, posing an increased risk of flooding events and overwhelming of sanitation infrastructure.

Air Pollution-Related Health Effects

Climate change can affect air quality by modifying local weather patterns and pollutant concentrations, affecting natural sources of air pollution, and promoting the formation of secondary pollutants. Of particular concern is the impact of increased temperature and UV radiation on ozone formation. Some studies have shown that higher surface temperatures, especially in urban areas, encourage the formation of ground-level ozone.

As a primary ingredient of smog, ground-level ozone is a public health concern. Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, and inflame and damage cells that line the lungs. In addition, it may cause permanent lung damage and aggravate chronic lung diseases.

Allergic Diseases

Studies have shown that some plants, such as ragweed and poison ivy, grow faster and produce more allergens under conditions of high carbon dioxide and warm weather. As a result, allergic diseases and symptoms could worsen with climate change.

Water- and Food-borne Infectious Diseases

Altered weather patterns resulting from climate change are likely to affect the distribution and incidence of food- and water-borne diseases. Changes in precipitation, temperature, humidity, and water salinity have been shown to affect the quality of water used for drinking, recreation, and commercial use. For example, outbreaks of Vibrio bacteria infections following the consumption of seafood and shellfish have been associated with increases in temperatures. Heavy rainfall has also been implicated as a contributing factor in the overloading and contamination of drinking water treatment systems, leading to illness from organisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

Storm water runoff from heavy precipitation events can also ncrease fecal bacterial counts in coastal waters as well as nutrient load, which, coupled with increased sea-surface temperature, can lead to increases in the frequency and range of harmful algal blooms (red tides) and potent marine biotoxins such as ciguatera fish poisoning.

Vector-borne and Zoonotic Diseases

Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, such as plague, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, and dengue fever have been shown to have a distinct seasonal pattern, suggesting that they are weather sensitive. Climate change-driven ecological changes, such as variations in rainfall and temperature, could significantly alter the range, seasonality, and human incidence of many zoonotic and vector-borne diseases. More study is required to fully understand all the implications of ecological variables necessary to predict climate change effects on vector-borne and zoonotic diseases.

Moderating factors such as housing quality, land-use patterns, and vector control programs make it unlikely that these climate changes will have a major impact on tropical diseases such as malaria and dengue fever spreading into the United States. However, climate change could aid in the establishment of exotic vector-borne diseases imported into the United States.

Food Scarcity

Climate change is predicted to alter agricultural production, both directly and indirectly. This may lead to scarcity of some foods, increase food prices, and threaten access to food for Americans who experience food insecurity.

Mental Health Problems

Some Americans may suffer anxiety, depression, and similar symptoms in anticipating climate change and/or in coping with its effects. Moreover, the aftermath of severe events may include post-traumatic stress and related problems, as was seen after Hurricane Katrina. These conditions are difficult to quantify but may have significant effects of health and well-being.

Climate Change Vulnerability

The effects of climate change will likely vary regionally and by population. The northern latitudes of the United States are expected to experience the largest increases in average temperatures; these areas also will likely bear the brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated airborne pollutants. Populations in mid-western and northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity, and duration.

Coastal regions will likely experience essentially uniform risk of sea level rise, but different rates of coastal erosion, wetlands destruction, and topography are expected to result in dramatically different regional effects of sea level rise. Distribution of animal hosts and vectors may change; in many cases, ranges could extend northward and increase in elevation.

For some pathogens associated with wild animals, such as rodents and hantavirus, ranges will change based on precipitation changes. The west coast of the United States is expected to experience significant strains on water supplies as regional precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution, and duration. The health effects of climate change on a given community will depend not only on the particular exposures it faces, but also on the underlying health status, age distribution, health care access, and socioeconomic status of its residents.

Local response capacity will also be important. As with other environmental hazards, members of certain ethnic and racial minority groups will likely be disproportionately affected. For example, in low-lying coastal communities facing increasingly frequent and severe extreme precipitation events, there could be increased injuries, outbreaks of diarrheal disease, and harmful algal blooms; saltwater may intrude into freshwater tables and infrastructure is likely to be damaged by severe storms, hampering economic recovery.

