White House Tampered with Climate Change Report

[Edi]

I didn't see this posted previously, so here goes. The Bush Administration has once more been caught redhanded at tampering results of scientific reports that do not say what they want to hear.

White House sexed-down climate change reports
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Thursday 9th June 2005 10:36 GMT

Official White House policy documents on climate change were altered by a former oil-industry lobbyist to play down the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, it emerged yesterday.

Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, altered several draft reports in 2002 and 2003, after they had been approved by government scientists, despite having no scientific background himself. Much of his editing made it into final versions of reports.

Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.

Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics. Before going to work at the White House, Cooney was the climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade body that represents the oil industry's interests.

The documents came to light via a non-profit organisation that provides legal assistance to government whistle blowers. The Government Accountability Project is representing Rick Piltz, formerly a senior associate in the office that issued the reports. Piltz resigned from his position in March.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote in a document reported by The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

White House officials deny that they are politicising science.

At a press conference this week, President Bush told reporters he believed America is at the forefront of research into climate change. Asked whether he thought climate change was caused by man, he replied: "I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."

Meanwhile, academics from 11 countries, including the US and Britain, distributed an open letter saying: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in the US trying to persuade Bush to commit the US to reducing its greenhouse emissions. The president has called for voluntary measures, but has made no firm promises. ®

Bush is facing mounting and increasingly incontrovertible evidence that something needs to be done, and because his administration is so busy sucking the cock of various economic interest groups, they will go to any lengths to falsify, distort and handwave in order to avoid doing anything.

Edi

[MrAnderson]

You have the statements of one person with an agenda. Now if he comes out with before and after copies of these reports which stand up to investigation then I might care.

Even then I might not care. Scientific facts still show that the Earth herself puts out more climate affecting gases than humanity ever has by a factor of 100 or more.

[Exmoor Cat]

Back that claim Mr Anderson.

[Durandal]

You have the statements of one person with an agenda. Now if he comes out with before and after copies of these reports which stand up to investigation then I might care.

Even then I might not care. Scientific facts still show that the Earth herself puts out more climate affecting gases than humanity ever has by a factor of 100 or more.

Then why is it necessary to tamper with research?

[The Grim Squeaker]

What i cant understand is why some people think that we can pump tons of gases into the air and believe that nothing will happen, i mean that's just plain dumb.

Oh wait this is Bush's white house never mind

[MrAnderson]

You have the statements of one person with an agenda. Now if he comes out with before and after copies of these reports which stand up to investigation then I might care.

Even then I might not care. Scientific facts still show that the Earth herself puts out more climate affecting gases than humanity ever has by a factor of 100 or more.

Then why is it necessary to tamper with research?

Like I said. I want to see some real proof that there was tampering not just the statements of one disgruntled ex-employee.

As for proof here is one article that comes up talking about Volcanoes alone:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6635776/

There are many more out there but it is hard to seperate fact from agenda. Many articles talk about how the oceans are the greatest atmospheric polluters of all but with little or no backing then state in one sweeping line "that most of the pollution returns to the ocean" thus nullifying its importance.

Here is another link which lists the number of errupting volcanoes in the world.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/cur ... rrent.html

[El Moose Monstero]

You have the statements of one person with an agenda. Now if he comes out with before and after copies of these reports which stand up to investigation then I might care.

Even then I might not care. Scientific facts still show that the Earth herself puts out more climate affecting gases than humanity ever has by a factor of 100 or more.

Then why is it necessary to tamper with research?

Like I said. I want to see some real proof that there was tampering not just the statements of one disgruntled ex-employee.

As for proof here is one article that comes up talking about Volcanoes alone:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6635776/

There are many more out there but it is hard to seperate fact from agenda. Many articles talk about how the oceans are the greatest atmospheric polluters of all but with little or no backing then state in one sweeping line "that most of the pollution returns to the ocean" thus nullifying its importance.

