Wednesday, March 28, 2007

3631

GAPping the public on climate change

There is a whistleblower organization (way left of center) called GAP, Government Accountability Project, that has issued a report for the Democrats called "Redacting the Science of Climate Change." I was expecting to read some whoop-dee-doo-doo about what terrible things the administration was doing to cover up the effects of global warming, but it is 139 pages of inferences, inuendos and idiocies written by someone named Tarek Maassarani. The summary clearly states the investigation found nothing, zip, nada--but the media was sensing that information was restricted on scientific research on climate change. What! That's all we hear or read! So they're just making this stuff up because they don't get the straight scoop from the government? Every news story I hear is presented as though humans control the sun, moon, stars, oceans, hurricanes and carbon dioxide, and that Al Gore is the only chief priest who can give us absolution and forgiveness. I read plenty of science journals and web sites; the people being shut out are those of the view point that science has been politicized. GAP says it began invesitgating this misuse of government authority (i.e. not communicating properly with the media) because 2 GAP employees complained. It reports that it interviewed about 40 government employees then reported there are over 2,000 concerned in some way in a number of difference agencies

3 comments:

maassive said...

With all due respect, your almost complete mischaracterization of the report leads me to believe you read the wrong document. Try again: http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/2007/Final%203.28%20Redacting%20Climate%20Science%20Report.pdf

Norma said...

No, I read the report, and I haven't micharacterized it at all. We just disagree. Simple.

maassive said...

Since you ascribe meanings to the report that were never intended and expressed, I do believe it would be called mis-characterization. Notwithstanding a proper characterization, I imagine we would probably still disagree as to the veracity and nature of the problem. The difference is that, we probably have a little more evidence than you. As does the Waxman's committee. See http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf