US official edited warming, emission link

Wed Jun 8, 4:42 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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: [email protected]; 202-898-8322)s

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.
So what? Scientists get contracted to do studies by the White House/ gov't all the time. The White House is then free to adjust the wording of the summaries as it sees fit (since they paid for the study to begin with). It's no different than a professor taking the findings that a research assistant made and changing the wording to better serve a lecture or grant. Scientists have agendas just like everyone else and they may highlight certain ambiguous items to politic for future grants/endowments for the future. If the White House does not feel that aspect of the study is as important as others, they should be free to change the focus of the study in certain summaries as long as they do not change the research itself.

If they changed the data or made up numbers, it would be a different situation. But changing the summary or wording in the description of the study is business as usual for academic, government and private research.

Piltz charged that "politicization by the White House" was undermining the credibility and integrity of the science program.
Give me a break. If you don't want to be bound by US government/political/military rules then go start your own business and pay for the studies yourself. Universities, private companies, different sects of the government and numerous other research labs have "project managers" that re-word summaries all the time. As long as they are not changing the results, why does it matter?

So what? Scientists get contracted to do studies by the White House/ gov't all the time. The White House is then free to adjust the wording of the summaries as it sees fit (since they paid for the study to begin with). It's no different than a professor taking the findings that a research assistant made and changing the wording to better serve a lecture or grant.

If they changed the data or made up numbers, it would be a different situation. But changing the summary or wording in the description of the study is business as usual for academic, government and private research.


Give me a break. If you don't want to be bound by US government/political/military rules then go start your own business and pay for the studies yourself. Universities, private companies, different sects of the government and numerous other research labs have "project managers" that re-word summaries all the time. As long as they are not changing the results, why does it matter?

OMG. Arles has replied to a potential White House scandal by saying it is no big deal. What is the world coming to?

Still waiting for my apology, John. I know it would be as heartfelt as the others you've made :p

Still waiting for my apology, John. I know it would be as heartfelt as the others you've made :p

Believe it or not, my other apologies were heartfelt. I'm still waiting for you to apologize to the board for using wholly fabricated evidence (of which there is zero doubt that it was fabricated) in support of your arguments on this board.

Believe it or not, my other apologies were heartfelt.


I'd like to apologize to Franklinoble. I killed your precious QotM and slept with your wife. Sorry. And I want to apologize to Bubba because his family did not understand the dangers of inbreeding.
Of course they were heartfelt.

I'm still waiting for you to apologize to the board for using wholly fabricated evidence (of which there is zero doubt that it was fabricated) in support of your arguments on this board.
Give me a break and spare me your indignation. I feel very comfortable with the ideas, theories and support for each that I have given to this forum in certain threads. After all, I haven't needed to resort to unprovoked insults when it appears my ideas are not generating the response I had hoped.

Back to the subject at hand, do you have a problem with groups that contract research studies changing the summary to reflect their goals?

So what? Scientists get contracted to do studies by the White House/ gov't all the time. The White House is then free to adjust the wording of the summaries as it sees fit (since they paid for the study to begin with). It's no different than a professor taking the findings that a research assistant made and changing the wording to better serve a lecture or grant. Scientists have agendas just like everyone else and they may highlight certain ambiguous items to politic for future grants/endowments for the future. If the White House does not feel that aspect of the study is as important as others, they should be free to change the focus of the study in certain summaries as long as they do not change the research itself.

If they changed the data or made up numbers, it would be a different situation. But changing the summary or wording in the description of the study is business as usual for academic, government and private research.



For grants, papers, etc., all data must be peer reviewed and is checked to make sure the conclusions you reach from the data are acceptable. While it is true that people do like to highlight what they feel is better data, you will not be able to publish or get a grant when you leave important aspects of your study out. They can feel free to change the focus of the study, as you say, but then we should all take it as garbage, as that would happen around where I work (academic research).

When it is the government of the United States I do. The government isn't the Bush administration. What you are suggesting is that any particular administration is perfectly justified to change any report so that it meshes with their politics. There are no facts, just different opinions that can be changed or ignored as needed.

Your argument gets to the reason for why we established a civil service in the first place. Much of what the government produces shouldn't be subject to changes by politicians. Not everything should be slavish servant to dear leader.(regardless of who dear leader is at any moment)

And if you honestly think that no facts were changed or omitted you're nuts.

Of course they were heartfelt.


Give me a break and spare me your indignation. I feel very comfortable with the ideas, theories and support for each that I have given to this forum in certain threads. After all, I haven't needed to resort to unprovoked insults when it appears my ideas are not generating the response I had hoped.

Back to the subject at hand, do you have a problem with groups that contract research studies changing the summary to reflect their goals?

Arles, your "comfort" is exactly the problem.

1) You said, the treatment of Clarence Thomas was analogous to McCarthyism.
2) I (and someone else I think) called on that being pretty offensive.
3) In doing so, I mentioned the only people who had evidence Anita Hill was just smearing Thomas have retracted their statements.
4) You actually quote the number 1 retracted who admitted he fabricated the whole book "The Real Anita Hill."
5) Again, you are called on your statements and the fact that you quoted a fabricater as your only evidence.
6) You ignore that you flat out quoted a liar and continue as if nothing happened. And you continued your usual argumentative strategy of making up things that other people said without any quotes or facts to support it.

And my insults were certainly provoked, not just by that incident, but by your constant ad homs and personal attacks at me. I just took my attacks to a different level and stopped trying to be polite. After all, you had repeatedly accused me of calling everyone who disagreed with me "stupid." In fact, I had done no such thing. So, I thought I would at least make your statement partially true by repeatedly calling you a moron in as many colorful ways came to mind.

FWIW, here's the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ei=5090&en=22149dc70c0731d8&ex=1275883200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)Reuters is discussing.

The article states that the documents that were edited are in the paper's possession. I hope they intend to release them in full.

And Arles, I liked how you used my joke as evidence that my apologies were not heartfelt 1) without providing the larger context and 2) without mentioning that I even apologized for those jokes later in the same thread. Typical.

Another small point. This kind of BS is what gets drug companies in trouble all the timel and gets us all up in arms. They bury the negative data and reach BS conclusions. Then a few years later, a bunch of people die, or go blind, or something and it was found that they data were there and they just didn't cover it or fudged the conclusions.

I dont believe in Global Warming. The earth is just going back to the state it was thousands of years ago. Just wait a few thousand years. I bet its just a cycle that we humans cant comprehend.

Good lord, the Liberals are crying wolf so often now that I don't even think Ted Kennedy is listening anymore. Have another drink, Ted. Nothing to see here. :)

For grants, papers, etc., all data must be peer reviewed and is checked to make sure the conclusions you reach from the data are acceptable. While it is true that people do like to highlight what they feel is better data, you will not be able to publish or get a grant when you leave important aspects of your study out. They can feel free to change the focus of the study, as you say, but then we should all take it as garbage, as that would happen around where I work (academic research).
I think it all depends on the scope of the changes. If they omitted or changed actual data, or made a conclusion not supported by the data, then I agree the White House acted poorly. But, if it's simply an issue of re-wording (as it appears in the story) then I don't see it as that big a deal as others are free to go into the study in more detail and make their own conclusions to publish.

I guess we need to see the actual changes to know for sure.

Back to the subject at hand, do you have a problem with groups that contract research studies changing the summary to reflect their goals?

There's a big difference between "groups" and our government. Their "goals" shouldn't revolve around deception.

The specific alterations pointed out in the NYT piece didn't seem all that damning to me. But I pretty much assume that everything I hear from the federal government has been fully laundered and filtered anyway -- so perhaps I'm a poor jodge of whether this is a big deal.