In certain Southern coastal communities with little economic reserve, declining industry, difficulty accessing health care, and a greater underlying burden of disease, these stressors could be overwhelming. Similarly, in an urban area with increasingly frequent and severe heat waves, certain groups are expected to be more affected: the home-bound, elderly, poor, athletes, and minority and migrant populations, and populations that live in areas with less green space and with fewer centrally air-conditioned buildings are all more vulnerable to heat stress. Some populations of Americans are more vulnerable to the health effects of climate change than others.

Children are at greater risk of worsening asthma, allergies, and certain infectious diseases, and the elderly are at higher risk for health effects due to heat waves, extreme weather events, and exacerbations of chronic disease.

In addition, people of lower socioeconomic status are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups suffer particularly from air pollution as well as inadequate health care access, while athletes and those who work outdoors are more at risk from air pollution, heat, and certain infectious diseases.

Given the differential burden of climate change’s health effects on certain populations, public health preparedness for climate change must include vulnerability assessments that identify the most vulnerable populations with the most significant health disparities and anticipate their risks for particular exposures. At the same time, health communication targeting these vulnerable populations must be devised and tested, and early warning systems focused on vulnerable communities should be developed. With adequate notice and a vigorous response, the ill health effects of many exposures from climate change can be dampened.

Public Health Preparedness for Climate Change

Climate change is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans and the nation’s public health infrastructure. As the nation’s public health agency, CDC is uniquely poised to lead efforts to anticipate and respond to the health effects of climate change.

Preparedness for the health consequences of climate change aligns with traditional public health contributions, and – like preparedness for terrorism and pandemic influenza – reinforces the importance of a strong public health infrastructure. CDC’s expertise and programs in the following areas provide the strong platform needed:

• Environmental Public Health Tracking: CDC has a long history of tracking occurrence and trends in diseases and health outcomes. CDC is pioneering new ways to understand the impacts of environmental hazards on people’s health. For example, CDC’s Environmental Public Health Tracking Program has funded several states to build a health surveillance system that integrates environmental exposures and human health outcomes. This system, the Tracking Network, will go live in 2008, providing information on how health is affected by environmental hazards. The Tracking Network will contain critical data on the incidence, trends, and potential outbreaks of diseases, including those affected by climate change.

• Surveillance of Water-borne, Food-borne, Vector-borne, and Zoonotic Diseases: CDC also has a long history of surveillance of infectious, zoonotic, and vector-borne diseases. Preparing for climate change will involve working closely with state and local partners to document whether potential changes in climate have an impact on infectious and other diseases and to use this information to help protect Americans from the potential change in of a variety of dangerous water-borne, food-borne, vector-borne, and zoonotic diseases.

CDC has developed ArboNet, the national arthropod-borne viral disease tracking system. Currently, this system supports the nationwide West Nile virus surveillance system that links all 50 states and four large metropolitan areas to a central database that records and maps cases in humans and animals and would detect changes in real-time in the distribution and prevalence of cases of arthropod-borne viral diseases.

CDC also supports the major foodborne surveillance and investigative networks of FoodNet and PulseNet which rapidly identify and provide detailed data on cases of foodborne illnesses, on the organisms that cause them, and on the foods that are the sources of infection. Altered weather patterns resulting from climate change are likely to affect the distribution and incidence of food- and water-borne diseases, and these changes can be identified and tracked through PulseNet.

• Geographic Information System (GIS): At the CDC, GIS technology has been applied in unique and powerful ways to a variety of public health issues. It has been used in data collection, mapping, and communication to respond to issues as wide-ranging and varied as the World Trade Center collapse, avian flu, SARS, and Rift Valley fever. In addition, GIS technology was used to map issues of importance during the CDC response to Hurricane Katrina. This technology represents an additional tool for the public health response to climate change.

• Modeling: Currently sophisticated models to predict climate and heat exist. For example, CDC has conducted heat stroke modeling for the city of Philadelphia to predict the most vulnerable populations at risk for hyperthermia. Modeling and forecasting represent an important preparedness strategy, in that it can help predict and respond to the most pressing health vulnerabilities at the state and local level. Armed with modeling data, we can target response plans for heat and other extreme weather events to the most vulnerable communities and populations.

• Preparedness Planning: Just as we prepare for terrorism and pandemic influenza, we should use these principles and prepare for health impacts from climate change. For example, to respond to the multiple threats posed by heat waves, the urban environment, and climate change, CDC scientists have focused prevention efforts on developing tools that local emergency planners and decision-makers can use to prepare for and respond to heat waves. In collaboration with other Federal partners, CDC participated in the development of an Excessive Heat Events Guidebook, which provides a comprehensive set of guiding principle and a menu of options for cities and localities to use in the development of Heat Response Plans.

These plans clearly define specific roles and responsibilities of government and non-governmental organizations during heat waves. They identify local populations at increased high risk for heat-related illness and death and determine which strategies will be used to reach them during heat emergencies.

• Training and Education of Public Health Professionals – Preparing for the health consequences of climate change requires that professionals have the skills required to conceptualize the impending threats, integrate a wide variety of public health and other data in surveillance activities, work closely with other agencies and sectors, and provide effective health communication for vulnerable populations regarding the evolving threat of climate change. CDC is holding a series of five workshops to further explore key dimensions of climate change and public health, including drinking water, heat waves, health communication, vector-borne illness, and vulnerable populations.

• Health Protection Research: CDC can promote research to further elucidate the specific relationships between climate change and various health outcomes, including predictive models and evaluations of interventions. Research efforts can also identify the magnitude of health effects and populations at greatest risk.

For example, CDC has conducted research on the relationship between hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and rainfall, as well as research assessing the impact of climate variability and climate change on temperature-related morbidity and mortality. This information will help enable public health action to be targeted and will help determine the best methods of communicating risk. CDC can serve as a credible source of information on health risks and actions that individuals can take to reduce their risk. In addition, CDC has several state-of-the-art laboratories conducting research on such issues as chemicals and human exposure, radiological testing, and infectious diseases. This research capacity is an asset in working to more fully understand the health consequences of climate change.

Communication: CDC has expertise in health and risk communication, and has deployed this expertise in areas as diverse as smoking, HIV infection, and cancer screening. Effective communication can alert the public to health risks associated with climate change, avoid inappropriate responses, and encourage constructive protective behaviors. While CDC can offer technical support and expertise in these and other activities, much of this work needs to be carried out at the state and local level.

For example, CDC can support climate change preparedness activities in public health agencies, and climate change and health research in universities, as is currently practiced for a variety of other health challenges.


An effective public health response to climate change can prevent injuries, illnesses, and death and enhance overall public health preparedness. Protecting Americans from the health effects of climate change directly correlates to CDC’s four overarching Health Protection Goals of Healthy People in Every Stage of Life, Healthy People in Healthy Places, People Prepared for Emerging Health Threats, and Healthy People in a Healthy World. While we still need more focus and emphasis on public health preparedness for climate change, many of our existing programs and scientific expertise provide a solid foundation to move forward. Many of the activities needed to protect Americans from the health effects of climate change are mutually beneficial for overall public health.

In addition, health and the environment are closely linked, as strongly demonstrated by the issue of climate change. Because of this linkage it is also important that potential health effects of environmental solutions be fully considered.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony on the potential health effects of global climate change and for your continued support of CDC’s essential public health work.

DeSmogBlog is a registered non-profit, and we count on reader's donations to help us do what we do. So donate today, $10, $25, heck even $5,000 and help us keep hosting great US science writers like Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science and Stormworld and award-winning writers like Bill McKibben and Ross Gelbspan. 


Not a whole lot left, is there? Why bother to testify? It’s especially disturbing to think that for every instance such as this that gets reported there are probably all kinds of situations as bad or worse. Chris Mooney outlined similar censorship in Storm World that amounted to preventing scientists from speaking at all.

… some excuse like EDITED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS. You know, the usual sorta stuff.

Kevin, please cross-post this at dailyKos. Drop me an e-mail when you do.

(Note: the tag doesn’t work over there, but you can do tables with background colors, but tables with background colors do.)

well the whitehouse, did it again.. LIED; in their response to the public!!

Does it really surprise you??? SHOULDN’T.. they lie to us and we just recess back to forgetting that it happened.



So I suppose when a news editor edits a story that’s “lying”, eh? Well, the national media is decidedly liberal (December 2005 UCLA Study, “A Measure of Media Bias”) so I guess most liberal editors and journalists are liars.

Now maybe I’m missing something here, but wasn’t this testimony publicly given before the Senate? And if comments were redacted after said public testimony, then what the hell is your beef?

Man-made global warming is little more than a religious cult now and I for one believe there should be separation of religion and state, aren’t you?


