Dr. Gerberding's congressional testimony was heavily edited
by the Administration. Fortunately, that fact was picked up
by the MSM. As of now, there are 711 mentions on Google News.
In the interest of completeness, however, I noted that Dr. Gerberding
herself denies that there was censorship. As href="http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2007/10/24/cdcgerberding_1024.html">reported
in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Gerberding said Wednesday she was happy
with her testimony and that the review process was normal. In a
lunch-hour speech before the Atlanta Press Club, Gerberding said she
made all the points to Congress that she wanted to make.
"This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard," Gerberding said of
the furor. "I don't let people put words in my mouth. I spoke the truth
Unfortunately, the AJC does not provide the context of her statement,
thus making it difficult to know exactly what she was
referring to. As far as I know, no one ever said that anyone
was putting words into her mouth.
The ever-vigilant Fox News is on the case, too,
providing a propagandistic slant that is relatively mild, for them.
WASHINGTON -- The White House
Wednesday defended the editing of a top health official's Senate
testimony on climate change, saying other agencies were uncomfortable
that she was getting into territory beyond what she was asked to convey
So how is it that "other agencies" decide what is appropriate for
congress to hear?
Those vetting the document within other
agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, weren't
comfortable with some of the assertions made.
Though the White House does not disagree that climate change can have
adverse health effects -- a view held by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, whose latest findings have been endorsed by the Bush
Administration -- Gerberding's language on the subject did not pass
review, said Fratto.
Oh. I guess that make it OK. We don't want the
"other agencies" to be uncomfortable, do we?
However, her 14-page remarks included "the
science of climate change," said Fratto.
Doctors are not support to provide the scientific underpinnings of
Steve Milloy, founder of href="http://www.junkscience.com/">Junk Science.com,
said he's happy to hear the White House stepped in before her original
testimony could be shared.
"The federal government is chock full of climate-change alarmists and
[Gerberding] is going along with it because she doesn't know any
better," said Milloy, a leading climate-change skeptic.
It's good to know that Fox knows who to call when they need a real
expert opinion (gurk!).
Meanwhile, another White House spokesman is providing yet another
defense. In href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7024881,00.html">The
White House press secretary Dana Perino
said the deletions were made because John Marburger, who heads the
White House Office of Science and Technology, and his staff raised
concerns that the sections were not in line with the findings of the
Hmmm, Gerberding wanted to say something that was "not in line" with
the IPCC? I wonder if anyone checked on that? Let's
Sen. Barbara Boxer released a
paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the phrases that the White House
removed and the panel's report this year on how climate change affected
The comparisons showed striking similarities. Both raised virtually
identical concerns, such as heat stress on vulnerable populations, the
likelihood of respiratory illnesses from increased air pollution and
spread of waterborne infectious diseases.
Boxer might be a little touchy about this
subject, since her constituents are all inhaling wildfire smoke right
have died because of the fires, and that does not include the
delayed health effects.
Oh, I forgot. href="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_advances_theory_that_CA_fires_1024.html">Fox
News says that Al Qaeda is responsible for the fires.
Climate change had nothing to do with it.