Science is a waste of money

[Mikey]

Bush's version of "good" science...

Since the Administration's oil industry masters are going to write the results anyway, why spend the money doing the research? They might as well go ahead and make up the data as well, it would be a lot cheaper.

US official edited warming, emission link
Wed Jun 8, 4:42 AM ET

A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, 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 documents.

The White House declined comment on the report.

The report said the documents were obtained by the newspaper from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistleblowers.

The group is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that coordinates government research and issued the documents 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 documents 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 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. ((Writing by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Stacey Joyce; Reuters Messaging: joanne.allen.reuters.com@reuters.net; 202-898-8322)s

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050608/us_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

[Mikey]

Very nice retort.
"You guys do it so why shouldn't we?"

At least I have a documented example, and it's coming from the Bush Administration.
No agenda there, of course, and no problem because he's our hero.

[DrDetroit]

Looks to me like the issue is a non-starter as soon as you read:

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 documents 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 the newspaper.

What's the story?

Cooney did not "edit" anything. Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Typical leftist rubbish.

And we'll continue to see this as long as the administration continues to rightly disagree with the conclusion that greenhouse gas emmissions are causing global climate change. And that would be another few years.

[DrDetroit]

Very nice retort.
"You guys do it so why shouldn't we?"

At least I have a documented example, and it's coming from the Bush Administration.
No agenda there, of course, and no problem because he's our hero.

Documentted example of what?

All you have is someone writing in the margins of a document from someone who does not have the authority to actually revise the document.

Buh-bye!!

[Dinsdale]

Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Ever seen a news draft after it's been submitted to the editor?

[DrDetroit]

Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Ever seen a news draft after it's been submitted to the editor?

Irrelevant.

[Mikey]

Looks to me like the issue is a non-starter as soon as you read:

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 documents 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 the newspaper.

What's the story?

Cooney did not "edit" anything. Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Typical leftist rubbish.

And we'll continue to see this as long as the administration continues to rightly disagree with the conclusion that greenhouse gas emmissions are causing global climate change. And that would be another few years.

And you're a blind fool.
But then it's a free country, so feel free to continue.

[DrDetroit]

Looks to me like the issue is a non-starter as soon as you read:

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 documents 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 the newspaper.

What's the story?

Cooney did not "edit" anything. Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Typical leftist rubbish.

And we'll continue to see this as long as the administration continues to rightly disagree with the conclusion that greenhouse gas emmissions are causing global climate change. And that would be another few years.

And you're a blind fool.
But then it's a free country, so feel free to continue.

What was changed?

All I see is someone grousing that a normal interagency review resulted in handwritten notes in the margin of the document.

You were saying??

[Dinsdale]

Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

Ever seen a news draft after it's been submitted to the editor?

Irrelevant.

OK, I'll type slowly.

When a piece is turned in, it comes back from the editor with handwritten notes in the margins(in red ink), telling the writer what to fix. Technically, it's proofreading, but that's kind of splitting hairs.

Feeling dumb yet? You should....for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you're dumb.

[Mister Bushice]

Looks to me like the issue is a non-starter as soon as you read:

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 documents 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 the newspaper.

What's the story?

Cooney did not "edit" anything. Handwritten notes in the margins is not editing.

"removing or adjusting language on climate research."


You're right. He didn't edit it, as much as he censored it.

"adjusting language"? Is that like changing "Acid rain" to "stinging rain", "Global Warming" to "Extended heat wave" "rain forest depletion" to "Landscape modification"?

No surprise the bush administration has people doctoring environmental reports, but you'd think they would have learned you can't hide shit like this.

[DrDetroit]

When a piece is turned in, it comes back from the editor with handwritten notes in the margins(in red ink), telling the writer what to fix. Technically, it's proofreading, but that's kind of splitting hairs.

What part of "irrelevant" didn't you get?

This is not the equivalent of a journalist submitting an article to be published, dumbshit.

This was part of interagency review where one of the reviewers wrote notes in the margins.

We don't even know what the comments were. All we do know is that a Bush admin guy is accused of "repeatedly edit[ing] government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming."

We don't know if the edits were accepted or not.

We don't know whether the documents' conclusion were changed or if the conclusion was amended.

We don't know the basis of the comments if they were merely personal policy preferences or if they were based on valid, legitimate research.

So...what do we know...that you and Mikey are idiots totally consumed by this non-story where nothing atypical or unusual happened.

[DrDetroit]

"removing or adjusting language on climate research."

You're right. He didn't edit it, as much as he censored it.

"adjusting language"? Is that like changing "Acid rain" to "stinging rain", "Global Warming" to "Extended heat wave" "rain forest depletion" to "Landscape modification"?

No surprise the bush administration has people doctoring environmental reports, but you'd think they would have learned you can't hide shit like this.

Censorship now??? :roll:

Doctoring reports??

Link??

Handwritten notes in the margins are now the equivalent of fabricating data and censoring opinions??

Why are you people predisposed to lying about shit like this?

[Mikey]

The White House is defending the changes made to government reports on global warming by a former oil industry lobbyist turned White House official.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the changes that were made play up doubts on whether so-called "greenhouse gases" from human activity really cause climate change.