And nothing says bias more than citing a discredited UCLA study by a political scientist and economist with unquestionable conservative affiliations who have received funding through major conservative think tanks and erroneously quantify “media bias” by the precept that if a think tank is cited by a member of congress and that think tank cites a news organization, then that news organization has a bias that is an ideological reflection of that congressional member who cited that specific think tank, who cited that news org. Not only perplexing but downright freaky! And only in this warped precept can the ACLU be labeled “conservative” and Rand Corp., with their DOD ties, be “liberal.” And, that’s just one problem, of the many, with this specific study.

You are missing a lot of “something.” The limited CDC testimony came first, leading to the discovery of the redacted original testimony and thus qualifying as “censorship.” Limiting or denying someone the right to say what they want to say before they can even utter a word is the classic definition of censorship and it is a Constitutional and ethical abomination … especially when it interferes with the CDC’s obligation (and job, no less) of informing the public of potential health threats.

And calling a consensus of scientists a “religious cult” doesn’t make your argument fair any better and confuses the ideology behind a separation of church and state.


Am I grateful I never had children?

oh yeah.

UN warning on climate change threat”
23 hours ago
The international community must respond more quickly to climate change, species extinction, dwindling supplies of fresh water and other threats to the planet, the UN has warned.

In a report, titled the Global Environment Outlook, the UN Environment Programme said nations still fail to recognise the seriousness of environmental threats to the planet.

Prepared by 390 experts, the report reviews progress made since a similar report in 1987 which laid the groundwork for studying major environmental issues affecting the planet.

The global response in the two decades since the 1987 report “has in some cases been courageous and inspiring,” the programme’s executive director Achim Steiner said.

“But all too often it has been slow and at a pace and scale that fails to respond to or recognise the magnitude of the challenges facing the people and the environment of the planet.”

Climate change is a global priority that demands political leadership, but there has been “a remarkable lack of urgency” in the response, which the report characterised as “woefully inadequate.”

The report outlined other global problems, including declining fish stocks and the loss of fertile land through degradation.

Human activity has reached an unsustainable level, outstripping available resources, it said.

By 2050, the world’s population could reach between 8 billion and 10 billion, up from about 6.7 billion, the report said.

The report - which took five years to prepare - found progress in the reduction in the production of ozone-layer damaging chemicals since the 1987 report.”
Humanity’s survival at stake: UN
A man holds a fishing net in a river near a cement plant in Baokang, central China’s Hubei province, October 2007. China’s leaders, who long treated nature as a foe to conquer, now fear that dirty air and water threaten stability and growth.

Report sends decision-makers `urgent call for action’ as climate and pollution crises intensify
Oct 26, 2007 04:30 AM, Peter Gorrie, ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Earth’s environment has tumbled downhill to the point where “humanity’s very survival” is at stake, a branch of the United Nations said yesterday.

The response by governments, industries and individuals has been “woefully inadequate,” states the latest Global Environment Outlook from the UN Environment Program.

World leaders must push the environment “to the core of decision-making” to tackle the worsening crisis, the outlook states.

“The need couldn’t be more urgent and the time couldn’t be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations.”

The 572-page report was issued yesterday, 20 years after a commission headed by former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland published Our Common Future, which urged a shift to “sustainable development.”

During those two decades, progress has been achieved on a few “straightforward” problems such as local air and water pollution, the new outlook says.

But, “there are no major issues raised (in the 1987 document) for which the foreseeable trends are favourable. Failures include climate change, extinction of species, water shortages and destruction of ocean fish stocks.”

Brundtland’s commission recommended that, since they are so closely linked, the environment, economic and social issues must be integrated into any decisions about development, so it occurs in a way that protects the environment.

That hasn’t happened, states the outlook, compiled by 390 experts from observations, studies and data gathered since 1987.

The result is not only that “in too many countries, environmental policy remains secondary to economic growth,” but also that environmental degradation is undermining economic development and “threatens all aspects of human well-being.”

“There have been enough wake-up calls since Brundtland. I sincerely hope (this) is the final one,” UNEP executive director Achim Steiner said in London.

“The systematic destruction of the Earth’s natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the … viability of economies is being challenged – and where the bill we hand on to our children may prove impossible to pay.”

The new report’s authors state that their aim “is not to present a dark and gloomy scenario, but an urgent call for action.”

But because the main environmental concerns are complex and there’s little appetite for anything that upsets the status quo, solutions will be hard to come by, they say.

“The scale of the challenge is huge.”