Here is another link which lists the number of errupting volcanoes in the world.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/cur ... rrent.html

The fact that the Earth produces far more greenhouse gases than humanity does is irrelevant - global warming is happening, it's a natural thing, without it, we wouldnt even be standing here as the atmosphere creates layers of absorption and emissivity which maintain a surface temperature above freezing and allow oceans to form. The question is whether the extra stuff we're putting out is going to unbalance the system and if it is, what sort of effects they'll have. Off the top of my head, the IPCC is predicting more extremes of weather conditions, so if human production of extra greenhouse gases is going to produce more flooding events causing a greater loss of life and more cost to society, I'd like to know. And I'd like my scientific reports to be unspoiled.

Sorry, but the 'nature makes more carbon dioxide than we do' response is one of my niggles.

Imagine a large bomb which will go off when it hits ground hanging above your house, suspended from a hot air balloon. In that hot air balloon is an elephant. The hot air balloon is currently maintaining it's height.

Now put a baby in that balloon. Now, at this point, you can either shrug your shoulders and say 'the natural elephant is contributing far more to the weight than that baby, why should we care?'. Personally, I'd like to find out whether that baby is going to start the balloon sinking or not.

[Guy N. Cognito]

Ok, let me do this math, how many active volcanos are doing this? I counted 72 on that link. So that means that all the crap man puts out doesn't matter? That's bullshit. You fix what you can. I can't run do to a bad knee, so that measn I won't do anything to get into shape. Come one, let's at least try to be reasonable. And volcanos have been around for quite a while. We are trying to curb man's addition to the problem. Seeing as that is all we can do.

[Darth Wong]

Here's a better analogy: imagine that you are locked in a small house on a hot day at the equator. The heat is brutal, but you're coping. Now somebody turns on a block heater in the middle of the house.

The heat produced by pre-existing natural factors will vastly exceed the heat being produced by the heater, so would you shrug and say that the fire doesn't make any difference? Hell no, you'd smack the idiot and ask him why the fuck he's turning on a block heater in the middle of the house when it's already so goddamned hot.

[Guy N. Cognito]

Much better analogy, thank you

[MrAnderson]

Here's a better analogy: imagine that you are locked in a small house on a hot day at the equator. The heat is brutal, but you're coping. Now somebody turns on a block heater in the middle of the house.

The heat produced by pre-existing natural factors will vastly exceed the heat being produced by the heater, so would you shrug and say that the fire doesn't make any difference? Hell no, you'd smack the idiot and ask him why the fuck he's turning on a block heater in the middle of the house when it's already so goddamned hot.

The question is though and has always been is that a heater the person turned on or is it a zippo lighter.

I have never heard a decent answer that wasnt so politically motivated as to be completely useless.

Futhermore treaties like the Kyoto crap will do nothing when they hurt Western Nations who actually make an effort to keep clean while letting industrial piles of refuse like the PRC continue their current methods.

[SirNitram]

So MrAnderson... A report based on thousands of measurements across the globe and over the years, which only matches the models which presume that industry is a major contributor, is 'So politically motivated as to be useless', to you. Yet you can dismiss political tampering out of hand when it's in favor of your pre-conceived notions. Fascinating.

[Chmee]

Here's a better analogy: imagine that you are locked in a small house on a hot day at the equator. The heat is brutal, but you're coping. Now somebody turns on a block heater in the middle of the house.

The heat produced by pre-existing natural factors will vastly exceed the heat being produced by the heater, so would you shrug and say that the fire doesn't make any difference? Hell no, you'd smack the idiot and ask him why the fuck he's turning on a block heater in the middle of the house when it's already so goddamned hot.

The question is though and has always been is that a heater the person turned on or is it a zippo lighter.

I have never heard a decent answer that wasnt so politically motivated as to be completely useless.

Futhermore treaties like the Kyoto crap will do nothing when they hurt Western Nations who actually make an effort to keep clean while letting industrial piles of refuse like the PRC continue their current methods.

