I am eager to compare the unedited form of Gerberding's testimony with the version finally approved by the Bush Administration censors. I am curious about what specific changes were made and by whom.

The Republican War on Science continues unabated.

Climate Science Watch generally gets this type of material quickly. At a quick glance, the main difference between the two documents is that all of the impact discussion was removed from the second one. I haven't looked at Julie's testimony (also linked) to see if she was able to cover it there.

IIRC Julie is in what amounts to an "at will" position, and so may have figured it's better to simply wait out the next fifteen months than get fired over this.

BT. This was a laudable effort to counter some of the propaganda that gets into these government reports. Do you really believe that NOAA, NASA, CDC or any other of the bureaucratic acronyms are the least bit interested in attenuating their reason for being. They are constantly in search of "dire needs" to justify their continued existence and to keep the appropriations coming. Farm subsidies were started in the 30's to meet an "urgent need". We still have them while only one percent of the population farm. The war on poverty begun by LBJ is till not won and will not be because the bureaucrats would be out of a job. This global warming alarmist nonsense is just the latest excuse for more government. You are either intellectually dishonest or stunningly naive if you do not see this for what it is.

Just a thought Brett;

Could it be that someone in the Executive branch actually has some common sense?

Evidently, if she produced 14 pages on this subject, the Good Doctor does not!

Never mind the fact that any figures given as predictions of future temps are guesswork;
why go to the trouble of giving estimates of future calamities when you can observe
them NOW in REAL TIME.

The average annual temperature difference between Clear Lake and Des Moines Ia is about
DOUBLE the projected GW increase estimate. They are only about 90 miles apart.

If the good Dr. wants to see the catastrophic results of a (GASP) 28F increase, she need
only compare Clear Lake Ia. with Orlando Fl.

Now since the life expectancy in Mn is 79 and it's only around 78 in Fl I guess that clinches it. Oh, wait a minute it's 79 in Hi also. oops...

It shouldn't take 14 pages to say.......Based on OBSERVED information there will be
little or NO impact on public health due to the projected warming.

Sure, lets get the full report out.

While we are at it, lets get Harry Reids office to produce the science reports he use to substantiate his claim that Global Warming was one cause for the California fires.

McDonalds and Burger King have been proven to have "a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans", yet no widespread hysteria.

The global warming sacred cow must never be questioned or touched. Only worshiped.

The Bush regime claims that "scientists" working for them determined that the testimony exceeded the available science. Now, IIRC not a single scientist was involved in those past episodes of censorship (i.e. it was all political appointees), so I have my doubts as to the veracity of that claim. Hopefully Senator Boxer will demand those names, although if she does I expect that the response may have to await the Clinton administration.

Yeah, Jordan, we don't need NASA or NOAA or the CDC. I'm sure the private sector can take over these groups. I mean, we can have corporations compete over who can go to the moon first. Whoever gets there first can file for a patent. Who needs NOAA, I can't wait for the day where I have to pay to get my severe weather warnings. We need to disband the CDC, too. I mean, we'll just have corporations take over the job of eliminating public health scourges. Oh! But we can't do too good of a job -- I mean, if we become too successful and *gasp* eliminate a disease like diabetes, then there will be no demand for our diabetes medications....okay, we'll just reduce diabetes a little bit just to show that our stuff works, then put the rest of our money into "research."

Let's not stop there, though. Let's privatize the endangered species act. If the polar bear goes extinct, it's only because there was no market demand for polar bears to exist. (and before you laugh, I've seen Libertarians suggest things like this)

On a more serious note, Jordan, can't the same argument be made for another government acronym -- the DOD? It can be said that we hype up these imaginary threats like Iraq and Iran and the Star Wars "missile defense" system in order to create more work for the DOD. Of course, we never see people such as yourself take note of this, even though it uses your same logic.

Depends on the basis of the original report, which isn't always given. Don't just point to the SciFi channel, History has enough of its own scifi level calamities. I forget the initials of that AGW group in Colorado, but they get input into the MegaDisasters series and even if their computer simulations are 100% correct, their assumptions (as in AGW) are very suspect. For example, Krakatoa is rebuilding and one day may explode again, so it was assumed that the next Krakatoa "boom" would be 100x the Pinatubo eruption and "results" were calculated based on that.

Yeah, well, if angels have arse size "A" then it is easy to calculate how many of them can sit on the head of a pin of size "B". Let me know when you catch representative sample of angels and successfully measure their arse sizes.

Jordan, more than 1% of the population farms, but the USDA and the subsidies only deal with the big Ag companies and their serfs, errr, partners.

Speaking of agriculture, there is a perfect example of government controlled research at work. NAIS is supposed to help control disease outbreaks and protect against bioterrorism. Actually with its invasive and expensive requirements, it will put small to medium livestock farmers out of business, which will make the food supply more vulnerable to both bioterrorism and disease outbreaks from animal factories.