The report also calls for environmental justice – “perhaps the greatest moral question emerging in relation to environmental change and sustainable development.

“Growing evidence indicates that the burden of environmental change is falling far from the greatest consumers of environmental resources, who experience the benefits of development.”

Meanwhile, “people living in poverty in the developing world, suffer the negative effects of environmental degradation.”

As well: “Costs of environmental degradation will be experienced by … future generations.”

Action is urgently required on all these issues, the report states. “Determined action now is cheaper than waiting for better solutions to emerge.”

A major obstacle is resistance by governments and polluting industries, the outlook states.

“We appear to be living in an era in which the severity of environmental problems is increasing faster than our policy responses. To avoid the threat of catastrophic consequences in the future, we need new policy approaches.”

It’s crucial to move environmental concerns to the centre of decision-making. Instead of trying to clean up environmental damage, the focus should be on reducing the causes, including economic and population growth, ravenous resource consumption and social values, the report says.

That can be done through measures such as “green” taxes and economic measures that, unlike now, assign values to Earth’s resources and the costs of pollution and other damage.

Environment Minister John Baird was not available for comment, but said in a statement that the report “confirms that Canada’s government is on the right track as it identifies that climate change, energy usage and clean accessible water are some of the key challenges facing North America.”

Spread Love…
… but wear the Glove!

BlueBerry Pick’n
can be found @
“We, two, form a Multitude” ~ Ovid.
“Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced”

Because you guys are too funny.

… are directly responsible for having increased your own carbon footprint at least 200%.

Thanks for nothing.

Most of what was edited out is purely speculative and not backed up by good science. For example, there is no proven correlation between global warming and hurricanes. In fact, there were more hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century, when temperatures were lower, than in the latter half. Specifically, there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed. Data from Dr William Gray, foremost hurricane forecaster in the world. The last 2 years have seen dramatic reductions in the number and intensity of hurricanes. So how can she justify dire warnings about health impacts of worsening hurricanes when there is no evidence to indicate such storms will be a reality in the coming years?

Our govt. is evil. Our govt. is controlled by an entity/s, “not from this world.”

The planet NIBIRU is coming back through our solar system, and will be upon us within the next few years. Everyone knows something is happening, that is why more stories like this will continue to escalate in coming to the surface (truth).

There is going to be MASS deaths on a planetary scale/s and our GOVT./NASA etc, knows about this, but they want people to die on mass levels because it will be easier for them to control people.

Search your souls, believe nothing that they tell us about anything. This is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE going on, and we have forgotten where we came from and about ONE CREATOR, because the demonic forces of our planet are controlling and lieing to us.

Over the next several years, there will be MASS DESTRUCTION. No one wants to hear this and are and will negate these facts.. But you will soon see, That there is more to life… Than just living..

Lets fight for the TRUTH, and not let our GOVT. control us, like they are doing. This article is SOOOOO important; it totally portrays how secretive they are right now and always have been. They know whats coming, and are doing nothing to tell the public where to go, to be safe.

Do your research! And together, lets lead eachother to the light; for a better world, a better humanity and a better UNIVERSE.


Hey, wow, you combine alien planet theories with religion and devil cultism… the shear viscosity of your thought process amazes me. Heaven’s Gate anyone?

What? No alternate dimensions? Visitors from future timelines? or hell, maybe some good old fashioned magic beans?

Close your eyes, and repeat this mantra 5000 times. “I am not a fool” Perhaps it will come true. Doubtful, but perhaps.

Don’t drink the kool-aid, man.

I reread the passage in red, and did not find it to speak mostly about “worsening hurricanes” and their health effects, as Jerry asserts. I read that the greatest danger was the effect of hot days, hot nights, and heatwaves, upon the elderly. Also, Jerry, if we cannot be “purely speculative”, we cannot speak about the future at all. Surely, when speakers address the future, we all understand that speculation is involved. Who has been more speculative about the future (of Iraq) than President Bush?

The quantity of hurricanes is not as important as the severity of the hurricanes taking place. I cant say I’ve done research on this matter, but if your going to show me 101 category 1-2 hurricanes vs 83 1-5 hurricanes, it becomes obvious that judging the situation on just quantity of hurricanes is flawed.

I have lived in Florida for 25 years (born here), and I can tell you that if you have ever lived through a hurricane you would not be advertising such a twisted statistic to convince people on your point of view.

I would willingly put myself through 5 category one-two hurricanes before I would ever have to go through another category four-five.