And Arles, I liked how you used my joke as evidence that my apologies were not heartfelt 1) without providing the larger context and 2) without mentioning that I even apologized for those jokes later in the same thread. Typical.
You aplogized once you were called out for it. At the time, it looked the traditional "John Gault insult" shrowded around an attempt at being sincere. But, heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for jumping to conclusions on your motives.

Arles, your "comfort" is exactly the problem.
1) You said, the treatment of Clarence Thomas was analogous to McCarthyism.
That was my opinion and perhaps it was a bit harsh. Still, I don't feel Thomas was treated with the respect he deserved and that the hearings were morphed in a witch-hunt despite their intent (to discover the leak of the charges).

2) I (and someone else I think) called on that being pretty offensive.
How is calling the treatment of Thomas "subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy" offensive to you? A tad too much hyperbole? Probably, but I don't see how you could take offense to that statement.

3) In doing so, I mentioned the only people who had evidence Anita Hill was just smearing Thomas have retracted their statements.
4) You actually quote the number 1 retracted who admitted he fabricated the whole book "The Real Anita Hill."
5) Again, you are called on your statements and the fact that you quoted a fabricater as your only evidence.
"The Real Anita Hill" quote was cited as one of many pieces of evidence. And it was in reference to actual testimony made by others. Again, the hearing was never meant to determine the innocense or guilt of Thomas - yet that's what it was used for.

6) You ignore that you flat out quoted a liar and continue as if nothing happened.
I quoted the author in reference to testimony that has since been discredited. Again, it was one of many reasons for why the treatment of Thomas was unwarranted - the biggest reason is one you still have not addressed in the fact the investigation was supposed to be held in private and the hearing's sole intent was to find the source of the leak and not deal with the innocence of Thomas.

And you continued your usual argumentative strategy of making up things that other people said without any quotes or facts to support it.
John, I don't know where you come up with this stuff.

And my insults were certainly provoked, not just by that incident, but by your constant ad homs and personal attacks at me.
So the fact that I made a claim comparing the attacks on Thomas to witch-hunts and McCarthyism gave you a green light to let the insults fly. Got it. And, I have not insulted you unprovoked, I simply poked fun at your insults against myself and other members after they happened. And always kept a civil tone when addressing you.

I just took my attacks to a different level and stopped trying to be polite. After all, you had repeatedly accused me of calling everyone who disagreed with me "stupid." In fact, I had done no such thing. So, I thought I would at least make your statement partially true by repeatedly calling you a moron in as many colorful ways came to mind.
John, you routinely resort to personal insults in nearly every thread you post in. Maybe you think it's fun to do so, maybe it allows you to blow off steam. To be honest, I really don't care why. I was just calling a spade a spade. Again, for those of you wondering what the source for this is can feel free to read this thread for yourself and make your own conclusions:

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=39002&page=4&pp=50

Back to the original subject at hand...

Yes, the Bush adminstration would restrict or edit information that supports Global Warming. This has been a constant pattern for the last 5 years and it won't change now. No real surprises here.

At the same time, I support (OMFG!) the decision not to ratify Kyoto. It's a horrid treaty that imposes a large burden upon us while giving countries like China very little responsibility. Edit it to be fair across the world and I'd sign it in a heartbeat because I believe that something should be done. But Kyoto ain't it.

You aplogized once you were called out for it. At the time, it looked the traditional "John Gault insult" shrowded around an attempt at being sincere. But, heck, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for jumping to conclusions on your motives.


That was my opinion and perhaps it was a bit harsh. Still, I don't feel Thomas was treated with the respect he deserved and that the hearings were morphed in a witch-hunt despite their intent (to discover the leak of the charges).


How is calling the treatment of Thomas "subject to perhaps the biggest witchhunt since Joe McCarthy" offensive to you? A tad too much hyperbole? Probably, but I don't see how you could take offense to that statement.


"The Real Anita Hill" quote was cited as one of many pieces of evidence. And it was in reference to actual testimony made by others. Again, the hearing was never meant to determine the innocense or guilt of Thomas - yet that's what it was used for.


I quoted the author in reference to testimony that has since been discredited. Again, it was one of many reasons for why the treatment of Thomas was unwarranted - the biggest reason is one you still have not addressed in the fact the investigation was supposed to be held in private and the hearing's sole intent was to find the source of the leak and not deal with the innocence of Thomas.


John, I don't know where you come up with this stuff.


So the fact that I made a claim comparing the attacks on Thomas to witch-hunts and McCarthyism gave you a green light to let the insults fly. Got it. And, I have not insulted you unprovoked, I simply poked fun at your insults against myself and other members after they happened. And always kept a civil tone when addressing you.


John, you routinely resort to personal insults in nearly every thread you post in. Maybe you think it's fun to do so, maybe it allows you to blow off steam. To be honest, I really don't care why. I was just calling a spade a spade. Again, for those of you wondering what the source for this is can feel free to read this thread for yourself and make your own conclusions:

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=39002&page=4&pp=50

Well, my idea to let off steam in retaliation for people attacking me has completely failed. I give up. I'm going back to trying to play nice because I'm tired of these silly fights.

You are being completely dishonest in your review of what happened as anyone who reads the original thread can tell. You used a fabricator as your only evidence about Anita Hill (assertions accompanying the quote repeating the quote are not other "evidence") after being told he was fabricator. Then you don't even admit your mistake and continue to argue otherwise. I take intellectual deceipt seriously and you have no credibility left because of what you did. You still can't even bring yourself to admit you did wrong! That amazes me. You cite someone who totally fabricated their evidence, after being warned that your position was supported by fabricators, and then never admit you did anything wrong. Truly astonishing!

As for the rest of the personal stuff, I did not ever say anything mean to you until very recently. It was not a "routin[e]" as you assert (again you make accusations without evidence). And I only did so after you accused me of doing things (calling everyone who disagreed with me "idiots") that I never did. I simply fulfilled your accusation by repeatedly calling you a moron. I'm sorry you didn't see that connection, but to feign innocence is ridiculous.

Back to the original subject at hand...

Yes, the Bush adminstration would restrict or edit information that supports Global Warming. This has been a constant pattern for the last 5 years and it won't change now. No real surprises here.

At the same time, I support (OMFG!) the decision not to ratify Kyoto. It's a horrid treaty that imposes a large burden upon us while giving countries like China very little responsibility. Edit it to be fair across the world and I'd sign it in a heartbeat because I believe that something should be done. But Kyoto ain't it.

Agreed, Kyoto's no good for us. The evidence laid out in the NYT article seems a far cry from damning as well. I'm missing a lot of the scandal here.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

White House environmental policy is basically that global warming does not exist. The fact that the person in charge of White House environmental policy would color the language of the conclusionary portion of a report his office was issuing to acknowledge that perspective seems pretty logical to me. Especially when that coloring (at least with what what the article presents) does not involve data manipulation or fabrication. Ultimately the White House is issuing these reports and as I understand it although "previously approved," they were also approved by qualified scientific personnel after these edits. Seems like ultimately a non-story, puffed out by the ambiguously evil references to the "oil industry." But I might be missing some bigger perspective.

And you continued your usual argumentative strategy of making up things that other people said without any quotes or facts to support it.
Last week, Dutch says I cheered as people I knew died in 9/11. When I call him on it, he pretty much tells me to screw off.
Cut the holier-than-thou crap. You're a smart guy with some good ideas. But when it comes to putting words in peoples' mouths to make a point, you're among the worst offenders on the board.

John,

I've stated that my citing of Brock was for his statement about those who testified, but I have no problem admitting he was a poor choice for source given his actions against Anita Hill. If I had to do over again, I would have instead cited parts of the testimony directly.

As for the rest of the personal stuff, I did not ever say anything mean to you until very recently.
In your mind, this is some sort of virtue?

