The shameless attempt to deny the American public the truth about climate impacts continue. As the AP reports:
Testimony that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention planned to give yesterday to a Senate committee about the impact of climate change on health was significantly edited by the White House, according to two sources familiar with the documents.
Specific scientific references to potential health risks were removed after Julie L. Gerberding submitted a draft of her prepared remarks to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
Instead, Gerberding’s prepared testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included few details on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease….
A CDC official familiar with both versions said Gerberding’s draft “was eviscerated.”
Wouldn’t want the public knowing the health impacts of its do-nothing climate policy.
If you’d like to see the original testimony, here it is, courtesy of Climate Science Watch. Compare that to the eviscerated version here. Stunning and petty at the same time.
Must our long national climate nightmare continue for another 15 months?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Joe,
Past time for some Congressional hearings on this unconscionable activity, wouldn’t you say? Independent Prosecutor?
People should go to jail. W
Joe,
After scanning both versions, I don’t see the controversy. The original is more detailed but both reflect the same point of view, cover the same general areas of concern and come to the same conclusion.
The draft says that CDC’s health concerns are science based, the report omits this and instead highlights programs and expertise. The draft is geared to the public, the report reads like an annual review. The draft’s simple bullet points summarize future challenges and problems. It is written in a personal style. The report’s style is detached and submerges threats to people inside abstract programs to track and model them. Factors other than climate change are repeatedly mentioned to dilute climate connections in the minds of readers. The draft section ‘Heat Stress and Direct Thermal Injury’ is spread into several paragraphs. The adjective ‘severe,’ which was used to specify heat waves, storms and precipition, is eliminated from the report. Ironically, it keeps this paragraph despite the report being an example of purposefully ineffective communication.“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.”When the public does become informed, it won’t happen from reading that report.
Jay Alt,
Thanks for your thorough reading of the versions. Both are for oral testimony to a Senate committee hearing on the impact of climate change on health. The draft is geared, as you say, to the public and is written in a personal style. Good reading? Perhaps, but not appropriate to the setting.
The committee surely knows that the CDC’s testimony is based on science.
There indeed are factors other than climate change that will impact health over the time period. It is picayune to complain about the dilution of climate connections at a hearing entitled “The impact of climate change on Health.” Is the draft really eviscerated by the omission of the adjective severe?
The purpose of the testimony is to assist the committee in its legislative and appropriations duties. While the draft is well written and informative, the editing conformed it to the structure of the hearing process. Is the result dull and tilting toward process? Sure. Government is often boring. It’s for certain that the CDC website has whatever you need to know about climate and health.
The administration is required by law to put out various climate reports. The Bush Administration has a proud history of being late or failing altogether. So it’s no surprise to see the words of experts, this time medical professionals, again white-washed by lobbiests and lawyers like James Connaughton. Here are more examples of what was left out, and the justifiable outrage of CDC officials, wisely anonymous. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct23/0,4670,GlobalWarmingHealth,00.html