blatham wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?hp
Earlier, I asked you guys if you might come up with some set of descriptors of what defines or identifies the "Orwellian". Ican gave several seriously insufficient quotations from 1984 and george figured that was good enough. This wasn't a tough assignment, you could even have just turned to wikipedia. If you had bothered to go to any work thinking (or reading and pasting) one fundamental you would have come up with is the control of information and belief through the government/party re-writing documents contemporary or historical so as to hide anything inimical to the government/party's interests. It was the function of the Ministry of Truth in 1984. And what you see above is this function in operation.
Both your post and the NYT article were very biased and selective in just what was reported, and overall,were superficial in the extreme -- in contrast to the very explicit and unjustified conclusions stated.
Rep Henry Waxman is hardly a dispassionate searcher for the truth. His hearings were a highly partisan attempt to recycle old news for a few political headlines. The Dr Hansen story has been through the mill several times - he is a contrarian civil servant with just enough political support to survive his repeated misuses of his position and the authority of the agency he purports to serve.
The documents being "edited" were mostly budget requests and agency policy documents - stuff under the normal purview of the executive. They were not the products of science or scientists.
Our European friends, most recently the British, are very staunch supporters of the current Global Warming cult, particularly in their rhetoric and the "scientific" analyses they publish so profligately. However, their actions, and the things they actually undertake to do, paint a very different picture. Their most recent "scientific"product claims that unchecked AGW will consume 20% of the global economic product, while controlling it will cost "only" 1%. However if you read it carefully you will find that the estimate of the cost of unchecked AGW comes mostly from "certain low probability events" whose probability they have estimated. The problem is that science provides no basis whatever for estimating the likelihood of these occurrances -- they are about as likely, and as unpredictable, as the sudden collapse of the earth's magnetic field or a major asteroid impact, both of which would have far worse consequences.
Who is really engaging in "Orwellian" manipulation of the truth here?
I believe you have chosen the wrong target.
unfair 