It was not a "routin[e]" as you assert (again you make accusations without evidence). And I only did so after you accused me of doing things (calling everyone who disagreed with me "idiots") that I never did.
You are completely full of it. This is the thread where we first had an argument since your return (with your first post to me - before I had even addressed you):

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?p=788587#post788587

The first few posts by each of us were fine, I even took the "Arles, you ignorant slut." comment with a polite chuckle. Then you broke into such intellectual rebutals like:

I now see that your mind is unable to understand those types of arguments. In the future, I will try to avoid discussions which strain your puny brain.
Arles, seriously try to think. It may hurt the first time, but it is really worth it in the long run.
Stop being such a partisan dumbass and actually try to use your brain.

I also went through that post and couldn't find any instance of me calling you names or accusing you of "calling everyone who disagreed with [me] idiots". The discussion was civil until you decided to take it to the next level - Something I refrained from doing.

Back to the original subject at hand...

Yes, the Bush adminstration would restrict or edit information that supports Global Warming. This has been a constant pattern for the last 5 years and it won't change now. No real surprises here.

At the same time, I support (OMFG!) the decision not to ratify Kyoto. It's a horrid treaty that imposes a large burden upon us while giving countries like China very little responsibility. Edit it to be fair across the world and I'd sign it in a heartbeat because I believe that something should be done. But Kyoto ain't it.

I'm genuinely curious - what is fair ? The biggest producers of "pollution" of CO2 in the world today is the US. What the Kyoto protocol admittedly points out is that America had advanced to the first world stage while much of Asia is still 3rd world stage, and cannot do what the Americans can. Heck, to extend it on a property rights stage- America has done more to contribute to the degregation of the Ozone layer than anyone (as the biggest industrial superpower, though the former Soviet Union has a claim) - hurting everyone in the process. I think Kyoto has its flaws ( and I think China should be called to do more), but the idea that countries which have already benefited from lesser regulation in their developmental stage do a little bit more now that they are developed seems reasonable.

John,

I've stated that my citing of Brock was for his statement about those who testified, but I have no problem admitting he was a poor choice for source given his actions against Anita Hill. If I had to do over again, I would have instead cited parts of the testimony directly.


In your mind, this is some sort of virtue?


You are completely full of it. This is the thread where we first had an argument since your return (with your first post to me - before I had even addressed you):

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?p=788587#post788587

The first few posts by each of us were fine, I even took the "Arles, you ignorant slut." comment with a polite chuckle. Then you broke into such intellectual rebutals like:




I also went through that post and couldn't find any instance of me calling you names or accusing you of "calling everyone who disagreed with [me] idiots". The discussion was civil until you decided to take it to the next level - Something I refrained from doing.

As I said in the contrition thread, I'm sorry, so I won't rehash anything about this discussion here.

Cut the holier-than-thou crap. You're a smart guy with some good ideas. But when it comes to putting words in peoples' mouths to make a point, you're among the worst offenders on the board.

Same as with Arles, I apologized and don't want to rehash it. Though, I will say that the sequence of comments made by Dutch and his failure to clarify or apologize was easily the most hurtful thing someone has said to me on this board. I just don't think you can use 9/11 deaths as a tool in an argument against someone who suffered too much personal loss around that time. It just hurts.

I'm genuinely curious - what is fair ? The biggest producers of "pollution" of CO2 in the world today is the US. What the Kyoto protocol admittedly points out is that America had advanced to the first world stage while much of Asia is still 3rd world stage, and cannot do what the Americans can. Heck, to extend it on a property rights stage- America has done more to contribute to the degregation of the Ozone layer than anyone (as the biggest industrial superpower, though the former Soviet Union has a claim) - hurting everyone in the process. I think Kyoto has its flaws ( and I think China should be called to do more), but the idea that countries which have already benefited from lesser regulation in their developmental stage do a little bit more now that they are developed seems reasonable.

Good points, but from what I understand about Kyoto, the USA would be taking on a very large burden. While we may have been the biggest contributor to the degregation of the ozone layer, I also don't believe in punishing us for "sins" when no one really knew they were sins. So past polution to me isn't that relevant.

Also, the amount of polution from the former Soviet Block is understated - we probably did less damage (as a percentage) than originally suspected since that information has been largely hidden. China is called to do very little and they are rapidly gaining on us in terms of pollution percentage. In addition, 3rd world countries' responsibilities are ill defined once they become "developed". Much of the world can reduce their emissions due to technologies developed in the USA - of which we get no credit for reductions. So on and so forth.

I'm not smart enough to present a solution to global warming. Sorry, it's not my realm of expertise (shocking, isn't it?!?). But I do have a general understanding of where Kyoto falls short and things that need to be taken under consideration before moving forward with the solution.

There has been a lot of success on a corporate level with reducing emissions through market-based initiatives. For example companies in a particular industry are alloted 100 units of pollution (an arbitrary number obviously) each year, if a company's emissions fall below that 100 then they have the option to sell their extra units to another company in need of them. In this way a company has a direct incentive to reduce emissions because reducing them has value. Under most environmental laws a company actually has incentives to produce as much pollution as possible up until a given quota or emissions standard. Applying something like this on an international level might strike the right balance between motivating governments at the front end to find ways to reduce emissions, and forcing developing nations to face some penalties for not being pollution conscious. Unfortunately much of environmental policy is dominated by idealists or utopians on one side or the other, and market initiatives don't appeal to most true believers.

There has been a lot of success on a corporate level with reducing emissions through market-based initiatives. For example companies in a particular industry are alloted 100 units of pollution (an arbitrary number obviously) each year, if a company's emissions fall below that 100 then they have the option to sell their extra units to another company in need of them. In this way a company has a direct incentive to reduce emissions because reducing them has value. Under most environmental laws a company actually has incentives to produce as much pollution as possible up until a given quota or emissions standard. Applying something like this on an international level might strike the right balance between motivating governments at the front end to find ways to reduce emissions, and forcing developing nations to face some penalties for not being pollution conscious.
That's a pretty neato idea. Something cool I haven't heard before.

SI

I dont believe in Global Warming. The earth is just going back to the state it was thousands of years ago. Just wait a few thousand years. I bet its just a cycle that we humans cant comprehend.
This viewpoint always baffles me and I've said so on numerous occasions. What do you tell those people in coastal cities? "Sorry, we don't fully comprehend what we're doing so let's not do anything at all"

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=610279&postcount=13
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=670333&postcount=12
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=670646&postcount=21

SI

Yeah, credits have been around for a while, and we've done some consulting work on them - but the problem with credits is that they aren't all equal. If all the companies in LA, for example, buy credits from all the companies in NY, what you have is a system set up where the people of LA get screwed- they have to be more localised to work effectively. Essentialy, as an economist, I think companies should damn well have to pay for the pollution they cause - its simply a matter of pricing the negative externalities into the product. The atmosphere, the air, the grass- we tend to call the value intangible, and somehow equate iintanglible to zero- some of the hardest work is actually pricing this stuff - because we need do. Moreover, while markets are the prefered solution, there are avenues that the market cannot best allocate research- such as pharmaceutical R&D.

This viewpoint always baffles me and I've said so on numerous occasions. What do you tell those people in coastal cities? "Sorry, we don't fully comprehend what we're doing so let's not do anything at all"

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=610279&postcount=13
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=670333&postcount=12
http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=670646&postcount=21

SI

I think he was being sarcastic - you have to be fairly stupid to believe Global Warming doesn't exist at all.

