Conflicting interests

Scientist: White House Restricting Info On Climate

There's a significant departure of thought when someone mentions the word: "environment.."

Why??

Because it's become a political tug-of-war and most Americans have become numb to that fact.. There was a barrage of statements for global warning, against global warning and nothing really made much sense.. In fact, it's gotten so incredibly political - both sides of our political parties have continually tried to spin the reports to whatever policy they are trying to administer..

And that's where I have a problem..

...moreover, I'll definitely concede that it's not just a Bush problem - because Clinton apparently tried to get the leading expert in global warming to sign off on reports that made the issue of global warming "worse than it was.." Jack Hansen is that authority who refused to sign off on Clinton's version of the report.. Conversely, Rick Piltz co-wrote a report telling of the dangers of global warming and found his draft to be severely watered down and less threatening..

Officially, this administration is "looking into it.."

Officially, this administration pulled out of the Kyoto agreement which would have significantly slashed the emissions of gases into the atmosphere that is a contributor to global warming.. I say contributor because honestly - I do not know what is valid and invalid when it comes to figuring out if the whole "global warming" thing is a bunch of hooey or not.. I do know this though: it's serious enough for me to go: "maybe we should be taking a serious, candid look at this problem..."

But that's not happening..

In fact, it's 180 degrees differently because the man James Hansen reports to is Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff of the Counsel on Environmental Quality.. Cooney, ironically: "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House,"

Read that again: he's a lobbyist at the head of the Counsel of Environmental Quality..

That's like putting a wolf in charge of security at a hen house....

Which raises the issue of politics getting involved in certain issues to begin with.. I don't approve of the cavalier attitude that this administration bestows in most of their decisions: intelligent design, unilaterally invoking privileges and other policies that are unconstitutional, re-writing laws and imposing their own moral beliefs on Americans when we should have the freedom of expression, the freedom of choice and the freedom of saying what we want to believe in...

Because this administration wants the media to show the "flowery" news - there is an under-reported story of a large ice shelf in Antarctica that is about to collapse sending world-wide water levels to exceed a depth of 1 meter.. That doesn't sound like a lot, but what Jack Hansen and his colleagues are reporting is that we're approaching critical periods in the process that will make it virtually impossible to fix later on.. It's not as though we're going to be able to "re-freeze the caps" and bring things back the way they were.. No.. We're incapable of doing that.. But we can slow that process and let nature make adjustments as she sees necessary..

I realize the counter-argument: that this would happen as it is.. Basically saying: nature is going to do it - regardless if we're driving our SUV's and sending greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.. Even if that's a valid position, the argument refuses to acknowledge that man has made a considerable contribution to the depletion of our atmosphere.. The political stance in this argument is to assure people that "we're not damaging the environment which is why we don't need standards to control emissions and cleaning the air and water around us.." There's a great deal of corporations that back this initiative because it they had to install controls that limit the emissions they can release -- then that cuts into their profit margin..

Profit versus habitation..

And this is why politics should have no place in "big picture" decisions like global warming.. It's a world concern, a world problem and it's going to take a world solution.. We rely on our scientists to give complete and verifiable conclusions on the world around us.. Whether it's medicine, food, water or the environment.. We need to make scientists to be able to exist without the boundaries of political ramifications or juxtaposed by the environmental or oil-industry lobbyists..

Hansen seems like he knows what he's talking about.. He's not swayed by public opinion or the politics that try to steer his report in one way or the other.. That seems to me - to be the most reliable source of information because he carries no bias.. When he can give his professional opinion, realizing it will be met with scorn and no support - I admire that.. Because he's trying to tell the truth - and we're all not listening because .... you guessed it, politics also has a way to control what we hear, what we read, and what we see.. Corporations now run our news programs, our radio stations and our print media.. And they have a vested interest too ... and if they start reporting things that do not follow along certain lines, then they no longer have jobs, they no longer can report, because they have been fired from their positions..

The good..

The bad..

The ugly..

We shouldn't be afraid to tell the truth - which means we should have the required safeguards to insure that people can report truthful, relevant, exact information to the populace.. Everything can't be seen through rose-colored glasses, nor should we always focus on the "happy news" like Bush wants us to see..

Sometimes we have to see the darkness so that we can make better choices to see the light..