That's why all the other Western nations agreed to Kyoto ... because the U.S. is the only nation on the planet that ever acts in its own self-interest, and everyone else in the world is a delusional commie .......

[MrAnderson]

So MrAnderson... A report based on thousands of measurements across the globe and over the years, which only matches the models which presume that industry is a major contributor, is 'So politically motivated as to be useless', to you. Yet you can dismiss political tampering out of hand when it's in favor of your pre-conceived notions. Fascinating.

1. I have read expert reports from both parties. Not being an expert myself I cannot determine which group of "experts" to believe. I do find it interesting that the global warming crowd created a treaty that was more political than effective and would have done far more to hurt American industry while helping Chinese and 3rd world industry then it would have ever done to stop the "problem".

2. I never EVER believe the words of a single disgruntled ex-employee without more proof. There is no proof as of right now and until there is more evidence I really dont give a shit what he said.

3. Who really cares if it was changed anyway. Adding a very adjectives and adverbs is hardly altering the document. If the report has real numbers attached to it along with graphs and proper comparisons then some summary that says what is or isnt substantial does really matter. If actual data was changed then its a bigger deal

Besides in the end it comes down to opinion. What one person considers substantial may be minor to the next and earth shattering to a third.

If I am doing 70 in a 55 zone am I speeding, driving recklessly, or just going over the limit?

[SirNitram]

So MrAnderson... A report based on thousands of measurements across the globe and over the years, which only matches the models which presume that industry is a major contributor, is 'So politically motivated as to be useless', to you. Yet you can dismiss political tampering out of hand when it's in favor of your pre-conceived notions. Fascinating.

1. I have read expert reports from both parties. Not being an expert myself I cannot determine which group of "experts" to believe. I do find it interesting that the global warming crowd created a treaty that was more political than effective and would have done far more to hurt American industry while helping Chinese and 3rd world industry then it would have ever done to stop the "problem".

Wow, lookie there. Blatant distortionism.. The scientists say global warming is occouring, the politicians write up a treaty, and you, like all dishonest cunts, mix the two together into some mythical 'Global Warming Crowd'. Unsurprising from the Right Wing on this: Honesty is anathema to you.

2. I never EVER believe the words of a single disgruntled ex-employee without more proof. There is no proof as of right now and until there is more evidence I really dont give a shit what he said.

'I refuse to accept any evidence I don't like.' Yep, as per normal.

3. Who really cares if it was changed anyway. Adding a very adjectives and adverbs is hardly altering the document. If the report has real numbers attached to it along with graphs and proper comparisons then some summary that says what is or isnt substantial does really matter. If actual data was changed then its a bigger deal

'I don't really think it's at all important that scietntific documents are being modified to advance the cause of businesses.. Who needs this science stuff anyway?' Yea, the usual. We could get a pull-string monkey for this.

Besides in the end it comes down to opinion. What one person considers substantial may be minor to the next and earth shattering to a third.

Wow, a sophist. Sorry, there's objective data to consider. Oh, wait, that's anathema to the Right Wing mindset on this: It must be opinion, or you can't simply discount what people qualified to study this say.

If I am doing 70 in a 55 zone am I speeding, driving recklessly, or just going over the limit?

What a load of bullshit. As per normal.

[MrAnderson]

Here's a better analogy: imagine that you are locked in a small house on a hot day at the equator. The heat is brutal, but you're coping. Now somebody turns on a block heater in the middle of the house.

The heat produced by pre-existing natural factors will vastly exceed the heat being produced by the heater, so would you shrug and say that the fire doesn't make any difference? Hell no, you'd smack the idiot and ask him why the fuck he's turning on a block heater in the middle of the house when it's already so goddamned hot.

The question is though and has always been is that a heater the person turned on or is it a zippo lighter.

I have never heard a decent answer that wasnt so politically motivated as to be completely useless.