There has been a lot of success on a corporate level with reducing emissions through market-based initiatives. For example companies in a particular industry are alloted 100 units of pollution (an arbitrary number obviously) each year, if a company's emissions fall below that 100 then they have the option to sell their extra units to another company in need of them. In this way a company has a direct incentive to reduce emissions because reducing them has value. Under most environmental laws a company actually has incentives to produce as much pollution as possible up until a given quota or emissions standard. Applying something like this on an international level might strike the right balance between motivating governments at the front end to find ways to reduce emissions, and forcing developing nations to face some penalties for not being pollution conscious. Unfortunately much of environmental policy is dominated by idealists or utopians on one side or the other, and market initiatives don't appeal to most true believers.

I have heard this proposal before. Basically, all nations are given an X amount of pollution they can produce. However, nations over that limit can "buy" the extra capacity that under-industrialized nations have. This eases the pain and buys a little time that heavy pollution producers have in reducing their emissions. This also gives pre-industrialized countries (in Africa, for example) much needed leverage and capital infusion.

It seems win-win, but people seem wary of the scheme. Are people afraid of giving too much power to the have-nots in the international system? Are there other problems?

I think he was being sarcastic - you have to be fairly stupid to believe Global Warming doesn't exist at all.
Every time we have a global warming thread, there are tons of people who don't think it exists. Go back to that Michael Chrichton thread- I'd say over half the people believed that it wasn't real.

SI

Good points, but from what I understand about Kyoto, the USA would be taking on a very large burden. While we may have been the biggest contributor to the degregation of the ozone layer, I also don't believe in punishing us for "sins" when no one really knew they were sins. So past polution to me isn't that relevant.

Also, the amount of polution from the former Soviet Block is understated - we probably did less damage (as a percentage) than originally suspected since that information has been largely hidden. China is called to do very little and they are rapidly gaining on us in terms of pollution percentage. In addition, 3rd world countries' responsibilities are ill defined once they become "developed". Much of the world can reduce their emissions due to technologies developed in the USA - of which we get no credit for reductions. So on and so forth.

I'm not smart enough to present a solution to global warming. Sorry, it's not my realm of expertise (shocking, isn't it?!?). But I do have a general understanding of where Kyoto falls short and things that need to be taken under consideration before moving forward with the solution.


They would be taking on a burden to reduce their emissions to thier 1990 standards- which is hardly ridiculous. I agree that China should bear a larger cost than it is now, but the current US is still the world's largest polluter. Purely from a logical capitalist mechanism here, the US pollution affects the rest of the world, and they should be compensated for it - price in the externalities of the products you produce, and you limit the classic free-rider problem. This isnt something like oil, where the US uses 25% of the world supply, because they do pay for that - this is a usage that due to its dubious, "intangible" status is somehow equated as a free good. As I mentioned in my post on trading credits, the market is not always the best avenue to resolve long-term goals over short-term ones .

Every time we have a global warming thread, there are tons of people who don't think it exists. Go back to that Michael Chrichton thread- I'd say over half the people believed that it wasn't real.

SI

Well, the flat-earth society still has members, so I'm not particularly surprised-:D - but in this case, I thought Chemical Soldier was joking. You can dispute the scale of global warming, but arguing it doesn't exist is akin to the Emperor's New Clothes.

They would be taking on a burden to reduce their emissions to thier 1990 standards- which is hardly ridiculous. I agree that China should bear a larger cost than it is now, but the current US is still the world's largest polluter. Purely from a logical capitalist mechanism here, the US pollution affects the rest of the world, and they should be compensated for it - price in the externalities of the products you produce, and you limit the classic free-rider problem. This isnt something like oil, where the US uses 25% of the world supply, because they do pay for that - this is a usage that due to its dubious, "intangible" status is somehow equated as a free good. As I mentioned in my post on trading credits, the market is not always the best avenue to resolve long-term goals over short-term ones .

It's not that something shouldn't be done...it's that the treaty, as written, isn't fair nor is it tenable. There is essentially no burden put on any developing country (including China) and they have no future incentive to comply or reduce harmful emissions. We could end up signing the treaty, getting stuck doing the lions' share of the work, spending the most money, hurt our competitiveness in the global marketplace and watch emissions continue to rise because other countries have no interest in reducing theirs.

Until that's fixed, there's little use in signing Kyoto. Remember, I don't mind the goal - it's just I don't like how Kyoto gets us there.

This viewpoint always baffles me and I've said so on numerous occasions. What do you tell those people in coastal cities? "Sorry, we don't fully comprehend what we're doing so let's not do anything at all"
SI
And oddly enough your viewpoint always baffles me. It doesn't make a lot of sense for us(mankind) do devote a lot of energy or resources into preventing global warming, if we don't really know that it is us causing it. If the planet's temperature is going to rise as part of some natural cycle that the planet goes through, then it doesn't seem very likely that there is anything that we(mankind) are going to be able to do about it.

Every time we have a global warming thread, there are tons of people who don't think it exists. Go back to that Michael Chrichton thread- I'd say over half the people believed that it wasn't real.

SI
There's a difference between thinking global warming doesn't exist and thinking that US citizens can do a hill of beans to impact it. I will certainly agree that the Earth does go through warming trends (we are in one right now). But I have yet to be convinced that the US can do much to change or modify that trend.

I'm all for trying to be good stewards of the environment (recycle, carpool when possible, try not to litter or pollute) - I'm just not all that excited about tying our economic survival to actions that may be the scientific equivalent of throwing a thimble full of sand off a beach in hopes of reducing the silicon content.

I agree with Arles and Dutch. What would those liberals in the media have us believe, that an administration so concerned about the environment that they named one of their bills 'Clear Skies' (hxxp://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp), would stoop so low as to manipulate data to fit their politics (hxxp://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html)? The GOP has nothing but respect for all the sciences, just look at how abstinence education is finally getting the word out that contraceptives are to blame for mental health problems in teens and that teens should just 'follow God's plan for purity'. (Actual teaching points! hxxp://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/111805030118661.xml&coll=2 )

What will those crazy libs think of next??

Ignorance is strength.

I'm all for trying to be good stewards of the environment (recycle, carpool when possible, try not to litter or pollute)
*sigh* Damn you J. Winston Porter!

And oddly enough your viewpoint always baffles me. It doesn't make a lot of sense for us(mankind) do devote a lot of energy or resources into preventing global warming, if we don't really know that it is us causing it. If the planet's temperature is going to rise as part of some natural cycle that the planet goes through, then it doesn't seem very likely that there is anything that we(mankind) are going to be able to do about it.

Couldn't you just throw out th "cyclical" argument on just about anything and wash your hands of it. Really makes us very hands off what we want to be hands off of and just absolve us of responsibility for anything. "OH, its just cyclical. Dont worry, 400 years from now it'll be back to the way it is now." "How do you know dad?" "Thats the beauty of it...we dont, LOL".

Couldn't you just throw out th "cyclical" argument on just about anything and wash your hands of it. Really makes us very hands off what we want to be hands off of and just absolve us of responsibility for anything. "OH, its just cyclical. Dont worry, 400 years from now it'll be back to the way it is now." "How do you know dad?" "Thats the beauty of it...we dont, LOL".

Yeah it's a little more valid (who knows how much more) though in this case as we're trying to identify a dangerous trend emerging over the past fifty or hundred years in a natural system that's existed for a couple billion years. And we simply don't have the data to make a great judgment within that context.

Yeah it's a little more valid (who knows how much more) though in this case as we're trying to identify a dangerous trend emerging over the past fifty or hundred years in a natural system that's existed for a couple billion years. And we simply don't have the data to make a great judgment within that context.
Except most of the people on the 'global warming doesn't exist' bandwagon are using the same phony science as creationists, manipulating facts to conform to their politics.

Except most of the people on the 'global warming doesn't exist' bandwagon are using the same phony science as creationists, manipulating facts to conform to their politics.