No one doubts that hurricanes derive much of their energy from heat stored in the ocean. Increase the temperature = increase the amount of fuel. Duh.


‘October 3, 2005
Scientists monitoring ocean heat and circulation in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have a new understanding of how these tropical storms can gain intensity so quickly: The Gulf of Mexico’s “Loop Current” is likely intensifying hurricanes that pass over eddies of warm water that spin off the main current.

National Science Foundation:



‘Hurricane forecasters rely on daily sea surface temperatures to determine the behavior of tropical cyclones, the general name for tropical depressions, tropical storms, typhoons and hurricanes. Sea surface temperatures must be at least 82 degrees Fahrenheit (28 degrees Celsius) for a tropical cyclone to develop and maintain itself. If there are no winds to tear a storm apart, warm ocean waters often allow a tropical cyclone to strengthen, since it is the primary “fuel” for development.”

Science Daily …adapted from a news release issued by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.



Researchers link human activities to rising ocean temperatures in hurricane formation regions

LIVERMORE, Calif. — New research shows that rising sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in hurricane “breeding grounds” of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are unlikely to be purely natural in origin. These findings complement earlier work that uncovered compelling scientific evidence of a link between warming SSTs and increases in hurricane intensity.



Human Activities Are Boosting Ocean Temperatures in Areas Where Hurricanes Form, New Study Finds

“We’ve used virtually all the world’s climate models to study the causes of SST changes in hurricane formation regions,” Santer says.

Research published during the past year has uncovered evidence of a link between rising ocean temperatures and increases in hurricane intensity. This has raised concerns about the causes of the rising temperatures, particularly in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific where hurricanes and other tropical cyclones form.



Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions]

“Previous research has identified links between changes in sea surface temperature (SST) and hurricane intensity. We use climate models to study the possible causes of SST changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. The observed SST increases in these regions range from 0.32°C to 0.67°C over the 20th century.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602861103v1 etc.

Jerry states that “there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared with 83 from 1957 to 2006, when the earth warmed.”

What happened to the 1950’s???

For the years 1950 to 1956 I was able to locate information on at least 19 different hurricanes. Are you suggesting that those 19 did not matter?

Your statement that the last 2 years have seen a dramatic reduction is not supported by Dr. William Gray. In his Oct 2007 season update he states “Information obtained through 30 September 2007 shows that we have so far experienced a slightly above-average Atlantic basin hurricane season.”

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t above average mean more than normal?

Our govt. is evil. Our govt. is controlled by an entity/s, “not from this world.”

The planet NIBIRU is coming back through our solar system, and will be upon us within the next few years. Everyone knows something is happening, that is why more stories like this will continue to escalate in coming to the surface (truth).

There is going to be MASS deaths on a planetary scale/s and our GOVT./NASA etc, knows about this, but they want people to die on mass levels because it will be easier for them to control people.

Search your souls, believe nothing that they tell us about anything. This is a SPIRITUAL BATTLE going on, and we have forgotten where we came from and about ONE CREATOR, because the demonic forces of our planet are controlling and lieing to us.

Over the next several years, there will be MASS DESTRUCTION. No one wants to hear this and are and will negate these facts.. But you will soon see, That there is more to life… Than just living..

Lets fight for the TRUTH, and not let our GOVT. control us, like they are doing. This article is SOOOOO important; it totally portrays how secretive they are right now and always have been. They know whats coming, and are doing nothing to tell the public where to go, to be safe.

Do your research! And together, lets lead eachother to the light; for a better world, a better humanity and a better UNIVERSE.


1. Investigate
2. Impeach
3. Convict
4. Hang
5. History records Bush as a war criminal.

Well I am of the opinion that he did launch a war of aggression on another nation which by my understanding of the UN charter/convention (established following WW2) is considered a war crime. I have a feeling though somehow there is wiggle room in there in that when you are a world super power with a seat on the security council that point doesn’t matter so much. Russia in my opinion launched a few wars of aggression, on Chechnya (sp?) and Afghanistan before that…….I have a feeling history won’t be to kind to bush anyway.

– the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force – is grimly illustrated by this site, which brings together alien invasions, Global Warming hysteria, and Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Most amusing.

I’ll admit that this thread is wonky. But are you saying that Bush did not wage an aggressive war (war crime) against Iraq?

