Scientists Criticize White House Stance on Climate Change Findings

For the billionth time :eyes:. This is truly criminal. Suppression of science that could make a serious difference to the lives of future generations.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/washington/31interfere.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


Scientists Criticize White House Stance on Climate Change Findings

Under its new Democratic chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform took on the Bush administration’s handling of climate change science yesterday, and even the Republicans on the panel had little good to say about the administration’s actions.


NASA’s Goals Delete Mention of Home Planet (July 22, 2006)
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming (June 8, 2005)
Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue (October 19, 2004)]

The subject of the hearing was accusations of administration interference with the work of government climate scientists. Almost to a person, Republicans on the panel introduced themselves by proclaiming their agreement that the earth’s climate was warming and that the principal culprit was greenhouse gases generated by people and their machinery.

And when witnesses spoke in defense of the administration, it was often to say only that there were still some scientists who doubted that climate view or that the administration’s approach was not unique.

“Cherry-picking” science to suit policy or political goals is at least as old as the Eisenhower administration, said Roger Pielke Jr., a professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado. The committee itself is guilty of it, he added, pointing to a news release linking rising ocean temperatures to bigger and more frequent coastal storms, something about which there is still debate.

But the other witnesses spoke about how the administration had delayed, altered or watered down the findings of government scientists, the kind of thing they said they had not experienced in the Clinton administration.

Drew Shindell, a NASA scientist who said he was speaking as an individual, not for his agency, described research he and his colleagues did on ozone depletion and greenhouse gases over Antarctica.

Dr. Shindell said the findings helped explain recent cooling on the continent, a phenomenon cited by climate dissidents as challenging the mainstream view. And, he said, the findings suggested Antarctica might warm rapidly in the future, melting ice and sharply raising sea levels. By the time the administration had signed off on the work, he said, its importance had been played down and references to “rapid warming” had been deleted.

Another witness, Rick Piltz, said he resigned in protest in 2005 from his job with the federal Climate Change Science Program when he became convinced that the administration’s goal was to “impede” the understanding of climate science among the public and even the Congress.

Part of his job, Mr. Piltz said, was to compile periodic assessments of government climate research for the Congress. “This report has essentially been made to vanish by the Bush administration,” he said.

The fourth witness was Francesca Grifo, who directs the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group that researches environmental, arms control and other issues.

Dr. Grifo’s testimony drew largely from a report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, a private group that defends whistle-blowers. The report, made public yesterday, is based on a Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal climate scientists and interviews and document searches by the Government Accountability Project. It says it is common for scientists to be pressured to eliminate references to climate change, for their work to be changed to misrepresent their findings, and for climate-related materials to disappear from Web sites.

Almost 60 percent of the scientists who responded to the survey said they had personally experienced such an incident in the last five years, the report says, and those who said their work was most closely related to climate change experienced the most interference. (Information about the report is available at www.ucsusa.org.)

Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, noted that a majority of scientists queried had not responded to the survey. Dr. Grifo said she attributed that to the “chilling effect” of administration actions. Anyway, she said, scores of scientists reported problems. “That number should be zero,” she said.

I will keep an eye out on CSPAN. Lots of good hearings on CSPAN nowadays.

statements.

for suppressing the truth about global warming. He openly admitted that he fudged data. And,he mysteriously resigned 6 mos ago.

Prior to working for the WH he worked for PIA (the Petroleum Inst of America) and has since gone to BP.

The hearings were great. But, we need to ask this man some questions. Not just the scientists.

The American Petroleum Institute?
If not they should also give an award to that moran Crichton. In m unscientific estimation, his lame book "State of Fear"(:eyes:) did more to discredit the environmental movement, than all of CATO's ad campaigns in the last 5 years.

at least that's what turned up in a google search. What also turned up was a very interesting bit of info from sourcewatch.org.

Petroleum is cool
The API is the producer of a 16-minute video titled 'Fuel-less: you can't be cool without fuel', which was distributed through the National Science Teachers Association. The film starts with the line "you're not going to believe this, but everything everything I have that's really cool comes from oil!" <9>.