I'll agree with that, I just don't think the cyclical argument is so easily dismissed. As frustrating as it may be, we don't have the science or the data to really know. And some people clearly have monetary incentives to discount the theory, no doubt about it, but it's not completely phony science they're spouting.

Bump - apparently, the employee in question just joined Exxon Mobil..


Former White House official takes Exxon job
Cooney caused controversy by editing climate reports


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A former White House official and one-time oil industry lobbyist whose editing of government reports on climate change prompted criticism from environmentalists will join Exxon Mobil Corp., the oil company said Tuesday.

The White House announced over the weekend that Philip Cooney, chief of staff of its Council on Environmental Quality, had resigned, calling it a long-planned departure. He had been head of the climate program at the American Petroleum Institute, the trade group for large oil companies.

Cooney will join Exxon Mobil in the fall, company spokesman Russ Roberts told The Associated Press by telephone from the company's headquarters in Irving, Texas. He declined to described Cooney's job.

Cooney could not be reached through the White House for comment.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.

"Mr. Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration," Perino said. "He'd accumulated many weeks of leave and decided to resign and take the summer off to spend time with his family."

The White House made no mention of Cooney's plans to join Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company. Its executives have been among the most skeptical in the oil industry about the prospects of climate change because of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The leading greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Like the Bush administration, Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond has argued strongly against the Kyoto climate accord and has raised questions about the certainty of climate science as it relates to possible global warming. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have singled out Raymond and Exxon Mobil for protests because of its position on climate change.

Last week, the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that helps whistle blowers, made available documents showing that Cooney was closely involved in final editing of two administration climate reports. He made changes that critics said consistently played down the certainty of the science surrounding climate change.

After Cooney's involvement in editing the climate reports was first reported by The New York Times, the White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an administration pledge to rely on sound science.

A whistleblower, Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the government office that coordinates federal climate change programs, made the documents -- showing handwritten edits by Cooney -- available to the Project on Government Accountability and, in turn, to the media.

This isn't all that surprising given Exxon has been in the forefront in questioning the legitmacy of the stance that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Exxon has some of the best scientists in the world at working to decrease emissions and improve efficiency from fossil fuels. I find their stance on this issue very interesting and worth looking into.

Here's an article on them from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:
By Jeffrey Ball, The Wall Street Journal

ANNANDALE, N.J. -- At Exxon Mobil Corp.'s laboratories here, there isn't a solar panel or windmill in sight. About the closest Exxon's scientists get to "renewable" energy is perfecting an oil that Exxon could sell to companies operating wind turbines.

Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels.

Not Exxon. Openly and unapologetically, the world's No. 1 oil company disputes the notion that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Along with the Bush administration, Exxon opposes the Kyoto accord and the very idea of capping global-warming emissions. Congress is debating an energy bill that may be amended to include a cap, but the administration and Exxon say the costs would be huge and the benefits uncertain. Exxon also contributes money to think tanks and other groups that agree with its stance.

Exxon publicly predicts that solar and wind energy will continue to provide less than 1 percent of the world's energy supply in 2025, a subject that others shy away from. Even if fossil fuels are the chief global-warming culprit, Exxon argues, the sensible response is to figure out how to burn them more efficiently.

"We're not playing the issue. I'm not sure I can say that about others," Lee Raymond, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview at Exxon headquarters in Irving, Texas. "I get this question a lot of times: 'Why don't you just go spend $50 million on solar cells? Charge it off to the public-affairs budget and just say it's like another dry hole?' The answer is: That's not the way we do things."

The 66-year-old Mr. Raymond has emerged as the tallest lightning rod in the debate over global warming. At a London oil-industry dinner in February where he was the guest of honor, Greenpeace protesters poured red wine onto tables and called Mr. Raymond the "No. 1 climate criminal." Mr. Raymond, speaking on the same day the Kyoto treaty took effect, stuck by his prepared speech and called for a "reality check" on the treaty.

Exxon's approach to global warming typifies the bottom-line focus of its entire business. It is slogging away to improve the energy efficiency of its refineries -- primarily to cut costs, although this is also shaving global-warming emissions. But it says the business case for making more sweeping changes is still weak. It's a conservative, hard-nosed approach that has helped make Exxon the most profitable oil company in the world, with 2004 net income of $25 billion.

Even at its Annandale research lab, Exxon's focus is on adapting and improving fossil fuels -- not replacing them. Its researchers are trying to make cars burn fuel more efficiently and reduce emissions. Some futurists, and the Bush administration, think cars could run on hydrogen some day. Exxon is looking into the idea but puts its research dollars into extracting hydrogen from petroleum, not from water.

A growing chorus of critics says Exxon's strategy is short-sighted. As nations crack down on global-warming emissions, they argue, the foundation of the oil business is threatened because carbon dioxide, the chief suspected global-warming gas, is produced whenever fossil fuel is burned.

"There are two possible scenarios. One is that all the scientists in the world are wrong, in which case there's no climate change, in which case Exxon will do well," says Andrew Logan of Ceres, a Boston-based environmental group that's trying to put shareholder pressure on Exxon to go greener. "But if the scientists are correct and we have to find a way to transform the way we use energy, then Exxon is going to lag significantly behind its competitors."

Exxon isn't ignoring global warming. Besides its research in New Jersey, it has pledged $100 million over a decade for research at Stanford University into what it calls breakthrough "mega-technologies." Among them: capturing carbon dioxide after it's emitted and burying it deep underground. The Stanford researchers are also looking at ways to slash the cost of renewable energy. Exxon believes that if global warming really is a significant environmental problem, the only serious answer will be simple alternatives that even developing nations such as China and India can afford.

Though Exxon is touting the size of its Stanford investment in a new ad campaign, $100 million represents less than two days of Exxon's earnings. Shell says it has spent about $1.5 billion since 1999 building a business in renewable energy, mostly solar and wind power. BP says it has spent $500 million on solar since 2000 and about $30 million on wind over the past three years. Both Shell and BP continue to invest the overwhelming majority of their money in finding and pumping oil and gas.

Their renewable-energy investments are hardly big money makers. BP says its solar business has turned a profit but not its wind business. Shell says wind makes money but not solar. Both say short-term profits aren't the point. Enough is known about the likely contribution of fossil fuels to global warming, they reason, that it's prudent to start diversifying now as a kind of insurance policy. It's "all about growing a business," says Robert Wine, a BP spokesman.

Mr. Raymond disagrees. Spending shareholders' money to diversify into businesses that aren't yet profitable -- and that aim to solve a problem his scientists believe may not be significant -- strikes the Exxon chief as a sloppy way to run a company. "If I were to ask you if you want to buy an insurance policy, you've got to ask yourself a couple questions. No. 1, what are you trying to insure against? And No. 2, what are you willing to pay on the premium? And I haven't heard a very good answer to either one of those," he says.

In the late 1970s, as oil prices skyrocketed, Exxon diversified into an array of fossil-fuel alternatives, including nuclear and solar energy. In 1983 it opened the lab here in Annandale, a sprawling brick complex with 19 acres of interior space.

But after several years, Exxon still couldn't see prospects for renewable energy turning into a money-maker, especially since oil prices were falling in the 1980s. In the mid-1980s, the company decided to get out of the business and tapped Mr. Raymond, a South Dakota native then in his 40s, to oversee the retrenchment. "I was sent to clean it all up," he recalls. "What all these people are thinking about doing, we did 20 years ago -- and spent $1 billion, in dollars of that day, to find out that none of these were economic," he says. "That's why I feel so strongly about it -- because I've been there and I've done that."

In 1988, the United Nations established a panel of scientists to study whether the science justified clamping down on greenhouse-gas emissions, so called because they are thought to create a blanket in the atmosphere that traps reflected heat from the Earth's surface just as a greenhouse locks in heat. The panel's conclusions helped spawn the Kyoto treaty.

