Republican administration suppressing science again

Climate change is a reality. Most of the causes are clearly recognized, even if their proportional contributions to the problem remain to be precisely quantified. However, our Republican leadership is working hard to keep its head in the sand - and make sure the rest of the country does likewise - for sake of favoring industrial interests. Apparently, 'the best available science' requires editting by a lawyer and oil industry stooge before it can be released as such.This story was covered on BBC:Bush aide 'edited climate papers'A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.'Uncertainties'Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.The original story is here but requires a subscription.The BBC report does not.What does it say for the state of our government when it hires a lawyer (of known affiliation to opposing business interests) to water down recommendations arrived at by a consensus of expert scientific opinion ?Proposed for the Coffee House forum

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

It had a bit of theology in it, at least at the beginning. It does contain useful information. Global Warming/Strange Weather PatternsMoose

How do GW denyers explain the obvious warming at Glacier National Park?

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

When the last glacier melts away they'll either rename the park or strip mine it!No explaining needed, weather is known to vary year to year.

I'm not surprised. I read this article yesterday I think and had the same feeling.But it's not shocking at all. It's absurd that this administration gets away with so many lies. We're not talking about politics that democrats and 3rd party moderates just disagree with, I mean... lkajd;flhasdkl;fhja;ldksfasdfj look at the friggin track record.Clear documented evidence and undisputed errors (or blatant lies, depending on who you believe) that result in all kinds of horrific consequences.It's inconceivable to me that here we are reelecting when in a logical world we should be impeaching quite honestly./endrant

quote:

---

No explaining needed, weather is known to vary year to year.

---

It's so sad that such feeble, simplistic "logic" holds sway. Makes me want to throw up.Since my last post, I've been taking a look at Glacier Park's website. I know for a fact that just a few years ago, information about GW was on the main page of that site. Now, you have to dig to find it.We're losing this battle, and precious few of us seem to care.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Well the current administration is definitely anti-science. Heck the current US culture is anti-science. I mean we like gadgets but don't trust the scientists who came up with the means to create them. The comic strip nonsequitur had 3 strips recently which would be a laugh riot if they weren't so true. Go to http://ucomics.com/nonsequitur and look at today's, Wednesday's, and Monday's strip, they're great! {Made cite a clickable link. - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-10-2005 03:35 PM

I think it's only going to get harder and harder to deny GW as time passes, and any remediation of the process is also going to get more difficult.But the purpose of the thread here is not to debate the veracity of GW, but rather to debate the idea that a government administration should be able to water down the implications of serious science for political ends. This administration has repeatedly thumbed its nose at scientists and their recommendations, and gone so far as to completely distort science for purposes of policy promotion and issue veiled threats to the scientific community.Some more background to put this in context:"The Bush administration is gearing up to push for second-term priorities -- including an energy bill, power-plant emissions legislation, and amendments to the Endangered Species Act -- under a cloud of accusations that it has manipulated federal scientific research on these and other issues to support its agenda. These arguments have been voiced most prominently by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonpartisan advocacy organization that issued a statement in 2004 charging the White House with "[m]isrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes."
To date, the UCS statement has been signed by more than 5,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates. UCS issued reports in February and July of last year that documented dozens of cases of alleged tampering with science, including many involving environmental policy decisions."Collectively, we seem to be facing what amounts to "a very deliberate, top-down attempt to muffle, censor, and misrepresent science." in the words of UCS president Kevin Knobloch.

Thanks kj. I used to read this comic but haven't seen it in years. I strongly second your recommendation of these strips. Not to be missed!

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Taken from: New Scientist, June 4, 2005. Summarized: The NMFS recommended an expensive dam improvement project to help endangered fish species, but the higher level agency it belongs under, the NOAA (The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) didn’t want to pay for it. They argued in court that because existing dams are ‘an immutable part of the landscape’ the agency didn’t have to take responsibility for their overall effects on fish, including endangered salmon and steelhead species. Thankfully they lost. Although, of course, I don't know this Redden guy. He might be one of those 'left-wing activist' judges. So, long story short, apparently the scientists in the trenches actually doing some research, working FOR the government, had a plan to help preserve some ecology within the hydroelectric system of the Columbia Basin, but it got scuttled top-down by our federal administration. So much for stewardship of the country's ecology.

Here is a link to a recent story implicating the USA in curbing G8 efforts to manage climate change."A leaked copy of a document on climate change being drafted for the G8 summit suggests plans have been watered down.A version of the communiqu leaked in May treated climate change as a fact and pledged money to energy projects.In the new version the words "our world is warming" appear in square brackets, meaning at least one country disagrees, and all financial pledges have gone.UK Chancellor Gordon Brown said the only version that mattered would be agreed next month at the G8 summit.He told Sky News: "What actually matters is what the final communiqu actually says and you will not know what that says until the world leaders actually get together.'Disappointing' textLabour's ex-environment minister Michael Meacher suggested the US government would not sign up to a document that mentioned global warming."Presumably it was taken out because of the Americans," he said.The new text was "very disappointing", he added, saying it was "extraordinary" that doubt was being cast on the notion the world is getting hotter."Yet more evidence that our current administration has no problem ignoring scientific evidence whenever it suits their political interests - even on the international stage.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-17-2005 09:59 PM

One can accept that climate change is occurring,and yet regard the Kyoto protocol approach to a sociopolitical response to it as completely wrong and likely futile.

But that regard can't be taken seriously when it's coming from personnel so intimately involved in the petroleum industry that they can go from an oil job, to setting government policy and redacting scientific reports, to another oil job without ever reprinting their business cards.

I have to second crash's position on this.You are correct that one does not have to accept climate change, and thus believe in the over hype of "global warming", or that Kyoto is the proper instrument.The problem is that Bush and Co are deliberately rushing to the latter conclusions and willing to obfuscate scientific evidence by having interested nonscientific parties change the dialogue.If Bush really thought Kyoto wasn't worthwhile, why wouldn't he be using real scientists to point out deficiencies and alternatives, rather than oil industry personnel with no scientific creds to rewrite scientific findings?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)