Bush Administration Accused of Doctoring Scientists' Reports on Climate Change
By Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian UK

The Bush administration was yesterday accused of systemic tampering with the work of government climate scientists to eliminate politically inconvenient material about global warming.

At a hearing of Congress, scientists and advocacy groups described a campaign by the White House to remove references to global warming from scientific reports and limit public mention of the topic to avoid pressure on an administration opposed to mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.

Such pressure extended even to the use of the words "global warming" or "climate change", said a report released yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project. The report said nearly half of climate scientists at government agencies had been advised against using those terms.

Yesterday's hearings, overseen by the new Democratic chair of the House committee on oversight and government reform, Congressman Henry Waxman, follow years of complaints by scientists that the Bush administration was seeking to put its own spin on scientific research at government agencies. They also complain of a reduction in funding for climate research since the 1990s.

The committee was warned that the campaign by the Bush administration discouraged free academic inquiry. "If you know what you are writing has to go through a White House clearance before it is to be published, people start writing for the class," said Rick Piltz, a former senior associate at the US Climate Change Science Programme. "An anticipatory kind of self-censorship sets in."

The balance appears to have shifted somewhat since the Democrats took control of Congress this month. At least five bills proposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions - an idea that is anathema to the White House - have been introduced in the House and Senate.

However, Mr Piltz told Congress even he was taken aback by the extent of the political interference, in technical reports, public meetings as well as exchanges with the media, in which scientists were assigned minders from the administration.

In the survey of 1,600 government scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 46% had been warned against using terms like global warming in speech or in their reports. The scientists interviewed were working at seven government agencies, from Nasa to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Forty-three percent of respondents said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Some 38% said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and printed reports.

"There were a very large number of edits that came at the 12th hour after all the earlier science people had signed off," said Mr Piltz, who eventually resigned from his job because of such pressure. In one such case, a White House appointee, Phil Cooney, demanded 400 last-minute changes which significantly changed the meaning and tone of the report.

No detail was beyond the scrutiny of administration officials, it seemed. Drew Shindell, a scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, described how officials repeatedly objected to the title of a report which measured rapid warming in Antarctica before dictating their own choice. "Word came back from above that it should be: 'Scientists study Antarctic Climate Change'," Dr Shindell said. "I thought it was so watered down it would be of little interest to anybody."

Much of the testimony yesterday centred on the influence exerted by Mr Cooney, a former lobbyist for the petroleum industry who was put in charge of the Council on Environmental Quality. Mr Cooney now works for Exxon Mobil, the committee was told. In one instance, Mr Cooney personally edited out a key section of an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress on the dangers of climate change. "He called it speculative musing," Mr Piltz said.

Mr Waxman said he knew of further evidence of such tampering but had been stonewalled by a White House which had repeatedly resisted requests for documents about Mr Cooney's involvement in controlling information.

Source

Union of Concerned Scientists + Government Accountability Project = well known but unlabeled left-wing activist groups.

Ah, yes, so 1600 government paid scientists, not part of either group mentioned, who were surveyed just lied? Gimme a break. The Bush administration is the most corrupt, blatant bunch of liars and manipulators our country has ever had to deal with. This is just par for the course.

Ah, yes, so 1600 government paid scientists, not part of either group mentioned, who were surveyed just lied? Gimme a break. The Bush administration is the most corrupt, blatant bunch of liars and manipulators our country has ever had to deal with. This is just par for the course.

Union of Concerned Scientists + Government Accountability Project = well known but unlabeled left-wing activist groups.

Well, Aztec Warrior, we'll see soon enough. The truth will come out on Friday when the international panel of climatologists releases its upcoming report on global warming. Either a representative percentage of scientists will agree with Bush's take on the matter, or their material will differ markedly from what the American public's seen lately.

Of course, the American scientists already have their opinions down on record, since scholars publish in a variety of formats all over the world and Bush can't very well censor the non-American ones. They probably also have written copies of their rejection notices and rewrite requests. The big change at this point will be that the scientific data will be published in an unrestricted manner that is directly accessable to the public.

Gee, I wonder what's going to happen?

Isn't it satisfying watching the s**t hit the fan?

Who do you think conducted that survey and compiled the numbers in some back room? Those "scientists" did not appear at the hearings.

“If a meteorologist has an AMS [American Meteorological Society] Seal of Approval which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . . . If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an incorrect statement.”...Heidi Cullen: The Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”

A your typical conservitive responce. Insultive with no substance to the matters at hand. Gee golly wizz how I "love" that. (sarcasm)
Phht this is nothing new. And it's amusing to me that when it finaly came out to the public, people were shocked. "Bush's administration lieing to us?? NO! It can't be!" Why yes. Yes indeed. Our government.. lied to us. Again. You would think that we would be used to it. (Remember folks... it's not ok to screw an intern and lie about it. But's it's perfectly ok to screw your country, and lie about it!)

I don't see anything hitting the fan. The debate will continue...or will it?

“If a meteorologist has an AMS [American Meteorological Society] Seal of Approval which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming . . . . If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise . . . It’s not a political statement . . . it’s just an incorrect statement.”...Heidi Cullen: The Weather Channel’s resident “climate expert.”

The first claim, popular during the ?70s, was that a new ice age would be caused by human use of coal, oil and natural gas. (See the quotes on page 27.) This argument was "proved" by the then-decreasing global temperatures that began in about 1940. As temperatures stabilized, however, and resumed their 300-year warming cycle, the lie of "global cooling" faded from the scene.

The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling.

Suppressed alternative: Nuclear energy is clean, safe and efficient. Unlike hydocarbon fuels, the small amount of waste it produces is contained in the reactor core and can be easily disposed of through fuel reprocessing. (A nuclear plant?s cooling towers emit water vapor, not dangerous pollutants.) Yet the same forces promoting the global warming scare have essentially shut down domestic use of nuclear energy ? demonstrating that their true agenda is undermining human progress, rather than protecting the environment.


This same cast of characters, in fact, will be found promoting virtually any scheme that would reduce technological progress, thereby increasing human misery and death. One can reliably predict that most hard-core activists in the anti-technology, anti-people environmental lobby will be:

? For "population control" measures such as abortion, which kills millions of pre-born babies per year;

? Against chemical technology and for the ban on DDT that is responsible for millions of malaria deaths every year;

? In favor of high taxation and oppressive regulations that harm or kill untold numbers through the waste of human resources; and

? For world government, which offers the ultimate in tyrannical control over human life and death.

Of course, some hard-core environmentalists believe their own propaganda ? they sincerely believe that man is the scourge of the Earth and that his numbers must be reduced and his effect on the environment radically curtailed. But there are others who know better and who are trying to create widespread fear through overblown or manufactured environmental "crises" to justify global, authoritarian controls. Their largest and most ambitious manufactured "crisis" thus far is the myth of human-caused global warming.

If this myth becomes entrenched in world agreements to diminish hydrocarbon fuel use, the cost will be not just hundreds of billions of dollars but countless numbers of human lives. More than two billion of the world?s people live on the very edge of human existence. To them, the rise or fall of world technology is not a matter of "convenience" or "quality of life." It is instead a matter of human survival. If world economic conditions deteriorate, hundreds of millions of these people are going to die. The remainder, losing their chance to lift themselves from poverty, will slip backward into the dim twilight in which they suffer silently amid poverty, disease and death.? A consensus comprised of nearly all scientists agrees that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Not only is there no such "consensus," but, if anything, the situation is opposite from what the global warming alarmists claim. When one of the authors of this essay (Dr. Arthur Robinson) briefly circulated a petition opposing the Kyoto treaty among American scientists, he received, by first class mail, about 17,000 signatures. The petition stated:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth?s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth?s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

With more resources for printing and mailing, probably 50,000 signatures could have been obtained from American scientists. The signatories included Dr. Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Sciences), who wrote a cover letter for the petition, and a long list of America?s most accomplished scientists. (For a complete list of the signatories, two-thirds of whom hold advanced degrees, go to www.oism.org/pproject.)

Source

At least you didn't characterize it as my "typical Republican response", i guess that's something. Insulting? No, those are left wing activists groups...fact. But read my other posts and I'm sure you'll find lots of substance. Regardless, of what any administration says about anything, one must still do their own homework "due diligence" or be swayed by propaganda (from both sides).

The latest scare asserts that the Earth is warming as a result of human use of coal, oil, and natural gas. This myth of "human-caused global warming" is promoted by billions of dollars worth of propaganda in the American media today. Its creators are the very same people who demonized nuclear power and once warned about global cooling.

Suppressed alternative: Nuclear energy is clean, safe and efficient. Unlike hydocarbon fuels, the small amount of waste it produces is contained in the reactor core and can be easily disposed of through fuel reprocessing. (A nuclear plant?s cooling towers emit water vapor, not dangerous pollutants.) Yet the same forces promoting the global warming scare have essentially shut down domestic use of nuclear energy ? demonstrating that their true agenda is undermining human progress, rather than protecting the environment.

No, those are left wing activists groups...fact.

I don't necessarily believe any administration. I have done my research, and that's why I don't buy global warming is caused by man. 60 Minutes does not impress me, nor does the NY Times.

So typical of you liberals to attack anyone who doesn't agree with your leftwing notions. Goodbye.

http://www.oism.org/pproject <---- The main page.. read also the explanation as well

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

It also shows that the medevil spike of temperature rise was hotter than it was today without all the industry and cars

http://www.oism.org/pproject <---- The main page.. read also the explanation as well

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

This is way too long to summarize but its all the information you need on this subject. charts graphs models... the whole 9 yards

The process we are going through is purely a normal cycle of the earth.

It also shows that the medevil spike of temperature rise was hotter than it was today without all the industry and cars

also it has many signatures of people who will claim that global warming is a myth

bluezone - then why do some of the leading scientists sign this petition if this guy is wrong?

silvercougar - actually it says the opposite....

silvercougar - actually it says the opposite....

yes i just did... i see... my apologies if i came across in any way as arrogant to any of you

good day

yes i just did... i see... my apologies if i came across in any way as arrogant to any of you

good day

Has the White House interfered on global warming reports?
By Peter N. Spotts

Melting ice: Global warming is often
blamed for receding glaciers, like this one
in Iceland. But some government scientists
say they can't speak freely about the issue.

A new report claims that the Bush administration has suppressed scientists' climate-change work.

More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies say they have been pressured to remove references to "climate change" and "global warming" from a range of documents, including press releases and communications with Congress. Roughly the same number say appointees altered the meaning of scientific findings on climate contained in communications related to their research.

These findings, part of a new report compiled by two watchdog groups, shed new light on complaints by a scattering of scientists over the past year who have publicly complained that Bush administration appointees have tried to mute or muzzle what researchers have to say about global warming.

"We are beyond the anecdotal," says Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), one of the two groups, referring to press reports of a dozen instances of interference that have emerged over the past 12 months. "We now have evidence to support the view that this problem goes deeper than just these few high-profile cases."

Global-warming science must be accurately represented to enable lawmakers to craft adequate policies to control the problem and adapt to climate change, Dr. Grifo says. Scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies working on climate-related issues are doing excellent work. "But it's under threat, and they are struggling to get their results out" to the general public, she says.

Grifo described some of the report's findings during hearings Tuesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and during a press briefing afterward. The two groups say they will release additional material next week, when the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation holds similar hearings.

On the eve of 'consensus' report

The hearings and the new report come as climate scientists from around the world have gathered in Paris to put the finishing touches on a comprehensive "state of the science" report on global warming. The volume is a "consensus" document that summarizes the past five years of peer-reviewed research on the subject and is set for release Friday.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering several pieces of legislation that would impose controls on industrial carbon-dioxide emissions – blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere and contributing to the noticeable warming effect on the earth's climate.

The question is not so much about federal scientists' ability to publish their results in specialized journals that few but their colleagues read, the report's authors say. Instead, the trouble arises when agencies translate "journalese" into language the general public or lawmakers can grasp for use in official government reports or media releases.

The UCS is an environmental group with a longstanding interest in the politicization of science. The other watchdog group behind the report, the Government Accountability Project (GAP), supports strong protections for whistleblowers.

Their report combines a written survey the UCS gave to 1,600 scientists (of which 279 responded) with in-depth interviews GAP held with some 40 scientists and officials, such as agency press officers. GAP also pored over thousands of pages of documents gathered via the Freedom of Information Act, says Tarek Maassari, a staff attorney with the group.

Sometimes scientists and career public-affairs officers would send press releases related to global warming up the ladder for review, then never hear back. Or appointees changed the wording in ways that scientists felt distorted the results or their implications, and the researchers weren't given a chance to argue their case. One of the most blatant examples focuses on the issue of hurricanes and global warming. According to the report, in 2005, the White House stepped in to block an interview MSNBC sought with NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson, who a year earlier had published a modeling study on the potential link between hurricanes and global warming. The interview was to focus on new research by other scientists that suggested global warming has contributed to trends toward stronger hurricanes.

Documents GAP obtained showed that instead of approving subsequent interviews with Dr. Knutson, high-level public-affairs officers routed interview requests to NOAA scientist Chris Landsea in Miami, who argued, in part, that the quality of global hurricane data was too poor and inconsistent to draw meaningful conclusions. In another instance, reporters interested in interviewing a NOAA scientist who had coauthored a new research paper concluding that modern warming "is dominated by human influences" were sent instead to then-deputy administrator Jim Mahoney.

Details of interference

In all, 150 scientists reported a combined 435 instances of real or perceived "interference" related to global-warming research within the past five years. This has led to self-censorship, Mr. Maassari says,

During Tuesday's hearing, additional evidence came from Rick Piltz, who resigned from his position as senior associate with the administration's Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) in 2005 over what he saw as repeated instances of interference in the program's reporting process – often with pressure coming from two conservative think tanks that have spearheaded efforts to debunk global warming. One of their key contacts in the White House, he says, was the chief of staff of the president's Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, who served as an attorney and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute prior to joining the council.

The UCS and GAP offer what they call a model policy that they say would reduce the likelihood of political interference in communicating scientific results on climate. "We respect the idea that policy needs to be coordinated within agencies," Grifo says. "We're not talking about having scientists coming out with policy" but rather with their specific results.

The issue of climate-science politicization reemerged last year following a report in The New York Times about a NASA public affairs officer's attempt to muzzle James Hansen, a noted climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Subsequent stories alluded to similar activities at NOAA.

This led NASA Administrator Michael Griffin and NOAA's chief, retired Vice Adm. Conrad Lautenbacher Jr., to issue strongly worded statements in support of scientific openness and the need to communicate federal science to taxpayers accurately, and without political interference. But while some NASA researchers say the climate has improved in their agency, many in NOAA say they are still waiting to see change.

It's unclear whether the hearings this week and next will lead to legislative changes to reduce political interference. Some analysts suggest that in the governmental realm, politics and science are tightly intertwined. Roger Pielke Jr., a science-policy specialist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, noted in testimony before the committee Tuesday that selecting which results to highlight with a press release is by nature a political act.

Yet even Dr. Pielke says that "the Bush admininstration has engaged in hypercontrolling strategies for controlling information" on global warming.

Adds Grifo, "It's time for the public to stand up and be angry, too. It's their knowledge, their scientists, just like Washington is their capital."

Source

Why bring up this stone-age argument again? Not only is that article from a far right magazine, it is also from 3 years ago. You can do better than this and to be honest, I wouldn't expect such non-sense from you. It seems like you have been buckling lately. I don't blame you though, the sh** is hitting the fan in Washington and the truth is starting to shine.

Let's say that your also right about global warming...just for a minute. So what will happen? The sea will rise and flood some very nice rich peoples coastal villas. Which "might" not happen for 30 years. Or some areas will experience a lot of rain, where others don't. Isn't that true right now around the world anyways?

I don't think flooding coastal areas would be the first threat although it can happen eventually. These current wild and crazy weather patterns will only get worse and I think we will see more crippling heatwaves and snow storms. Our weather variations will become even more extreme. I couldn't tell you what exactly will happen, I don't know and I don't want to find out. If the current weather around the globe is not raising your eyebrow, then it will be too late by the time you realize something is truly wrong.

The clouds of radiation will have long killed me off by then.

Just because you think Iran is going to nuke the entire western hemisphere does not change the facts of climate change. If you think Iran is more of a threat than climate change (or you can't handle thinking about both), then so be it, I don't care. Just don't go around trying to debunk something because it isn't one your concerns, you are better than that.

Yes, Iran is way more of a threat when weighed agains't the non-threat of global warming. It's a matter of perspective. One effects the here and now, the other is conjecture for 30 years or more in the future.

Iran doesn't need to "nuke the entire western hemisphere" to wreck havoc on the environment.
Now I'm not going to describe to you the effects of a nuclear blast other than to say it effects the world. Much of this material falls directly back down close to ground zero within several minutes after the explosion, but some travels high into the atmosphere. This material will be dispersed over the earth during the following hours, days (and) months. Fallout is defined as one of two types: early fallout, within the first 24 hours after an explosion, or delayed fallout, which occurs days or years later. For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the attack. That's just one, and if there are retalitatory strikes.....well figure it out, if you care.

I never said anything about the effects of nukes on the enviroment. I was stating how ridiculous it is that since you think an attack from Iran poses the biggest threat, that global warming is nothing to worry about. Why is that your mind has to either chose one thing or the other? Your political ignorance is hurting your judgement. Like I said before, just because something is not of a concern for you, it does not change reality.

Maybe I should shut up and read a history book.....that's your usual line isn't it?

Nice to have the old insulting Re back, cause the other condenscending and patronizing one wasn't the real you.

ig·no·rant
adj.
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Source

I just don't buy any of it......seen both sides of the research. It is alarmism, just like the ice age of the 70's. I'm not an alarmist. Heck, Iran is much more of an international "current" problem than any so-called "global warming."

You obviously haven't seen the research because there isn't another side of it right now. There is not a reputable climatologist out there that doesn't agree that human made greenhouse gases are accelerating global warming. As for the ice age predicted in the 70s, the research wasn't far off and actual research papers predicted that if man-made CO2 overcomes the effects of aerosols the effect would be speeded up warming. It was a Newsweek article that popularized the idea that scientists were predicting an ice age, an article by the way that they retracted portions of in 2006 when it was shown they ignored opposing conclusions to purposely inflate the drama of the story, and then popular books fictionalized it and blew it out of proportion. When climatologists tried to downplay it it was ignored. Climatologists predictions of the time have borne out actually, CFCs were mostly eliminated and CO2 has risen to unheard of levels leading to unbefore seen warming of the atmosphere and ocean and a dangerous rise of ocean pH. Of course, you know all this, because you've done your research of both sides.

I have looked at both sides and I will admit there are more supporters of GW than those opposed.

Nope, I never said that nor have I ever told anyone to shut up on UM. Also, why would I tell you read a history book if we are talking about global warming anyways?You are the one chosing to ignore that facts and hide from the truth. That is called being ignorant. If you feel it is insulting, then stop being stubborn and letting your political views cloud your judgement. You can keep trying to paint me as bad as an individual as you want, but like I said many times before, it still won't change reality. I'm sorry that the truth hurts but you can't hide forever.

Consensus doesn't mean "fact". Yes I have looked at both sides and I will admit there are more supporters of GW than those opposed. Nonetheless, for you to say there is "no other side" is frankly very short sided. Silence the opposition....is that it?