The API funds a website called 'classroom energy' <10>, which aims to provide teachers and students with materials on 'the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.'

An API memo leaked to the media in 1998 shed some light on the motivation for targeting schools: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future." <11>

Personnel
Philip Cooney
Red Cavaney, President.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute

Note: Nice to know that Big Oil now controls info in our science classrooms, a major reason that the offer of 50,000 free CDS of Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" was turned down by NSTA so kids could not watch it in their science classrooms, even though it's required viewing in many science classes in Europe.

Cooney & co. should definitely be questioned about their affiliations with Big Oil and the ensueing culling of scientific evidence for global climate change and Anthropogenic causes. Seems criminal to me and would love to see them all end up serving time!

Cooney is a key figure. I rememer downloading the pdf of the "minor text changes" he made to the reports. Made my blood boil :grr:...

thanks! It's great to be here among like minded folks.

I think that we should call Rep. Waxman, tell him that from our research, Mr. Philip Cooney should definitely be questioned even though he's no longer got the job of axing climate info.
Waxman's number is:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

Or send comments if you are in his district at this link:

http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm

I've been studying this corp for several years now and it just get's worse as time goes by. We already know how they have funded climate skeptics, think tanks like CEI, etc but just a few more fun facts from exposeexxon.com:


Ever wonder why the U.S. has done so little to address global warming and America’s dependence on oil? Using the playbook of the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has waged a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign since the 1990s to deceive the public and the media about global warming. ExxonMobil is a rogue company even among its peers. Despite overwhelming evidence and agreement of 2,000 scientists with the world’s foremost authority, the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ExxonMobil insists it will “stay the course” of denying the reality and urgency of global warming. Illustrated below are snapshots of ExxonMobil’s efforts to keep America addicted to oil.

“At a minimum, there’s an enormous amount of uncertainty around this whole question .” – ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, 2006. 3

According to ExxonMobil, the U.S. should stop trying to become energy independent. Hoping to end foreign oil imports is not only a bad idea, but also impossible. 4

In June 2005, ExxonMobil hired Philip Cooney, and a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, one week following his resignation as Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality after it was revealed that he had erroneously edited government reports on global warming to reflect the oil industry's position. 7
In a confidential memo to the White House, ExxonMobil requested that the administration dismiss the respected atmospheric scientist Dr. Robert Watson as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Shortly after, the Bush administration opposed Dr. Watson's appointment as IPCC chair for a second term. The same memo recommended that Harlan Watson (no relation), a Republican staffer with the House Committee on Science, be included in U.S. diplomatic efforts on global warming. Harlan Watson is now the State Department’s senior climate negotiator. 8

ExxonMobil heavily publicized a fake petition supposedly signed by 17,000 “scientists” that dismissed the scientific consensus on global warming. The memo was made to appear as if it was endorsed by the National Academy Sciences (NAS), though it included “signatures” from cartoon and television sitcom characters. The NAS subsequently issued an extraordinary statement dismissing the fraudulent effort. 18
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/dailyfacts.html

Another person of interest pops out like a sore thumb; Dr. Harlan Watson who is deeply connected to Exxon & API. He is Chief Climate Negotiator for the State Department and got that job because Exxonmobil wanted him there so voila! Google his name for more info.


:mad: :spank:

You should make a separate post of it. So whats the deal with Richard Lindzen do you know? I know he gets paid $2500/hr in "consultation" fees by oil co.s but I don't know just how deeply involved he is. He is one of the few reputable scientists helping this lot out.

I do know that he's a climate skeptic that is not highly regarded by most honest climate scientists including those on realclimate.org though they are very polite in dealing with his many errors. I've read some of his quotes, etc., and found them to be the usual pablum dished out by said skeptics. Lindzen and Fred Singer are pretty infamous in most reputable climate science websites. For a pretty stinging look into their history, see this link (actually I just found this site and they appear to have some pretty shocking, damning evidence against both of these scientists):

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

Sourcewatch has some info on him here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen


I hope to find a bit more time tonight to post a seperate post on these folks.

:kick: