As Al Gore was testifying before Congress, there were other hearings happening on Capitol Hill that covered the subject of Global Warming and Climate Change. These hearings weren't as highly publicized, and the information that came to light seems to have been swept under the rug. But what else is new in Washington.

While testifying before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former White House aide Phil Cooney admitted to editing federally funded official reports on climate change during his tenure as chief of staff at the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) from 2001 to 2005. Cooney testified that he and another collegue, Brian Hannegan, made nearly 300 edits to the environmental reports that changed the fundamental message of the reports conclusions. Their goal was to muddy the waters of already accepted scientific certainty that global warming was real and that industry and human activities were part of the cause. Download the committee memo, Full Committee Hearing on Political Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II for the nitty gritty details.

An excerpt from the Committee memo reads as follows:

The CEQ documents appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change. The documents show that Mr. Coney and other CEQ officials made at least 181 edits to the Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties. They also made at least 113 edits to the plan to de emphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming. Other Administration documents that were heavily edited by Mr. Coney and CEQ include EPA's Report on the Environment and the annual report to Congress entitled Our Changing Planet.

Other CEQ documents provide evidence that the White House played an active role in
deciding when federal climate change scientists could answer media questions about their work.

The memo goes on to cover examples of edits discovered through testimony to three above mentioned Administration documents, and outline an Orwellian control over Federal agencies and their employees. References are also made to the oil industry's hand in controlling the flow of information, and the White House policies of intimidation to achieve the desired results.

In a surprise 5-4 ruling on Monday, the supreme court ruled against the Bush administration's environmental policy, stating that the EPA does have the regulatory powers to curb greenhouse gas emissions that fuel global warming. For quite some time the EPA has refused to implement any plan that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses from new vehicles sold in the us, because they claimed that carbon dioxide did not fall under any class of pollutant. The court defeated the EPA stance by declaring that CO2 met the law's description of a pollutant.

The Bush administration's failed stance of of self-regulation has long stood unopposed because of the expert fear mongering that implies federally mandated controls will hurt the economy in the long run. The administration was right, it will hurt the economy - of oil and power companies.

The ruling marks the first high court ruling on Global Warming and opens the door for states to force the EPA to act on regulation and enforcement, to push legislation that will create statewide greenhouse emission caps.

While most of the world is still arguing over the reality of Global Warming, the Science community has long been in accord on the subject - Global Warming is real. The detractors and skeptics of Global warming are few and far between, but they are regularly quoted in the news or appear as guests on round tables that purport to be 'Fair and Balanced'. These folks are considered by their peers to be on the same level of those that would still argue that the Earth is flat or that the Sun revolves around the planet instead of vice-versa. Broach the subject with just about anybody in the science community, and you will soon find that the detractors and skeptics are outnumbered in their opinion by the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

The problem lies in the fact that while the theory has long been established in the science community, the outside world as a whole has lived in blissful ignorance of the facts. Slowly as more people become aware of the changing climate, they are starting to realize that the government and the media have both failed in their duties to serve their constituency and report the truth. In response, the powers that be would rather politicize and obfuscate than act. This way the society at large is distracted by arguing over semantics and junk science. The result is that the public at large will guiltlessly still buy their massive SUV's and burn through their fossil fuels while the polar bears drown and the shorelines erode.

While scientists have no problem debating within their own ranks, the goal is to achieve some sort of consensus. Most scientist do not have the patience or will to argue with somebody who is basically trying to state that the sun is black or that a fish is human, it's just too illogical. They are willing to change their opinion however as long as they have solid fact to back it up, and can repeat the results that lead to the facts in the first place. This is just how science works.

The science proves that the changes are here, they are more than likely permanent and at a point of self perpetuating. The only thing that we can do is adapt to the coming change and try to reduce the anthropomorphic effect on the climate. The first step is getting the society as a whole to admit we have a serious problem here. To do that we need to get the skeptics and the detractors to shut up and sit down.

Dr. Heidi Cullen, the leading climate expert at the Weather Channel, suggested a great way to start us down the road to a healthy discourse on her blog back in December 2006. The meteorologists (weather reporters) that appear nightly in our living room to report on the weather, owe it to their audience to report on solid science and not detract from the facts. She suggests that any meteorologist that can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the American Meteorological Society shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. She's caught a lot of flack for this on Fox and other news outlets of the same caliber, but I couldn't agree with her more. In fact I'm going to start a new category on this blog that will focus on the illogical and sometimes absurd arguments of the skeptics, as well as a category for Global Climate Hero's that focus on people like Dr. Cullen and Dr James Hanson, who put their neck on the chopping block to educate the public.

While the Bush administration was busy issuing gag orders against discussing Global Warming and the declining number of polar bears, the nation of Britain has shown an enourmous amount of common sense and social responsibility by drafting laws that will eventually decrease the national carbon emission by 60% in 2050.

The approach is to incrementally reduce carbon emissions nationally by instituting a carbon budgeting system that is geared towards making behavioral changes in the way the entire population uses and generates the power that is need to run a modern society.

If approved, the population of Great Britain will have to reassess their energy needs, and make adjustments to how and when they use energy in their daily lives to run their vehicles, heat their homes and light their own environment. The first major milestone in the road to 2050, will be a 26 - 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.

Progress will be measured by committees formed to review the budgeting system annually, and make assessments based on effectiveness of the system. Enforcement still has to be worked out, but most likely will be in the form sanctions determined by the courts.

The language out of Downing Street and the House of Commons is quite strong. Prime Minister Tony Blair called global climate change "the biggest long-term threat facing our world", and expressed his wish that Britain advance it's efforts to become a greener society. Environmental minister David Miliband's outlook was optimistic stating, "It is an environmental contract for future generations."

Government leaders have expressed their desire to enact the proposal into law sometime in 2009. If so, it will be the first time any country has set itself legally binding carbon emission reduction targets.

A press release from the Center for Biological Studies decried a White House directive that basically forbids government-employed scientists from discussing polar bears, sea ice and Global Warming. At the end of December 2006, the White House was forced to submit a proposal to add the polar bear to the endangered species list due to shrinking habitat (polar sea ice).

Before travelling to situations where any of these subjects may arise, federally employed scientists must submit a statement of assurance that they understand "the administration's position on these issues". They are required not to speak about or respond to questions regarding these subjects.

Kieran Suckling, policy director with the Center for Biological Diversity sums it up perfectly: "Only the worst cynic could admit the polar bear is being driven extinct by global warming, then issue a gag order to stop government scientists from talking about it."