Yes, naturally President Bush is a “war criminal” – for carrying out the regime-change policy originated by, um, let’s see … oh yeah, now I remember – the Clinton/Gore administration.

And let’s not forget how Bush used his super-secret hurricane machine, hidden in the basement of The Whitehouse to create Katrina, since, as we all know, he hates black people.

Good to see you making no point what so ever again. Just to be sure you understand.

“Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.”

Hence the actual act of launching a war of aggression is a war crime, having a policy, a wish, a dream, and deep seeded desire, all bupkis its the launching of the war itself that is the crime.

In terms of the legality of the Iraq war, I’ll concede it has not be challenged at the UN. However,

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it (the war) was illegal.”


“Richard Perle, a senior member of the Bush Administration’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified.”

So what does any of that have to do with hurricanes, and black people, or are you incapable of actually making a point?

I see that Syria offered to buy Korean Nuke materials, gee “Do you suppose that they might have done this before??? (like say maybe oooh…I don’t know, maybe…..Saddam?)You are a little short-sighted, but do not fret…..you are in a large club.

RE: “Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime.”


So when are we going to pack up Obama and send him to the hague’s ICC

1) Murdering innocent men women and children in Pakistan (a nation that we are at peace with) by means of predator missiles aimed deliberately at dwellings where presumed innocents lived. These people had the right of presumed innocence while at sleep in their homes and were not engaged in any hostilities towards the US or its people.

This it seems to me should carry the same penalty that was extracted by Nuremberg for the most egregious Nazi crimes against humanity.

2) Participating in a war of aggression against the people of Libya, a nation we are supposedly at peace with.

I’m amused at someone who proclaims to be amused by idiocy and in turn makes a statement like “Sure, Bush is a war criminal but it’s all Clinton and Gore’s fault. Hilarious!

Interesting that of the various insanities I mentioned (alien invasions, Global Warming hysteria, and Bush Derangement Syndrome) – you only take exception to the Bush Derangement Syndrome.

You seem to implicitly agree I was right on the mark about alien invasion paranoias and Global Warming hysteria. Fascinating.

This is more evidence of your difficulties with deductive reasoning. I simply do not have enough time or energy to respond to all of your crap. As for Gore/Clinton, I’m not really a fan of what they did. I quite like Ron Paul (if you think my political leanings have anything to do with the topic under discussion), although I’m disappointed in his ignorance regarding AGW.

I cannot speak for the man but I suspect because after repeated efforts to explain how science works, you still reject it (deep breathe, Socrates did say educating people was like dragging them kicking and screaming from a dark cave into the light). To continue….you know what I mean experimentation and hypothesis testing, theory compilation, further hypothesis testing, theory refinement, etc. While you call the scientific method and standard scientific practice generating hysteria it seems a futile waste of time to even discuss such issues with you, because quite frankly you seem beyond hope of understand functional scientific practice. Ahh well, so he thought that aliens were crazy talk not to discuss it, I cant understand that to. I suppose he must have figured even you could agree with Bush violating international laws by launching a war of aggression, I mean even former members of bushes government think it was illegal (see post above). I am stating to think you just like your denialsms, which I wonder do you deny smoking causes cancer, greenhouse gases have greenhouse effects, and CFC’s damage the ozone layer?….if you answered yes to these questions contact denier in chief Fred Singer hes been making a very good living off of denying well just about everything, he might have a job for you. Apparently industry likes to significantly fund such “think tanks” that Singer runs to generate denials for everything.

My vision of the future is probably too apocalyptic. As a teacher, I have always tried to develop in my students the conciousness of taking care of the environment. But I also find myself thinking, “Are we trying to save the planet so the United States can destroy it? Why am I teaching this?”. What I foresee is the world running out of drinking water and the US exerting its selfish almighty power over countries like mine which are rich in water fountains and natural resources,so they can feed their unending greed

The problem with the US is not only its superiority complex but its total rejection of the idea of changing its obcenely comfortable,lifestyle. American society demands sacrifices from everybody else, but they hate the idea that their wasteful lifestyle has compromised the health and stability of the planet, including their own society. American people have grown up with the idea that their scientific and technological advances are invincible, not realizing thet what they criticize in others, torture, overriding of human rights, corruption in governments, etc, they perform in incredibly large sacales, if only because of the size of the country.

Asking and American to ‘sacrifice’ some of their comfort and to reflect upon their daily behavior, is and uphill battle.

