Progressiv
Mittel-Aktivismus
Laden…
| Register | Verlorenes Kennwort? | Rundschreiben
Ein Kennwort wird zu Ihnen verschickt. LOGON | Verlorenes Kennwort?
Ein email wird Ihnen geschickt. LOGON | Register
Übersetzen Sie:
Translate to EnglishÜbersetzen Sie zum Deutsch/GermanПереведите к русскому/RussianΜεταφράστε στα ελληνικά/GreekVertaal aan het Nederlands/Dutchترجمة الى العربية/Arabic中文翻译/Chinese Traditional中文翻译/Chinese Simplified한국어에게 번역하십시오/Korean日本語に翻訳しなさい /JapaneseTraduza ao Português/PortugueseTraduca ad Italiano/ItalianTraduisez au Français/FrenchTraduzca al Español/Spanish

Werkzeuge: Nachrichten | Pfosten-Anmerkung | Drucker-Version | Email zum Freund

Montag, den 10. Dezember 2007

Zensierte das Weiße Haus Wissenschaft?

Teilen Sie diesen Artikel:

Diese Ikonen verbinden mit bookmarkenden Sozialaufstellungsorten, in denen Leser neue Webseiten teilen und entdecken können.
  • Digg
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • feedmelinks
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • Spurl
  • Fleck
  • Fark

CLAYTON SANDELL

Bringen Sie Demokraten und Republikaner gehandelte Rhetorik Montag über Beamten des neuer Report den behauptenden Weißen Hauses unter, die gesucht werden, um wissenschaftliche Ansichten von globalem zu unterdrücken, das wärmend, das mit Bush Leitung politischen Richtlinien zusammengestoßen wird.

Der Report - ursprünglich aufgenommen als zwei Parteien zugehörige Bemühung - führt zu, was der Haus-Aufsicht-und Regierung Verbesserung-Ausschuß eine „unvermeidliche“ Zusammenfassung nennt, die „die Bush Leitung hat sich engagiert in einer systematischen Bemühung, Klimaänderung Wissenschaft zu manipulieren und Entscheidungsträger und die öffentlichkeit über die Gefahren des globalen Wärmens irrezuführen.“

The report is the result of a 16-month investigation by the committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Republicans on the committee quickly dismissed the report as a “political attack” and issued their own findings that question the Democrats’ conclusions and investigative methods. The White House called the allegations untrue.

One of the issues addressed in the report released by the Democratic majority is whether the White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, required approval of all media requests to interview government climate scientists.

The report states that “by controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House and agency political appointees suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with administration policies.”

The report repeatedly cites the testimony of Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Laborde told the committee that the White House CEQ insisted on approving all news media requests to interview NOAA climate scientists — a practice Laborde said has only recently ended.

“According to Mr. Laborde,” the report said, “climate change was considered a high-profile issue, and anything that was very high profile, anything that related to policy, anything that particularly related to a current policy debate or policy deliberation’ had to be routed through CEQ for approval.”

White House approval for interviews with journalists became more prevalent after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, according to the report; scientists who denied a link between stronger hurricanes and global warming were given approval over scientists who suggested such a link.

Laborde told the committee that climate change seemed to be the only topic that garnered this special attention by the White House, and if the CEQ disapproved of an interview, “it would have not gone forward.”

The Republican minority report criticized Democrats for relying so heavily on Laborde’s testimony.

“A thorough investigation would have sought further evidence to complete the record before drawing conclusions based on the uncorroborated statements of one individual,” the Republican report said.

Keith Ausbrook, the committee’s Republican general counsel, told ABC News the report from Democrats led to conclusions “they had already decided on.”

Ausbrook said the report ignored the role that policymakers play in drafting policy and communicating it to the public.

“These guys are doing science, and that’s what they do,” Ausbrook said of government scientists. “And political appointees and other senior officials are responsible for developing policy and programs and taking that science and doing things with it.”

White House press secretary Dana Perino dismissed the Democrats’ report as “rehashed rhetoric.”

“I think that it’s inescapable that they issued the report on a day where [the] U.S. would be represented at the Bali conference, where we are currently talking about the next step for our framework after 2012, which is when Kyoto would end,” Perino said.

Perino was asked whether the White House told employees at federal agencies like NOAA to suppress climate science information.

“Not that I’m aware of,” Perino said. “I do not believe that is true.”

 Section has more related reports

Help keep RINF going..

Comment on 'Did White House Censor Science?' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News:

  • Does The Law Apply To The Bush Administration?
  • White House Censors Civil Liberties Report
  • Judge Orders Bush Administration to Issue Global Warming Report
  • CIA Cited for Not Disclosing Covert Action
  • What are they hiding?

  • This entry was posted on Monday, December 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm and is filed under Environmental, Sci Tech, Political . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    © RINF.COM Underground Gateway. All rights reserved.
    Send Alternative News And Breaking News To: Editor @ rinf.com

    Breaking News