Bush Official Altered Climate Change Reports

[Bandit2981]

link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Ins ute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal do ents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

"That's false," spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The reports are based on the best scientific knowledge that we have at this time."

The newspaper said it had obtained the do ents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the do ents that Cooney edited, the Times said.

The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all do ents related to global environmental change.

"All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected," Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the newspaper.

In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that "politicization by the White House" was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.

[Useruser666]

link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House official who previously worked for the American Petroleum Ins ute has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal do ents.

The White House denied that Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

"That's false," spokesman Scott McClellan said. "The reports are based on the best scientific knowledge that we have at this time."

The newspaper said it had obtained the do ents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the do ents that Cooney edited, the Times said.

The newspaper said Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

White House officials told the newspaper the changes were part of a normal interagency review of all do ents related to global environmental change.

"All comments are reviewed, and some are accepted and some are rejected," Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy told the newspaper.

In a memo sent last week to top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Piltz charged that "politicization by the White House" was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.

Gee, I wonder why he did it?

[2centsworth]

Where's the proof? If he is hiding something I want to know, if he's not hiding something I want to know too.

[xrayzebra]

The part that you all left out which I like the best: "However, critics said that while all administations have routinely vetted government report, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and REPRESENTATIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL groups". Now you know "Representatives of enviornmental groups" wouldn't try to chage anything, would they.......

[2centsworth]

The part that you all left out which I like the best: "However, critics said that while all administations have routinely vetted government report, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and REPRESENTATIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL groups". Now you know "Representatives of enviornmental groups" wouldn't try to chage anything, would they.......

I would like to see the do ents start to finish before making up my mind. For most monkeys the NYTimes article is enough evidence.

[Bandit2981]

climate change is not the proper subject to manipulate and fudge up...there can be very serious consequences for all of us if this is taken lightly

[2centsworth]

climate change is not the proper subject to manipulate and fudge up...there can be very serious consequences for all of us if this is taken lightly

where's the proof it was fudged up?

[Bandit2981]

where's the proof it was fudged up?

somewhere in the internal do ents the Times is using as sources, i dont have them

[Nbadan]

The proof is in the poodin...HERE is an example of Philip Cooney's revisions...

[RandomGuy]

The part that you all left out which I like the best: "However, critics said that while all administations have routinely vetted government report, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and REPRESENTATIVES OF ENVIRONMENTAL groups". Now you know "Representatives of enviornmental groups" wouldn't try to chage anything, would they.......

and representatives of petroleum producers wouldn't try to influence reporting on global warming, either?

The issue is that the Bush administration is trying to re-interpret scientific data they don't like to suit their own ends, just like they puffed up intel before Iraq.

This is the worst example of the "ends justify the means" mentality that dominates our short-sighted and pedantic adminstration.

[2centsworth]

The proof is in the poodin...HERE is an example of Philip Cooney's revisions...

Nbadan,

Gotta give it to you for your ability to research. Thanks for the work. However, I don't see a thing wrong with those revisions. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[xrayzebra]

and representatives of petroleum producers wouldn't try to influence reporting on global warming, either?

The issue is that the Bush administration is trying to re-interpret scientific data they don't like to suit their own ends, just like they puffed up intel before Iraq.

This is the worst example of the "ends justify the means" mentality that dominates our short-sighted and pedantic adminstration.

And then you have this little tidbit:

Washington -- Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but some engage in fact-bending or deceit, according to the first largescale survey of scientific misbehavior.

More than 5 percent of scientists answering the confidential questionnair admittred to having tossed out data because it contradicted their previous research or said they had cir vented some human research protections.

Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors or published research reports.

More than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

The study was done by the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis and appears in todays issue of the Journal Nature.

The Washington Post

So what we have here is a failure to communicate......