Futhermore treaties like the Kyoto crap will do nothing when they hurt Western Nations who actually make an effort to keep clean while letting industrial piles of refuse like the PRC continue their current methods.

That's why all the other Western nations agreed to Kyoto ... because the U.S. is the only nation on the planet that ever acts in its own self-interest, and everyone else in the world is a delusional commie .......

Did it hurt anyone as much as it hurt the USA? I somehow doubt every other country on the planet signed the treaty and we said screw you.

3rd world nations got a huge pass in the treaty, so did the PRC which is far from a 3rd world nation. This aids them and hurts the USA alot and doesnt even fix the problem since it will merely push international corporations to move their operations to those shielded countries. Here is another example. Take a look at the requirements given to Germany. They were based on the worse case examples of pollution output in the former East German area. This gave Germany a huge pass on having to make any real effort in improvement.

[MrAnderson]

So MrAnderson... A report based on thousands of measurements across the globe and over the years, which only matches the models which presume that industry is a major contributor, is 'So politically motivated as to be useless', to you. Yet you can dismiss political tampering out of hand when it's in favor of your pre-conceived notions. Fascinating.

1. I have read expert reports from both parties. Not being an expert myself I cannot determine which group of "experts" to believe. I do find it interesting that the global warming crowd created a treaty that was more political than effective and would have done far more to hurt American industry while helping Chinese and 3rd world industry then it would have ever done to stop the "problem".

Wow, lookie there. Blatant distortionism.. The scientists say global warming is occouring, the politicians write up a treaty, and you, like all dishonest cunts, mix the two together into some mythical 'Global Warming Crowd'. Unsurprising from the Right Wing on this: Honesty is anathema to you.

2. I never EVER believe the words of a single disgruntled ex-employee without more proof. There is no proof as of right now and until there is more evidence I really dont give a shit what he said.

'I refuse to accept any evidence I don't like.' Yep, as per normal.

3. Who really cares if it was changed anyway. Adding a very adjectives and adverbs is hardly altering the document. If the report has real numbers attached to it along with graphs and proper comparisons then some summary that says what is or isnt substantial does really matter. If actual data was changed then its a bigger deal

'I don't really think it's at all important that scietntific documents are being modified to advance the cause of businesses.. Who needs this science stuff anyway?' Yea, the usual. We could get a pull-string monkey for this.

Besides in the end it comes down to opinion. What one person considers substantial may be minor to the next and earth shattering to a third.

Wow, a sophist. Sorry, there's objective data to consider. Oh, wait, that's anathema to the Right Wing mindset on this: It must be opinion, or you can't simply discount what people qualified to study this say.

If I am doing 70 in a 55 zone am I speeding, driving recklessly, or just going over the limit?

What a load of bullshit. As per normal.

Maybe when you pull your sisters dick out of your ass and bother to reply to my actual statements instead of acting like the internet clown your icon so effectively represents you as I will bother to respond.

Till then fuck off.

[SirNitram]

Maybe when you pull your sisters dick out of your ass and bother to reply to my actual statements instead of acting like the internet clown your icon so effectively represents you as I will bother to respond.

Till then fuck off.

What's that, little boy? Instead of replying to the fact I called you on your blatant and overt fallacies, you'll throw a second-grade flame and stamp off? Good. Begone apologist, your flailing attempts have no place in a forum for intellectual discussion.

[Chmee]

The question is though and has always been is that a heater the person turned on or is it a zippo lighter.

I have never heard a decent answer that wasnt so politically motivated as to be completely useless.

Futhermore treaties like the Kyoto crap will do nothing when they hurt Western Nations who actually make an effort to keep clean while letting industrial piles of refuse like the PRC continue their current methods.

That's why all the other Western nations agreed to Kyoto ... because the U.S. is the only nation on the planet that ever acts in its own self-interest, and everyone else in the world is a delusional commie .......

Did it hurt anyone as much as it hurt the USA? I somehow doubt every other country on the planet signed the treaty and we said screw you.

Functionally, that's exactly what happened ... we're the only G8 nation not to sign and the only NATO nation not to sign, IIRC.

fyi, American companies that do business overseas are already complying wiith Kyoto -- they have to. We sell about 50% of our product internationally, and we have to comply with Kyoto requirements for lead-free soldering processes in manufacturing by the end of the year to keep selling in our Kyoto signatory markets (Europe & Asia) ..... and we aren't going to sustain 2 separate manufacturing processes, so we'll be selling that same product in the U.S.

[MrAnderson]

Maybe when you pull your sisters dick out of your ass and bother to reply to my actual statements instead of acting like the internet clown your icon so effectively represents you as I will bother to respond.

Till then fuck off.

What's that, little boy? Instead of replying to the fact I called you on your blatant and overt fallacies, you'll throw a second-grade flame and stamp off? Good. Begone apologist, your flailing attempts have no place in a forum for intellectual discussion.

All I saw was some vague generalizing by you along with some arrogant dipshit make yourself look funny to the peanut gallery comments.

[SirNitram]

All I saw was some vague generalizing by you along with some arrogant dipshit make yourself look funny to the peanut gallery comments.

Well, being illiterate will probably prevent you from seeing the simple layout I gave to my replies:

You blatantly misrepresented things by throwing politicians responsible for Kyoto and scientists responsible for uncovering this together and calling them the same thing. Strike one.

You waved your hands vaguely about how you won't accept any evidence you don't like because it doesn't meet some unvoiced standard. Strike two.

And for the last whiff at air, you proceed to go Sophist, claiming it's all opinion, when in fact there's gobs of objective data, it just all disagrees with you.

There. Simplified for your simpleton ways. Why do I suspect you'll again stamp your feet and claim I'm just grandstandin? Oh yes, because you have all the debate skills of a slug.

[MrAnderson]

All I saw was some vague generalizing by you along with some arrogant dipshit make yourself look funny to the peanut gallery comments.

Well, being illiterate will probably prevent you from seeing the simple layout I gave to my replies:

You blatantly misrepresented things by throwing politicians responsible for Kyoto and scientists responsible for uncovering this together and calling them the same thing. Strike one.

You waved your hands vaguely about how you won't accept any evidence you don't like because it doesn't meet some unvoiced standard. Strike two.

And for the last whiff at air, you proceed to go Sophist, claiming it's all opinion, when in fact there's gobs of objective data, it just all disagrees with you.

There. Simplified for your simpleton ways. Why do I suspect you'll again stamp your feet and claim I'm just grandstandin? Oh yes, because you have all the debate skills of a slug.

You really are a moron arent you?

1. I said I find it convenient that a treaty was supported that would not stop the problem nearly as well as it would help certain countries economically.

2. I said I would not accept the word of a single disgruntled employee as gods truth without something real to back it up. Disgruntled former employees say lots of things. Why take this guys word for it without some proof or collaborating testimony. At least one other "honest" person must be able to back what he is saying.

3. You are an idiot. I said the extra verbage means nothing. If the hard numbers are there then they will stand on their own. It wont matter what the flowery support statements say. If you see the stats on a car and those reports show it does 140mph then me writing the car is slow means nothing. My words are completely overshadowed by the hard number facts. Now if you need those statements to help out your numbers because they dont make that strong a case and changing the verbage will have a big impact then its obvious that you have a problem with your entire stance. I have read enough here on SD.net to know that here FACTS are supposed to be paramount. No amount of flowery words will matter.

Are you suggesting that this all important report was so slim on facts that it needed "expert testimony" type flowery statements to support it then hell you have got a bigger problem on your hands.

[Xon]

What is with all the utter morons these last few weeks?

Personal attacks like:

Maybe when you pull your sisters dick out of your ass and bother to reply to my actual statements instead of acting like the internet clown your icon so effectively represents you as I will bother to respond.