After WoW Gold EU hanging up the phone, Fallout Boy realized that she was in trouble. She had to find a place to hide the diary and she had to do it recklessly. She figured that if Radioactive Man took the Geo Metro, she WoW Gold Europe had take at least five minutes before Radioactive Man would get there. But if he took the time machine? Then Fallout Boy would be ridiculously screwed.

But we didn’t do it. It just happens every so often. I like how this report doesn’t go into the causes, but just the effects. I hope that this censorship doesn’t continue.

global warming is a natural thing. this planet has an entire history of weather changes.

look into the word “NIBIRU

GOOGLE THAT! there is the cause behind this “global warming” stuff.

When you do a Google search for “Global Warming,” one of the top two results that always pops up is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up and edit this article exhibit a clear pro-global warming agenda. This means that everyone from school children to the media doing background research are getting this highly biased view of Global Warming, when they Google this topic. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming.

-E. Zantryus

If you mean the scientific view of global warming then yes wikipedia currently does that very well. Considering a number of editors are climate researchers. To which I would say most of wiki’s articles lack that type of expert contributions, which might explain why wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information in any course I’ve marked for.

Maybe E. Zantryus would be more comfortable at that conservative version of wikipedia; is it called conservapedia? From what I hear, there is not much danger of bumping into inconvenient truths, facts or reality there.

Considering where else he has posted this, you are probably right! The same call for editorial assistance also went to the Libertarian Alliancec in the UK. Check this out: http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/

A reply from my Senator to my message to him regarding his attack on the Clean Air Act:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Clean Air Act. I understand that this is important to you and I want you to know where I stand on this issue.

As your Senator, I recognize the important value of protecting our environment. However, I feel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has exceeded its regulatory authority regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This abuse of power, if unchecked, could be detrimental to not only our economy, but our constitutional system of checks and balances as well. In a time of economic uncertainty, we need to be mindful of, and avoid allowing, unauthorized regulations where the costs may outweigh the benefits.

Let me be clear - I am not opposed to the Clean Air Act. However, I am against the EPA’s ill-suited regulation of greenhouse gases through this Act. As a co-sponsor to S. 482, I believe that regulation of greenhouse gases should be authorized by Congress and not crafted by unelected agency officials.

I take pride in my responsibility as your Senator and will work every day to serve the needs of all Floridians. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out to our office. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future if you have further concerns.

global warming is a natural thing. this planet has an entire history of weather changes.

look into the word “NIBIRU

GOOGLE THAT! there is the cause behind this “global warming” stuff.

Nibiru, to the Babylonians, was the celestial body associated with the god Marduk.

Denial is also a natural thing.

Look into the word “Denial”


Let’s see what the CDC said about the alleged censorship of Dr. Gerberding. This report can be found at Newsbusters:

A CDC spokesman declined to either confirm or deny the authenticity of material identified by the committee majority as deleted. The spokesman, Tom Skinner, said that despite the impression created by media reports about the edits, Gerberding was able to fully express her views in oral testimony before the panel and that she said everything she wanted and needed to say on the issue. Gerberding told a press luncheon the day after her testimony, “I feel very confident we had a completely honest conversation” with lawmakers. She called press coverage about the edited material “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.”

Newbusters also reports that cliamte change alarmist U.S. Dem. Sen Barbara Boxer may be the source of the censorhip story since her office had a statment posted about this two to three hours before the Associated Press moved its initial report.

1. Why would the spokesman decline to either confirm or deny the authenticity of the material?
2. Why would all of that material be written?
John, we know you get at least some of your (crappy) information from Inhofe, but surely you know that gov’t censorship of scientists in the US is an established pattern where AGW is concerned.

I am confused, How does the government censor anyone who is not on a government payroll?

Of course an employer may exercise any editorial judgment it wishes over the spoken or written words of anyone’s comments in connection with their employment.

That’s not censorship, its called supervision.

From the post:

“Food Scarcity

Climate change is predicted to alter agricultural production, both directly and indirectly. ”

I see it now. If the climate gets too cold, there will be food shortages. If it gets too hot, there will be food shortages.

Everything and anything is both the cause and the result of global warming (sometimes known as “climate change”).

“Mental Health Problems

Some Americans may suffer anxiety, depression, and similar symptoms in anticipating climate change and/or in coping with its effects. ”

The only people with anxiety and depression about GW are people like Gore.