Brett - How about a story discussing political censorship from the AGW side?

A few well documented examples-

State climatologists losing their jobs for not towing the line. IPCC authors being pressured to produce pro-AGW results. Proposed decertification of meteorologists which differing viewpoints.

Reply: the virginia climatologist case was too isolated in my opinion and I only saw one side of the story printed. I believe the guy resigned, not fired. Though I know the state was not happy with his views. The decertification thing was one particular climatologist's viewpoint, and that story came out before I was even doing this blog. In terms of the IPCC authors being pressured, that would be more of a story no doubt, but i have not read anything specific enough about that, just heard the rumors. Brett

FYI, Randy, below is the abstract of Westerling et al (published in Science last summer):

"Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought to have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent of recent changes nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th- and 20th-century land-use history. We compiled a comprehensive database of large wildfires in western United States forests since 1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and land-surface data. Here, we show that large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where land-use histories have relatively little effect on fire risks and are strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt."

Perhaps Dr. Gerberding doesn't know Al Gore's film is full of crap and we're all not going to hell.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

BOTH You, the White House and the CDC have created a report that FITS YOUR OWN AGENDAS, nothing more nothing less than that. YOU HAVE and Agenda and you are going to Shove it down everyones THROATS to have Your Agenda Met.

You prove this on a Daily Basis, Heidi's Rampage against ANY Forecaster who disagreed with Global Warming is PROOF that you are ONLY Following an AGENDA.

Over 80% of ALL weather and Climanet Scientists WORLD-WIDE Disagree with the UN and YOU on Global Warming, and STATE that this is a NATURAL OCCURANCE, even though YOU Refuse to believe that anyone has a right to dissent from Your FAILED and FALSE Views.

NEVER Blame the recent Fires in California on Global Warming, it is NOT, It is the FAILED Policy by the Government to NOT ALLOW Mother Nature to take her own course, and for there to be Controlled Burns to ensure that No Disaster like the current one happens.

NO OTHER Country on EARTH Fights forest Fires like the USA does, and thus, NONE of them has the Devastation that the USA gets Every year from Forest Fires, because THEY do Not try to Control Nature.

Grow Up

Reply: Who are you addressing this to?

Americans are living longer in spite of global warming. Maybe we could compile a graph that charts global warming and average life span. We could draw the conclusion that during this recent warming period, the average life span increased. If we went all the way back to the LIA then our graph would really be impressive! This would be supported by actual data not speculation based on computer models.

Our graph would be more credible than the ridiculous claims that global warming brings stronger and more frequent hurricanes to our shores. BTW, what ever happened to the horrific 2007 hurricane season that was predicited? Another case of computer models run amok? There's only a few weeks left and all is quiet. Did Bush do something to curtail the hurricanes? Since he was blamed for Katrina, shouldn't we be fair and give him credit for the absence of hurricanes in 2007? Is George W. Bush really the Wizard of Oz?

Our graph would certainly be more plausible than claims by Harry Reid that the California wild fires are the result of global warming. Dry conditions, Forest Service initiatives blocked by environmental activists, Santa Ana winds, and arsonists are the real cause but let's blame global warming so we can scare the populace into submission to our political will.

"Now, if we can get the CDC to predict widespread disease and blame global warming then that should seal the deal. The masses will be too frightened to oppose our solutions. Let's start with a trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) dollar tax hike and impose it on the rich!"

I notice, today, that Gerberding's original report is now available on the web. The changes made by the White House are highlighted in yellow.

I wonder if we can perhaps narrow our focus to some more concrete questions:

1. Who made these modifications and what are their scientific qualifications?

2. Was the intent of these modifications scientific?

3. What was the effect of these modifications, regardless of their intent?

4. Do these modifications reflect good science?

5. Do these modifications help or hurt public policy?

Brett, I wonder if it makes sense to edit the thread-starter to include the link to the original report.

Good point Rick. If people are afraid of warm weather, why are the populations of North America and Europe migrating south?

Interesting how the media has manipulated many people into seemingly contradicting their own common sense and basic instincts.

Funny how the AGWers get miffed that their projections of doom and gloom based upon the ramblings of other AGWers spouting doom and gloom (peer reviewed of course) get toned down.

Also, see how quick they decry the supposed "regime", the "war on science", and actions to protect the world from terriosts?

BT: the only war in this issue is on arguments based in projections and extrapolations of data that may or may not be correct. I asked my peers and this assessment is correct.

Bloom: You need to look up the definition of regime. I do sincerely respect your distate for the current administration, that is what is great about America, but your continual vitriolic attitude is annoying. Besides, you really have not a clue if you think this is a "regime". There is no difference in the substance of the lives of ordinary americans now then there were 8 years ago.