But Press Secretary Scott McClellan says the resulting reports were still "scientifically sound."

The changes were made by Philip Cooney, who led the American Petroleum Institute's fight against greenhouse gas limits before he joined President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality in 2001.

The Times documents several handwritten notes by Cooney on drafts of reports issued in 2002 and 2003. Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.

While sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust, reports the Times.

In one instance detailed by the Times, an October 2002 draft of a summary of government climate research, Cooney adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In another cited example, Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

The Times said Cooney has no scientific training. But McClellan calls him a "policy person" whose editing is "part of the interagency review process."

Environmentalists have accused Bush and top aides of claiming doubt about mankind's role in global warming -- when the vast majority of scientific evidence supports a link.

Having a "policy person" edit scientific reports that had already been approved by senior scientists.
Yep, there's your definition of "good science". If it fits with policy it's good if it doesn't then it quackery.

Any more comments from the brain dead Luddites?

[DrDetroit]

OMG!! This is absurd...

The Times documents several handwritten notes by Cooney on drafts of reports issued in 2002 and 2003. Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.

Which is it? Did Cooney merely write in notes in the margins of draft reports or did he control of the final draft in which he removed or adjusted descriptions?

In one instance detailed by the Times, an October 2002 draft of a summary of government climate research, Cooney adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

What's the problem? It is extremely difficult to attribute bio/eco changes to climate changes. Even the IPAA group at the UN are split on it.

In another cited example, Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

What's the problem? The projections are based on computer modeling that cannot reliable predict glacier/snowpack reduction that has already occurred.

Having a "policy person" edit scientific reports that had already been approved by senior scientists.
Yep, there's your definition of "good science". If it fits with policy it's good if it doesn't then it quackery.

Boy, lie much?

One, how can you characterize the administration as being of a single mind yet you clearly demonstrate that there is disagreement within the administration???

Two, is the administration characterizing anything as good or poor science? Project, much?

Lastly, how are his comments to be construed as anything more than that of policy wonk reviewing scientific conclusions??

I expct that you'll soon be blasting the UN's IPCC policy report which substantially CHANGED the conclusions of the scientists that actually conducted the research??


This is rich, too...

Environmentalists have accused Bush and top aides of claiming doubt about mankind's role in global warming -- when the vast majority of scientific evidence supports a link.

Vast majority of evidence supports this link??? LMAO!!!

[titlover]

in other news: another volcano erupted sending tons of soot and ash into the atmosphere.

[Mikey]

In another cited example, Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

What's the problem? The projections are based on computer modeling that cannot reliable predict glacier/snowpack reduction that has already occurred.

Who are you (and he) to judge the reliability of a projection that you haven't even read? A projection that has been reviewed by multiple scientists who have actual knowledge in the field, as compared to you (an him) who only have a political agenda.

And BTW, liar, he did not merely comment on the projections, he removed them, dipshit. Try a little honesty once in a while and you might actually get somebody to respect your opinion. Nah, never mind.

Having a "policy person" edit scientific reports that had already been approved by senior scientists.
Yep, there's your definition of "good science". If it fits with policy it's good if it doesn't then it quackery.

Boy, lie much?

Where's the lie? Is he not a "policy person", without scientific training? Was he not characterized as such by McClellan? Lie much?

You haven't yet defended how he can possibly be qualified or justified to add or subtract anything from a scientific report, except for the fact that the results are contrary to his and his boss' agenda.

[DrDetroit]

Who are you (and he) to judge the reliability of a projection that you haven't even read?

Who says he hadn't read the background analysis??

And we still don't know whether he was commenting on the policy conclusions as opposed to actually commenting on the scientific analysis.

BTW - I have read some of the research related to glacier and snowpack reduction, hence, I know what some of the conclusion are based on, ie., computer modeling.

A projection that has been reviewed by multiple scientists who have actual knowledge in the field, as compared to you (an him) who only have a political agenda.

Who are you question his motives?

Well?

And BTW, liar, he did not merely comment on the projections, he removed them, dipshit. Try a little honesty once in a while and you might actually get somebody to respect your opinion. Nah, never mind.

He changed the final draft of the reports? Link?

All I see are notes and comments in the margins that your own article indicate are reviewed and either accepted or rejected.

Where's the lie? Is he not a "policy person", without scientific training? Was he not characterized as such by McClellan? Lie much?

You lied when you ascribed to them distinction, "Yep, there's your definition of "good science". If it fits with policy it's good if it doesn't then it quackery." That's a fabrication.

You haven't yet defended how he can possibly be qualified or justified to add or subtract anything from a scientific report, except for the fact that the results are contrary to his and his boss' agenda.

The question was never about his qualifications, dipshit.

You posted, "Bush's version of "good" science...

Since the Administration's oil industry masters are going to write the results anyway, why spend the money doing the research? They might as well go ahead and make up the data as well, it would be a lot cheaper."

BTW - again, how can you say that this guy's revisions are representative of the Bush administration when your own article clearly says that his comments were contrary and revising the conclusions of senior Administration scientists??

[Mister Bushice]

They why the need to edit the reports if they're based on horseshit?