Till then fuck off.

Is a sure fired way to get yourself banned.

[SirNitram]

You really are a moron arent you?

No, not really. But I'm sure you'll prove you're delusioned enough to think anyone who disagrees with you is a moron.

1. I said I find it convenient that a treaty was supported that would not stop the problem nearly as well as it would help certain countries economically.

Again, you keep mixing together the two divergent groups. Dishonest and fallacious. You do not in fact refute this in any way, you just restate it.

Restatement does not make a lie true.

2. I said I would not accept the word of a single disgruntled employee as gods truth without something real to back it up. Disgruntled former employees say lots of things. Why take this guys word for it without some proof or collaborating testimony. At least one other "honest" person must be able to back what he is saying.

Or they're under threat of being fired. Which would make them disgruntled ex-employees. Which you don't trust.

The track record on this is clear. And you have again not made the slightest refutation of my comment, merely restated yourself.

3. You are an idiot. I said the extra verbage means nothing. If the hard numbers are there then they will stand on their own. It wont matter what the flowery support statements say. If you see the stats on a car and those reports show it does 140mph then me writing the car is slow means nothing. My words are completely overshadowed by the hard number facts. Now if you need those statements to help out your numbers because they dont make that strong a case and changing the verbage will have a big impact then its obvious that you have a problem with your entire stance. I have read enough here on SD.net to know that here FACTS are supposed to be paramount. No amount of flowery words will matter.

Wow, you've got a case of total reality disconnect. As much as one can like the idea of hard numbers being all, we live in a world where the words used matter. And all the stamping of feet and rewording in the world can't change that.

Are you suggesting that this all important report was so slim on facts that it needed "expert testimony" type flowery statements to support it then hell you have got a bigger problem on your hands.

Yea, this problem is called 'Reality', and the sad fact that the majority of the people in it don't know how to interperate hard numbers and facts. Which is why there exists such a thing as expert testimony and why we have experts.

[Guy N. Cognito]

1. I said I find it convenient that a treaty was supported that would not stop the problem nearly as well as it would help certain countries economically.

The treaty (which I don't think was that good) was still from the mind of the politicians and not from the scientists, as SirNitram said. It is supposed to be a step in the direction of cleaning up industry for the environment. Not the final solution.

2. I said I would not accept the word of a single disgruntled employee as gods truth without something real to back it up. Disgruntled former employees say lots of things. Why take this guys word for it without some proof or collaborating testimony. At least one other "honest" person must be able to back what he is saying.

You know, because he was just saying bad things and providing evidence on the matter because he didn't get his christmas bonus. He was disgruntled for a reason and if this is what he is choosing to bring forth, it was probably has to do with the ethics involved in changing scietific reports.

3. You are an idiot. I said the extra verbage means nothing. If the hard numbers are there then they will stand on their own. It wont matter what the flowery support statements say. If you see the stats on a car and those reports show it does 140mph then me writing the car is slow means nothing. My words are completely overshadowed by the hard number facts. Now if you need those statements to help out your numbers because they dont make that strong a case and changing the verbage will have a big impact then its obvious that you have a problem with your entire stance. I have read enough here on SD.net to know that here FACTS are supposed to be paramount. No amount of flowery words will matter.

You are a moron..... You are a possible moron. You know I didn't change the meaning of that sentence. Added words can completely change the meaning of the report, and are you overlooking the fact that an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH was removed? That can cover a lot of shit. And some how I doubt that these reports to politicians are full of pictures and graphs. Otherwise this person wouldn't have had a chance to make a difference when he changed the report

Are you suggesting that this all important report was so slim on facts that it needed "expert testimony" type flowery statements to support it then hell you have got a bigger problem on your hands.

Yes, we call them politicians. humour aside, politicians don't understand a lot of hard numbers like that. They like 'important' people telling them it's good or bad, and look a lot into what is written. They also weigh what is good with what they will get campaign money for.