On the wildfire paragraph, what I find simply amazing is that you, and they, base as argument on a thought, or more exactly a wild-arse guess. Nothing more than that. What is blatantly left out, at least in this paragraph, is that in the mid-1980's, the enviro crowd fought for, and won, a change in the management of forests whereby fires were allowed to burn and scrub brush was control burned to eliminate a greater threat. Not saying that the enviro people did a bad thing or a good thing, just recognize that it is a major part of the equation.

Mark: Nobody said anything about privatizing nothing. Give it a rest. On the DOD comment, please turn off CNN and look at an unbiased source for perspective and you might realize your comments are not really valid.

Randy: Right on the money. Reid did not have a report. All he cares about is making Bush look bad. Reports matter nothing as long as you can divide the country in some manner. I find the quick politicalization of any event amazing in the sense that anyone could take the accuser seriously.

Rick Ressler;
Too late Rick. Barbra Boxer ( Bless her little liberal heart ) has this already on the go.
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_68659.shtml
You can pretty much kiss that trillion good bye.

Western United States forest wildfire activity is widely thought to have increased in recent decades, yet neither the extent of recent changes nor the degree to which climate may be driving regional changes in wildfire has been systematically documented. Much of the public and scientific discussion of changes in western United States wildfire has focused instead on the effects of 19th- and 20th-century land-use history.

I've been meaning to talk a bit about the events in California, but I've had a busy week and have spent most of my free time trying to get updates on the fires. I moved to the Pacific Northwest from Southern California about six years ago, and coincidentally one of the fires still burning down there skirted my old neighborhood before moving off in a different direction. I'm thankful that all my old neighbors made it through okay.

It's pointless to compare fire seasons by the number of fires from year to year. So many of these fires are caused by human-related factors; downed power lines, sparks from machinery--one fire about ten years ago near my old house was started when a guy who was clearing brush around his property hit a rock with the metal blade of his mower. The most unfortunate case is when arson is involved. I always thought that if terrorists ever really wanted to create havoc, they would wait until the Santa Anas whipped up in October and November and just go around So Cal throwing matches into the brush on the side of the road.

The winds this year were stronger than normal, which exacerbated an already bad situation. Any moisture in the ground and vegetation was sapped away by the extremely low relative humidity, and the strong winds carried embers for thousands of feet, creating countless spot fires that firefighters were simply unable to keep up with. Decades of fire supression certainly had a hand in some places, though many of the areas being burned (including near my old neighborhood) have burned multiple times in the past twenty years.

Much of the blame does lie with human land use. California grew by leaps and bounds in the 20th century, and the growth still continues. Many of the homes lost were in canyons and did not put too much thought into fire prevention and protection. But many more of the threatened homes are in newer neighborhoods which have incorporated such measures into their design. The homes in Portola Hills, Foothill ranch, and near Castaic for the most part have fire resistant roof tiles, and their neighborhoods keep clear a 100 yard buffer to the wild brush surrounding them.

On the other hand, before these neighborhood were built, neighborhoods that are now buffered by the newer ones were exposed to the wild and often did not have the same protections newer homes have today. So are these newer homes in a position more or less precarious than the ones that came before them? I don't know. But it's safe to say that more people are affected now than before.

Gary, thanks for the link and Barbara Boxer's usual brilliant insight.....

We are beginning to see what happens when the water warms. The Associated Press reported on September 28 that a 14-year old boy died from an infection caused by an amoeba after swimming in Lake Havasu.

Who ever could have imagined warm water in Lake Havasu? I've always thought of the Mojave Desert as being a temperate place, with temperatures hardly ever getting over 130F, and sometimes dropping below 90F at night.

Darren, I know precisely what a regime is. Among other things, they cry out for change and prosecution. There's also a strong implication of illegitimacy in terms of how power was gained.

You, on the other hand, obviously don't know what an abstract is. Abstract (in this context): A short, general single-paragraph summary of the main issues discussed in a much-longer and more detailed scientific paper.

FYI, this is probably the very paper that Reid would have been waving around. A paper that appeared in, as noted, the publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But Rush probably says they're commies, right?

Don't pop a vein now.

Gary:
Thanks for the link to the article on Senator Boxer. Talk about cherry-picking data to argue that we must "do something" about global warming. I love the comment about the French heat wave. The people who died were mostly elderly with no air conditioning because their taxes are so high they can't afford it. Europe pretty much shuts down for the month of August as everyone is on vacation, another socialist "perk." Those who can afford it head for the beaches leaving the elderly to fend for themselves in their small hot tenement-style Paris housing. Thousands died and its all because of global warming? Wrong. Socialism killed those people by sucking every Euro from them then failing to provide for their needs. This used to happen in Chicago where poor people died in heat waves. The city of Chicago now provides relief for those at risk while Paris and Boxer blame global warming.

I'm afraid we're in for it if this 2008 election puts more "Boxers" in office. I also believe there will be mass retirements as baby boomers say enough is enough when they realize they are working mostly for the government (socialism) as the Dems enact trillion dollar tax increases.