But now when I access the link to that headline I find CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate Testimony
And there is no mention of the original article. OK, so I'll go with it:
CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate TestimonyReeeeally!? Given Bush's constant suppression of science, that doesn't seem possible:
ATLANTA-- Julie Gerberding, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, defended Wednesday her congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change earlier this week.
Dr. Gerberding, speaking Wednesday at a luncheon hosted by the Atlanta Press Club, dismissed as "ridiculous" such allegations.
"This is not an issue of cover up related to climate change and health," she said.
The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.And what was the White House response? I'm so glad you asked. Direct from the WH press briefing:
In response to the controversy that followed, White House press secretary Dana Perino stated that the White House Office of Management and Budget redacted the majority of the information on the basis that the science in the testimony did not match the science reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"The science that Dr. Gerberding was trying to bring forward was based on the IPCC report," Knowlton said. "It's quite stunning that only weeks after that group received the Nobel prize for their work that the White House is deleting scientific statements based on that work.
"We talk of the politicization of science," said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. "In the politicization of this topic -- the science wasn't changed, it was deleted."
Q: Back on the CDC testimony. You said this morning that Dr. Gerberding's testimony was not watered down. Can you tell us why it was altered to leave out any discussion of serious health effects relating to global warming, and to leave out her original comment that, "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern"?Yes, of course, there will be many health benefits from climate change ... there will be a lot fewer people to object to Bush's eviscerating science and stuffing the corpse with his political and big bidness press releases.
Perino: [...] And so the decision on behalf of CDC was to focus that testimony on public health benefits -- there are public health benefits to climate change
And in the meantime, we are working with experts like Julie Gerberding to figure out what are going to be the health benefits and the health concerns of climate change, of which there are many.
Cross posted at VidiotSpeak