Congress Investigates Smithsonian “Toning Down” Global Warming
Earlier this spring, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Although it has no legislative-making power, it can study and make recommendations on the problem. This week it took on an American icon: the Smithsonian Institution.
The Committee is investigating allegations by former associate director of the National Museum of Natural History, Robert Sullivan, that Smithsonian officials toned down a climate change exhibit to avoid angering some members of Congress and the Bush administration.
Sullivan charges that the exhibit’s text was rewritten to make the connection between climate change and human activity more uncertain. The Smithsonian has denied the allegations, pointing out that Sullivan “was neither a scientists nor a curator.” Other scientists and curators have said that nothing major was omitted, although some admitted to political sensitivities. John Calder, a lead climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told the Associated Press:
"I remember them telling me there was an attempt to make sure there was nothing in there that would be upsetting to any politicians. They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."
The Natural Resources Defense Council had considered co-sponsoring the climate change exhibit but objected to the exhibit's text about uncertainties on the future warming of the planet.
Associated Press, via Examiner.com
May 25th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
As a very involved member of both the Smithsonian and the James Smithson Society, I can assure you that this information is incorrect. There have been a few different versions of this story floating around the AP most of which are reporting false information.
Not to mention the newspaper you site (Examiner) is notorious for bad information and a day late-dollar short reporting style.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Oh, thats a good idea bash the reporting styles…that’ll help…..
Anyway,
Here’s the problem,instead of people talking and agruing how bad things are, we know its bad, and if we dont do something, the polar caps are gonna melt, and the earth is going to be, for the most part a giant pool. Let me assure you, we dont want that. A Parable i heard once “Those who destroy the earth, will be destroyed by it”
Hate to break it to ya folks, be if we dont do something, we are looking at a threat to wipe out a large portion of the human race.
So do one of two things
A) Help do something about it
or
B) Start building an Arc
BTW, i am not a member of any newspaper, political group or any other organization. I am just a concerned citizen of the earth. It doesnt even matter where we live, we are all affected by this.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Dr. L. — Care to enlighten us? Obviously, we're not the only ones running this story… it's all over the place…
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
May 25th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
The article was written by an Associated Press reporter, only reprinted in the Examiner.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:54 am
We all were told by our parents growing up that anything worth doing is worth doing right. Somewhere between childhood and adulthood most of us seem to forget that.
The facts: there is some dispute as to whether global warming and the resulting climatic changes are the result of human activity. There is dispute over how bad and how fast the changes will come.
Does it matter? NO.
Why? Because regardless of whether releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causes global warming or not does not change the basic fact that pollution is harmful. Automotive exhaust and factory emissions are polluting and causing poor air quality, diseases and so on.
There is a better way to produce energy. Yes it is more expensive right now, as all things are when they first start gaining momentum. But as the momentum builds prices will likely drop.
As more people switch to alternative methods of generating energy the cost of implementing it will reduce. Not to mention the impact that all the research funding going into the sector will have on innovations in efficiencies, materials and scale.
So, should we be concentrating on carbon dioxide? Maybe, maybe not. But if we instead focus on what is proven: that our current methods of generating energy are harmful to our environment, not because of global warming, but rather because of basic health issues. Then we have to ask a question.
Is there a better way to do things?
Yes there is, renewable energy resources in most cases do not pollute, or not nearly as bad as conventional methods. (I know there is some question over certain biofuels, but solar, wind and dare I say nuclear do not suffer from emissions problems)
If its worth doing, its worth doing right.
Enough of the debate people, lets do it right and find a way to power our lives without polluting the air we breathe.
Leave the global warming debate by the side. If we do it right we will solve that problem anyway.