Exxon had already hired a Harvard astrophysicist named Brian Flannery in 1980 to look into global warming using mathematical models. In 1987, he was joined in the climate-science group by Haroon Kheshgi, a chemical engineer who had come to Exxon the previous year and had earlier worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Over the next several years the pair dug deeper into global-warming research and Exxon made grants to several prestigious universities, starting with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Flannery says he told the MIT researchers: "Embrace the uncertainty in all of this."

On Mr. Kheshgi's office wall are pictures of a climbing trip he took to a Peruvian glacier in 1987. He has also climbed glaciers in New Zealand, where he notes glaciers are receding. But he insists it's not clear that human-induced emissions are the explanation. The link is "not that simple," he says.

Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi were among the scores of scientists who helped write the U.N. panel's latest broad assessment of climate science, published in 2001. It said atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had jumped by 31 percent since the start of the industrial age and the 1990s were "very likely the warmest decade in instrumental record." Most of the observed warming of the past 50 years, it said, is "likely" the result of "human activities." Still, the panel said, models of climate change remain a work in progress. Among the remaining uncertainties it cited is to what extent "natural factors" unrelated to human activity play a role.

The Exxon scientists say they agree with much of the assessment. But they argue that policy makers often disregard the uncertainties noted in it. In 2003, Mr. Kheshgi and a University of Illinois scientist published a paper in an American Geophysical Union journal arguing that oceans, plants and soil suck up more of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel burning than previously thought. As a result, the paper said, models that predict a big buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere need to be rethought.

That's the kind of research Mr. Raymond, himself a chemical engineer, likes to cite. "Our view is it's yet to be shown how much of this is really related to the activities of man," he says. "The world has gone through many cycles of climate change that man had nothing to do with, because man didn't exist."

Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi argue in their papers for more research into how the world can live with, rather than avoid, the effects of global warming. That concept, known as "adaptation," worries some environmentalists because they fear it will deflect attention from reducing fossil-fuel emissions. But it's one of the subjects that the U.N. climate-change panel has studied, and Mr. Kheshgi argues it's only prudent. "Climate change might pose serious risks," he says. "But it might not."

Even some who advocate stricter curbs on emissions profess respect for Exxon's scientific work. "These are smart guys who shoot straight. I'm generally pretty impressed that their science is above-board and serious," says David Victor, who heads an energy-policy research program at Stanford. The program receives money from BP but isn't part of Stanford's Exxon-funded program.

But most scientists take an approach to global warming that is fundamentally different from Exxon's: They choose to emphasize what is known, rather than what isn't. They believe it's clear by now that fossil-fuel emissions are warming the earth and leading to dangerous consequences -- or clear enough, anyway, that it's more prudent to act than to wait until the science is airtight.

Last week representatives of scientific societies from 11 countries, including the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., released an open letter saying global warming is prompting changes "such as rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems." The letter said humans are likely to blame and called the science "sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

What particularly riles the green movement is Exxon's funding of several groups that continue to argue that the science doesn't justify caps. Among them is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which received a total of $465,000 in 2003 from Exxon and the company's charitable foundation, according to a corporate-giving report that Exxon posts on its Web site.

The antiregulatory Washington think tank has long opposed calls for a cap. Last week, one of its senior fellows, Iain Murray, wrote a column on a Web site calling the recent letter by the science academies an example of "climate alarmism" that has "needlessly thrown away the academies' reputations for unbiased information."

Several years ago, the institute filed a lawsuit against the Clinton administration challenging a report the administration had released highlighting concerns about global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe also was among the parties to the suit. Sen. Inhofe has called the idea that fossil fuels are contributing to global warming a "hoax."

What does Exxon's Mr. Flannery think about that? "If they're expressing a view that there's no risk that needs to be addressed, then yes, we would disagree with that," he says.

For his part, Mr. Raymond downplays the importance of the money Exxon spends on groups that talk up doubts about climate science and climate caps. "The facts are you don't have to spend a lot of money to aggravate the proponents," he says. But he doesn't apologize for Exxon's role in keeping the debate alive.

"We think we have a responsibility," he says. "If we think people are about to make some bad policy decisions that are going to have a big impact for a long period of time, somebody's got to say something."

Wow, a company that has smart people running the place?

I gotta hand it to them, I don't like their gas, but they've got smart managers, maybe I should buy some stock.

Bump - apparently, the employee in question just joined Exxon Mobil..

Typical. The guy edits documents to continue the administration lies and then gets a cushy job from one of the biggest benefactors of those lies for it.

:rolleyes:

How about this on Kyoto: Pollution is bad. We should take steps to reduce and eliminate it. Those who pollute the most should take the greatest steps. The US is on the losing end of the argument in rejecting Kyoto. There's only one reason why the US won't sign -- lobbying by polluters. But since the US opts out of many international treaties (e.g. the international criminal court), it is not surprising.

How about this on Kyoto: Pollution is bad. We should take steps to reduce and eliminate it. Those who pollute the most should take the greatest steps. The US is on the losing end of the argument in rejecting Kyoto. There's only one reason why the US won't sign -- lobbying by polluters. But since the US opts out of many international treaties (e.g. the international criminal court), it is not surprising.
Well pollution is bad...I think that is something we can agree on. Then we have the bit about the US taking the biggest steps to prevent pollution. I think that is a reasonable position. Then we come to our differences...The United States forces its polluting businesses to dramatically reduce their emissions without regard to costs. That really doesn't have a good result, because it will damage the economy and probably drive polluting businesses out of the country to poorer countries without the benefit of the tougher restrictions. There really are reasons that Congress back when Clinton was in office the Senate voted something like 95-2 on the Kyoto Treaty Provisions.

keep in mind this gy, the editor is NOT going to work for them as a scientist...he is going to work for them in PR which I think says a llot. That is why Im appalled at his editing the report in the white house. He wasn't editing it so that it was more truthful or accurate, he was editing to place words that foster doubt or minimize. That is wrong.

To me, it comes down to if he changed or modified the data in his final report. "Spinning" a study a certain (using the real data) is not all that big of a deal. Most studies allow readers to make a few different conclusions based on the results at hand - choosing to focus on one of the results (instead of another) is not the same as changing the study or "lying".

And, to this point, I haven't seen anything to show me that the changes made in the report on this study were not supported by the data.

And, to this point, I haven't seen anything to show me that the changes made in the report on this study were not supported by the data.
Arles, you are turning into a parody of yourself with your willful ignorance.

Here is Arles apparent view in a nushell:
One can't be too careful when deliberating over the shifting and byzantine web of confusion and doubt that is so-called "climate" "change." Whom should we believe: the unruly mob of every reputable climatologist on the planet, or the selfless sages at Exxon-Mobil? Uncertainty abounds. We must examine all sides of the issue, take input from all corners: from the side of science, and from the side of oil industry whores paid to lie about science. Someday, somehow, between these complex and opposing points of view, we may just find an answer.

Arles, you are turning into a parody of yourself with your willful ignorance.

Do have specific examples of data being changed in the report for the summary? You certainly haven't provided any to this point and seem to resort to the reply of "If you don't believe me then you are ignorant" instead of simply posting the info to refute my concern.


Here is Arles apparent view in a nushell:

One can't be too careful when deliberating over the shifting and byzantine web of confusion and doubt that is so-called "climate" "change." Whom should we believe: the unruly mob of every reputable climatologist on the planet, or the selfless sages at Exxon-Mobil? Uncertainty abounds. We must examine all sides of the issue, take input from all corners: from the side of science, and from the side of oil industry whores paid to lie about science. Someday, somehow, between these complex and opposing points of view, we may just find an answer.
It doesn't matter if you think this guy is secretly planning and scheming to turn the world into a large septic tank, the reality is I haven't seen anything in this report by the White House that leads me to believe he altered the data or results in any manner.

