Bush's war on science continues

Be it for reasons of faith or commerce, we can count of the truth being 'worked' to fit the desired results. The latest example are the efforts of Philip A. Cooney. Mr. Cooney, who while working for the Council on Environmental Quality in the white house, reviewed and modified a number of documents on the Global Warming issue.

For example, a sentence in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," originally read: "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change...."

Mr. Cooney's neat, compact notes modified the sentence to read: "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change...."

In places where uncertainties in climate research were described, Mr. Cooney added qualifiers like "significant" and "fundamental."

In effect he was modifying the results of the studies.


Now, what background and training did Mr. Cooney have that makes it proper for him to adjust reports so that it fundamentally changed the tone of the conclusion.

Before coming to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

Not surprising from this administration. Why use science when lawyers and lobbyist are so more efficient at achieving the administrations goals.


One other point of this story is also very interesting, especially in light of the Downing Street Memo.

Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

when you don't like the facts, just fix them to fit the conclusion. How much do the oil companies control US environmental policy? The Guardian's story about ExxonMobil's opposition to the Kyoto Accords makes it clear.

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

Well I am glad the Exxon finds our total lack of an environmental policy acceptable.