[Left Seater]

Bottom line for me is I think both sides will manipulate numbers in an attempt to prove their view. I will look at the history of the earth and see that we have had temperature changes over many years and the current warming fits in quite nicely with historical trends.

[Variable]

I will look at the history of the earth and see that we have had temperature changes over many years and the current warming fits in quite nicely with historical trends.

Exactly.

But even with the below news that even as the Western Ice Sheet is shrinking, the Eastern Sheet is growing, the global warming wackos still see it as a negative sign. :roll:

Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.

A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice - enough to reduce the oceans' rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock are several kilometres thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on islands and coastal lands.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/ ... 16-10.html

[DrDetroit]

Bottom line for me is I think both sides will manipulate numbers in an attempt to prove their view. I will look at the history of the earth and see that we have had temperature changes over many years and the current warming fits in quite nicely with historical trends.

Both sides will manipulate numbers?? The only side I see manipulating numbers are those who want to blame climate change on humans. They are the ones developing the computer models which by their own admission cannot even predict historical weather patterns, let alone reliable forecast future climate change(s).

[Mikey]

LOL!!!
Cooney needed to spend more time with his family. Right.

Last Friday, Cooney left too. Just two days after the New York Times reported on his editorial climate changes, Cooney discovered a pressing need to spend more time with his family. After one weekend of that, he discovered a pressing need to work at Exxon.

Bush Says `What, Me Worry?' on Global Warming: Margaret Carlson June 16 (Bloomberg) -- I always wonder if the president really doesn't know things or if he's found ignorance so useful he's made it his strategy of choice.

Here's a Yale University graduate with better grades than Mr. Know It All, John Kerry, yet George W. Bush entertains a theory of intelligent design that says the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old but was, in geological terms, born yesterday, suggests that cures from embryonic stem cells are a cruel hoax of those unconcerned about life in a petri dish, and believes that record-setting heat is good for baseball.

When his vice president says the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes, who is Bush going to believe: Dick Cheney or his own eyes? The president is smart. He's just not curious, especially when acknowledging the facts would require him to do something.

Bush's most stunning lack of curiosity concerns global warming. The heat wave this spring, prairie droughts, melting glaciers -- all flukes to him.

Bush is always awaiting yet another study to prove a link between greenhouse gases and global warming because the one in his hands isn't good enough. To make sure he didn't get a study that would force him to act, Bush hired Philip Cooney, the former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

To the Heart

Like the cattlemen regulating meat inspections, mining executives over at the Interior Department and drug salesman at the FDA, Cooney took his private war against government regulation public to the heart of the administration as chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

It all worked beautifully. Scientists would issue a study, and Cooney, with his blue pencil in hand, would happily doctor it up. Insert a few words like ``significant'' and ``fundamental'' just before ``uncertainties'' and, voila, you turn a study that links greenhouse gases to a hotter planet into one that has significant and fundamental doubts about it.

No wonder Cooney got mash notes from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI -- heavily funded by Exxon Mobil -- thanked him for consulting with them, unlike that closet greenie Christie Todd Whitman at EPA who never did. Whitman gave up on having as much influence as Cooney and left her post early, making moot CEI's wish that she be fired.

Pressing Need

Last Friday, Cooney left too. Just two days after the New York Times reported on his editorial climate changes, Cooney discovered a pressing need to spend more time with his family. After one weekend of that, he discovered a pressing need to work at Exxon.

It's a fitting place. According to The Guardian of London, which says it got hold of briefing papers prepared for Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, the administration wanted her to thank Exxon executives for their ``active involvement'' in setting climate change policy and to ask what policies they'd like to see in the future.

Unlike former CIA director George Tenet, who sexed up intelligence to make a slam dunk case for invading Iraq, the guy who de-sexed climate change intelligence did not need a Medal of Freedom dangled in front of him to turn off the lights.

Turning Point

Years from now, if we aren't all swimming to work, we may look back on Cooney's departure as the moment Bush had to give up his denial.

Bush stands nearly alone as he goes off to the G-8 meeting in Scotland next month. Former Bush lap dog, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, has pushed action on global warming near the top of the agenda.

Ten scientific academies around the world have in unison with our National Academy of Sciences called for action on global warming. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, no girlie man in earth shoes, said last week, ``The debate is over, we know the science, we see the threat'' and ``the time for action is now.''

In 2003, the Senate gave polluters a pass. Now it looks as if a cap-and-trade system to lessen emissions might be adopted as part of the energy bill. Bush's allies in industry, with the exception of Exxon, are deserting him, realizing that controls are not only inevitable but in the long run efficient. Even the CEO of Chevron likes breathing.

When Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was asked on Wednesday whether Cooney's quick move to Exxon didn't suggest the White House had a ``shill for the oil industry driving environmental policy,'' McClellan offered no alternative explanation but denied the charge hotly enough to cause considerable warming in the press room. The White House long ago learned not to let facts slow you down.

[Bizzarofelice]

Funny that Margaret Carlson drops an Alfred E. Neuman reference despite looking like Alfie's twin sister.

That being said, lots of apologists don't understand that article.