Just because you may question someones motives does not make him guilty when no crime has been committed. You need to find the crime in this before you begin the "tar-and-feather" routine.

It doesn't matter if you think this guy is secretly planning and scheming to turn the world into a large septic tank, the reality is I haven't seen anything in this report by the White House that leads me to believe he altered the data or results in any manner.

Just because you may question someones motives does not make him guilty when no crime has been committed. You need to find the crime in this before you begin the "tar-and-feather" routine.
Arles, have you read a single news report on this story?

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.
Deleting entire paragraphs is not altering the results? Of course he didn't change the numbers, he wasn't involved with creating the numbers because he has no scientific background of any kind.

To me, it comes down to if he changed or modified the data in his final report. "Spinning" a study a certain (using the real data) is not all that big of a deal. Most studies allow readers to make a few different conclusions based on the results at hand - choosing to focus on one of the results (instead of another) is not the same as changing the study or "lying".

And, to this point, I haven't seen anything to show me that the changes made in the report on this study were not supported by the data.


Arles, POTENTIALLY could be an idiot. The supposed evidence might lead one to surmise that idiocy could be in the works but as of now its inconclusive. In the findings of this report we simply cannot conlude 100% that he is an idiot eventhough there might be evidence that he is. As of now we ask that more studies be done so that this report, in which his idiocy is in serious question, wherein that same idiocy seems to be only 99% conclusive, be viewed as simply a hypothesis.

OR how 'bout this since Arles seems ok in that our leadership put leading words out there:

"Hello Im Kenneth Lay and this is why you should continue to have 100% of your 401K socked in our own stock!! Im buying it and you should too!! you could potentially make millions, and it is likely."

lets bring it closer to home:

Mrs. Rahn, this is Mrs. Jones up the street. It seems your duaghter might've been a bad influence on my daughter. Recently I caught my daughter watching pornography in the Living room. Now she said that your daughter left it over here on accident. My daughter also recently starting doing cocaine and it seems that your daughter potentially and probably is over here immediately before and after one of her binges. NOw I cant prove your duaghter is causing this behavior but it seems that one might draw conclusions that the two are certainly spending some coke time together. I undertsand that this could potentially be damaging to your duaghter's reputation but keep in mind this isn't proven yet, as Im still gathering the evidence...I have a lot but I need more to give to you. Please keep in mind that as of now your daughter is free and clear of any of these accusations but I can't help but notice that your daughter acts different when she is over here, she carries large sums of money on her (sometimes pehaps), and the two of them continually rub their noses (eventhough its cold here it seems more than just that potentially.)






you see, leading words mixed with scientific study, can totally make it garbage. None of the above is true BUT start throwing word leaders around and you can pretty much get what you want......

Scientists should NOT have their evidence altered edited and Deleted by people who are not qualified to do so. Its dangerous as hell and we shouldnt accept it.


AND ITS WRONG!!

lets bring it closer to home:

Mrs. Rahn, this is Mrs. Jones up the street. It seems your duaghter might've been a bad influence on my daughter. Recently I caught my daughter watching pornography in the Living room. Now she said that your daughter left it over here on accident. My daughter also recently starting doing cocaine and it seems that your daughter potentially and probably is over here immediately before and after one of her binges. NOw I cant prove your duaghter is causing this behavior but it seems that one might draw conclusions that the two are certainly spending some coke time together. I undertsand that this could potentially be damaging to your duaghter's reputation but keep in mind this isn't proven yet, as Im still gathering the evidence...I have a lot but I need more to give to you. Please keep in mind that as of now your daughter is free and clear of any of these accusations but I can't help but notice that your daughter acts different when she is over here, she carries large sums of money on her (sometimes pehaps), and the two of them continually rub their noses (eventhough its cold here it seems more than just that potentially.)
This would never happen.

I'm going to follow the Chinese plan for Rahn population control. All female Spawn of the She-Rahn will be put up for adoption. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

This would never happen.

I'm going to follow the Chinese plan for Rahn population control. All female Spawn of the She-Rahn will be put up for adoption. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Beautiful. :D

SI

Can I get one? A trip to Arizona would be much better than our current plan to go to China.

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.

Deleting entire paragraphs is not altering the results? Of course he didn't change the numbers, he wasn't involved with creating the numbers because he has no scientific background of any kind.
You've been completely spun by the article. The paragraph he deleted referenced another study done back in 2002. It was only there for background and had little to do with the new information learned from the current report. Again, I am still waiting for evidence that he altered the data from the actual study done.

[odd comparisons]
you see, leading words mixed with scientific study, can totally make it garbage. None of the above is true BUT start throwing word leaders around and you can pretty much get what you want......
Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but thanks for the tanget. Now, to the applicable part of your post...

Scientists should NOT have their evidence altered edited and Deleted by people who are not qualified to do so. Its dangerous as hell and we shouldnt accept it.
This happens everyday on every study. Company/university/government group A commissions scientists from group B to do a study. Group B goes off and does its study - then it releases the results of the study back to group A (the people that paid for it). Group A then reads the findings, makes some adjustments and sends it out on the behalf of the company/university/government group.

But, in this case, the most aggregious thing the White House did was remove references to a prior study because those references were not a direct result of this study. WOW- Holy smokes - they completely tainted the study!!!

(meanwhile, all the data and hard evidence from the study the White House commissioned remains.)

dola, all this could be cleared up if the Times would simply release what was actually changed (and that way we can all see) instead of telling us what they think the "intent" of the removed portion was.

You've been completely spun by the article. The paragraph he deleted referenced another study done back in 2002. It was only there for background and had little to do with the new information learned from the current report. Again, I am still waiting for evidence that he altered the data from the actual study done.

Arles, why do you continue in these political debates continue to ask people produce evidence of things that aren't the issue? No one is saying he changed the data. People are saying he changed the conclusions of the data (and you don't seem to have ever looked at a climate change report - it isn't like it is a few paragraphs, followed by spreadsheets - the data is integrated and interpreted in the text). Continuing to say, "but he didn't change the data," is a non-sequitor.

Here is the whisteblower statement that outlines the long-standing problems that go beyond Cooney's edits:

hxxp://209.200.93.225/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf

It's funny. I'm a big believer that the human-to-warming link is only partially understood and often exaggerated, but what the administration is doing on this issue is indefensible whether you believe in global warming or not.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but thanks for the tanget. Now, to the applicable part of your post...


This happens everyday on every study. Company/university/government group A commissions scientists from group B to do a study. Group B goes off and does its study - then it releases the results of the study back to group A (the people that paid for it). Group A then reads the findings, makes some adjustments and sends it out on the behalf of the company/university/government group.

But, in this case, the most aggregious thing the White House did was remove references to a prior study because those references were not a direct result of this study. WOW- Holy smokes - they completely tainted the study!!!

(meanwhile, all the data and hard evidence from the study the White House commissioned remains.)



AND i dont think that that is ok either, see at least im consistent :)

Arles, why do you continue in these political debates continue to ask people produce evidence of things that aren't the issue? No one is saying he changed the data. People are saying he changed the conclusions of the data (and you don't seem to have ever looked at a climate change report - it isn't like it is a few paragraphs, followed by spreadsheets - the data is integrated and interpreted in the text). Continuing to say, "but he didn't change the data," is a non-sequitor.

