|
CLIMATE CHANGE
Bush government censoring scientists
THE
U.S. government has been resorting to reprehensible
methods to deceive citizens about a subject that
involves humanity as a whole: climate changes that
are leading to increased global warming. Hundreds of
scientists who were asked admitted to having
suffered some type of pressure or interference in
their studies on the subject.
Excesses were committed with them, such as demanding
that they purge from their statements and documents
anything that could give an idea of the events
caused by human beings that are affecting our
habitat, above all the use of terms that imply
long-term effects. Some report that their
communiqués were changed, or that the warnings
stemming from their research were minimized.
This
was not a small thing, given that it led to hearings
by the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, where several of those experts were
questioned. One of them, Dr. Drew Shindell, said:
“In
the fall of 2004, a team I led at NASA published a
paper providing an explanation of how ozone
depletion over Antarctica and increasing greenhouse
gases could together account for this observed
cooling of Antarctica. The study was the first to
look at how these two factors work together to
influence Antarctic temperatures. It not only helped
to explain the observed cooling, but also predicted
a warmer future for Antarctica based on projections
of continued increases in greenhouse gases. This has
clear implications both for the debate on global
warming and for potential sea-level rise, as
Antarctica contains an enormous reservoir of water
in its ice sheets.”
After making these observations, Shindell took the
findings to the NASA press corps to issue a press
release. While previous press releases had been
published immediately, this one was repeatedly
delayed and “watered down,” he said.
“When we at GISS [Goddard Institute of Space
Studies] enquired of those higher up the NASA chain
what was going on, we were told in the fall of 2004
[inaudible] that releases were being delayed because
two political appointees and the White House were
now reviewing all climate-related press releases.”
Likewise, it was established that a NASA press
officer had to be present during all interviews,
whether in person or by telephone, related to
climate research, “a measure most of us felt was
unbefitting of a democratic society.” He noted that
“scientists provide information to policymakers and
the public on issues affecting society. Climate
change is clearly such an issue...” and for that
reason, should not be kept secret.
The
incident is related to the publication in Paris of
the conclusions reached by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, a UN group that included
participation by 2,500 scientists from 131
countries, who said that increased carbon dioxide
levels stemming from uncontrolled consumption of
fossil fuels are heating up the Earth, a situation
that is leading to a melting of the polar icecaps,
the subsequent rise in ocean levels and, with that,
the flooding of large coastal areas, among a number
of other disasters.
The
Bush government’s efforts to distort the outcome of
serious investigations responds to very local
interests that feed into the president’s own family
finances, as well as those of close collaborators
and patrons.
One
of the many opinions on the subject is that of
Zbigniew Jaworowski, of the Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection in Warsaw, and an advisor to
the U.S. government itself, who says that Washington
is using the climate issue as a psychological weapon
in both cases, both global warming and cooling,
given they are convenient excuses for its military
to demand more money for defending the “sweet land
of liberty” from all kinds of evils.
When
Bush took power, one of the first things he did was
to reject the Kyoto Protocol, which many considered
insufficient, and which Clinton had signed at the
last minute. Later, aside from aforementioned
pressures, he also used malleable individuals to
deny evidence about climate change. The goal is to
retain the status quo with respect to existing
models of production and consumption, so that big
business does not need to spend money on ways of
attenuating harm to the environment.
Meanwhile, diverse projects to control the climate
have continued to prosper, but not with the purpose
of preventing misfortunes such as those caused by
large hurricanes which, like Katrina, affected areas
in Bush’s own country; rather, they are aimed at
negatively influencing other countries.
To
date, climate engineering – intentional manipulation
– has above all, war-related purposes. During wars
on Vietnam and Cambodia, the CIA implemented
experiments for causing heavy and long-lasting rain,
with the goal of destroying roads or crops. These
and other experiments are well known, and so much so
that they led to the creation of a UN convention
that forbids the utilization of environmental
modification techniques for military or other
hostile purposes. The United States sometimes signs
it and sometimes no, but always does whatever it
wants afterward, continuing its projects in this
field and continuing to make efforts to adulterate
warning calls and programs for attenuating problems
stemming from climate change.
Bush
is receiving assistance from others interested in
the issue. Exxon Mobil is offering $10,000, along
with travel expenses and other benefits to those who
can help cast doubt over the recent report made
public in the French capital.
According to information from the British newspaper
The Guardian, that transnational oil
corporation founded the American Enterprise
Institute, which houses — or oversees — several
think tanks willing to emphasize — or if necessary
invent — defects in the report produced by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As a basic summary of something that has a lot of
twists and turns and quite a few dark areas, there
is the fact that the country that claims to be the
most open, free and democratic, is gagging its
scientists or censoring them. It is distorting
reality and evidence not because it has valid
opinions or other theses, but for its own sordid
reasons. This could be considered additional
evidence. (Elsa Claro) |