Here is the whisteblower statement that outlines the long-standing problems that go beyond Cooney's edits:

hxxp://209.200.93.225/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf

It's funny. I'm a big believer that the human-to-warming link is only partially understood and often exaggerated, but what the administration is doing on this issue is indefensible whether you believe in global warming or not.



thank you

But, in this case, the most aggregious thing the White House did was remove references to a prior study because those references were not a direct result of this study. WOW- Holy smokes - they completely tainted the study!!!


This is just untrue. The allegations go well beyond that.

so Arles, you see that using "language" is a powerful thing and it IS wrong to make remarks and make changes that change "tone" or make "inferences" and lead readers to make "conclusions". Perhaps :) you'll say its not wrong, but Im sure you'll admit it's slimy as hell. You're just more ok with the slimy-ness than me.

And let me add another thing beyond John Galt's thoughts which have already eviscerated Arles' arguments: science continually builds upon itself. New studies further old studies. Therefore, any respectable scientific study will talk about old studies and intertwine the results of each, so that together they are used to strengthen each other. Old studies incorporated into new studies are not 'irrelevant', it was probably put there for a reason, and that reason was most likely to show how global warming sucks, which Cooney did not want to further the debate on.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. If I commission someone to do a study on "Subject X" and they come back with data on that issue that is inconclusive. Then, decide to use the data in three other studies to help back up their questionable data and draw a conclusion that is also questionable, I (as the commissioner of the study) reserve the right to bring back the conclusions to data from THIS STUDY ONLY.

Again, I would really like to see the actual changes the BYTimes is basing its opinions on. That way we could see the differences and decide if the changes were really material to the study data or simply conclusions based on other outside studies that the White House wasn't ready to accept as proven fact at this point.

If I commission someone to do a study on "Subject X" and they come back with data on that issue that is inconclusive. Then, decide to use the data in three other studies to help back up their questionable data and draw a conclusion that is also questionable, I (as the commissioner of the study) reserve the right to bring back the conclusions to data from THIS STUDY ONLY.
Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?

Again, I would really like to see the actual changes the BYTimes is basing its opinions on. That way we could see the differences and decide if the changes were really material to the study data or simply conclusions based on other outside studies that the White House wasn't ready to accept as proven fact at this point.
This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.

Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?


This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.

Hey, that's the same memo I posted. ;)

Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?
I think the fact that the scientists needed to resort to older studies to help back their own findings show that it is not a slam dunk. If it was, the study should be able to stand on its own.

This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.
Because I am actually trying to get to the bottom of this one case without trying to overload people with other instances to get people to "assume" this case was also wrong. The most compelling argument that I've seen on this report issues cites that the administration removed some prior studies from being referenced. And, IMO, that is not the same as altering the concrete facts found in this study.

If some Harvard or Stanford professer wants to bring 4 independent studies together and start drawing conclusions based on their collective findings - I say "great" and have at it. But if I commission a group to study something and their findings (when taken independently) are inconclusive - I reserve the right to restrict the study to those findings in my final report. There's nothing dishonest about that, nor is there anything that would taint the results of that study.

so linking studies is bad? So I'm not supposed to reference Einstein's Theories if I'm commisioned by the government to do a study on space time if I think the arguments and conclusions he drew would make my findings stronger? That makes no sense when related to a scientific study.

I think the fact that the scientists needed to resort to older studies to help back their own findings show that it is not a slam dunk. If it was, the study should be able to stand on its own.



That's not how science works. Studies are almost always done to either replicate or raise questions about earlier work in the field. Sometimes study findings support earlier work, sometimes it disproves earlier work. Either way, each study contributes to and bulds upon the knowledge base in a particular subject. Nothing is ever done, or evaluated, in a vacuum.

I agree with both Easy Mac and Klingerware on the idea of linking studies to advance areas of research. My point was simply that if these guys were commissioned to study "X" in relation to global warming and they came back with information that (by itself) is somewhat inconclusive, then I see no reason why the administration should be forced to include data from other studies to help make the point these scientists propose.

Now, back to the guy that modified the summary. I would just like to see the changes that were made and get a second-hand viewing from the NY Times, Fox News, NBC or anyone else. If it alters the documented results of the study, then I will hop right on with the "tar and feather" crew against him. But, there is still a chance that the Times blew this out of proportion if we could ever see the actual changes. As it stands now, I don't know whether this guy made legit changes or not. And, unless you guys work for the Times, you really don't know either.

I agree with both Easy Mac and Klingerware on the idea of linking studies to advance areas of research. My point was simply that if these guys were commissioned to study "X" in relation to global warming and they came back with information that (by itself) is somewhat inconclusive, then I see no reason why the administration should be forced to include data from other studies to help make the point these scientists propose.

Now, back to the guy that modified the summary. I would just like to see the changes that were made and get a second-hand viewing from the NY Times, Fox News, NBC or anyone else. If it alters the documented results of the study, then I will hop right on with the "tar and feather" crew against him. But, there is still a chance that the Times blew this out of proportion if we could ever see the actual changes. As it stands now, I don't know whether this guy made legit changes or not. And, unless you guys work for the Times, you really don't know either.

Did you at least read the Whistleblower memo that was posted twice? It doesn't have both reports, but it is much more comprehensive (as no newspaper is going to do more than they have until this becomes a "big" story).

And your ways of describing these studies is suspect. Climate studies are ALWAYS squishy because they come from uncertainty and predict the future. The point is that scientists should be the ones to determine which way the data is leaning (and the originals didn't really have a leaning) rather than oil industry hack political appointees. Let the lifer scientists do their job and get out of the way.

Did you at least read the Whistleblower memo that was posted twice? It doesn't have both reports, but it is much more comprehensive (as no newspaper is going to do more than they have until this becomes a "big" story).
It was better and I am interested to see how the prior study that was removed would have impacted the results of this study. My first inclination is that there's nothing wrong with removing citations to different studies when leading an independent study of similar variables. But, if certain things were not studied because they were simply relying on the results of other studies, then that would be a different case (although maybe not the best way to lead an independent study). Still, I am not saying this guy did nothing wrong. I am saying that based on what I have seen, I have yet to see a specific example of his actions impacting the real results of the study. It's one of the reasons I would really like to see what the actual changes were.

And your ways of describing these studies is suspect. Climate studies are ALWAYS squishy because they come from uncertainty and predict the future. The point is that scientists should be the ones to determine which way the data is leaning (and the originals didn't really have a leaning) rather than oil industry hack political appointees. Let the lifer scientists do their job and get out of the way.
That's a fair view. But scientists often have as many political motives as oil hacks, so it could very well be the case that these scientists wanted to bring in other studies to help support conclusion they desired, when perhaps the evidence for this study didn't lead to that conclusion. But, I will certainly admit that I do not that this is the case given what I have seen so far.

It was better and I am interested to see how the prior study that was removed would have impacted the results of this study. My first inclination is that there's nothing wrong with removing citations to different studies when leading an independent study of similar variables. But, if certain things were not studied because they were simply relying on the results of other studies, then that would be a different case (although maybe not the best way to lead an independent study). Still, I am not saying this guy did nothing wrong. I am saying that based on what I have seen, I have yet to see a specific example of his actions impacting the real results of the study. It's one of the reasons I would really like to see what the actual changes were.


That's a fair view. But scientists often have as many political motives as oil hacks, so it could very well be the case that these scientists wanted to bring in other studies to help support conclusion they desired, when perhaps the evidence for this study didn't lead to that conclusion. But, I will certainly admit that I do not that this is the case given what I have seen so far.

I don't think you read the whole thing, because he doesn't get to the editor guy until the end and he adds a little more flavor than the NYT. As for scientific bias, that is why you have lots of scientists and objective analysis. Last minute changes without review by the scientists is always a BAD process.

Here ya go Arles, this is one even you should condemn:

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."

Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."
hxxp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,445282.story?coll=la-home-headlines