White House officials play down its own scientists' evidence of global warming

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1046363,00.html

Bush covers up climate research

White House officials play down its own scientists' evidence of global warming

Paul Harris New York
Sunday September 21, 2003
The Observer


White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.
The disclosure will anger environment campaigners who claim that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being sabotaged because of President George W. Bush's links to the oil industry.

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain.

The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney.

The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added.

The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack.

'This email indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself seeking to discredit an official US government report on global warming dangers,' said Richard Blumenthal, attorney general of Connecticut, who has written to the White House asking for an inquiry.

The allegation was denied by White House officials and the CEI. 'It is absurd. We do not have a sweetheart relationship with the White House,' said Chris Horner, a lawyer and senior fellow of CEI.

However, environmentalists say the email fits a pattern of collusion between the Bush administration and conservative groups funded by the oil industry, who lobby against efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming.

When Bush first came to power he withdrew the US - the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases - from the Kyoto treaty, which requires nations to limit their emissions.

Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are former oil executives; National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once headed an oil and gas exploration company.

'It all fits together,' said Kert Davies of Greenpeace. 'It shows that there is an effort to undermine good science. It all just smells like the oil industry. They are doing everything to allow the US to remain the world's biggest polluter.'

Other confidential documents obtained by The Observer detail White House efforts to suppress research that shows the world's climate is warming. A four-page internal EPA memo reveals that Bush's staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the US, published last June. One alteration indicated 'that no further changes may be made'.

The memo discusses ways of dealing with the White House editing, and warns that the section 'no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change'.

Some of the changes include deleting a summary that stated: 'Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.' Sections on the ecological effects of global warming and its impact on human health were removed. So were several sentences calling for further research on climate change.

A temperature record covering 1,000 years was also deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: 'Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration's favoured message.'

White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as 'potentially' and 'may', leading the EPA to complain: 'Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none.'

The paper then analyses what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. The options range from accepting the alterations to trying to discuss them with the White House.

When the report was finally published, however, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically credible.

Former EPA climate policy adviser Jeremy Symons said morale at the agency had been devastated by the administration's tactics. He painted a picture of scientists afraid to conduct research for fear of angering their White House paymasters. 'They do good research,' he said. 'But they feel that they have a boss who does not want them to do it. And if they do it right, then they will get hit or their work will be buried.'

Symons left the EPA in April 2001 and now works for the National Wildlife Federation as head of its climate change programme. The Bush administration's attitude was clear from the beginning, he said, and a lot of people were working to ensure that the President did nothing to address global warming.

 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
From the very latest report the hole in the ozone has split into two giant masses. There was some linkage on science, but I don't know where it had gone.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...


...there must be no evil! Cover your eyes and ears, Bush, but the ozone hole is still there.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Wolfdog
From the very latest report the hole in the ozone has split into two giant masses. There was some linkage on science, but I don't know where it had gone.
Read a report a few months ago that hole is getting smaller...granted i read on more recently that said the opposite.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
Dont forget if the Greens would let us build Nuke plants we could radically drop co2 emissions.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
I read that article a couple days ago and contemplated posting it here. The author invites a lot of "attack the messenger" and "guilt by association" attacks by quoting people from Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation. The fact that people from those organizations are unhappy with the Administration's environmental record is not really news.

The e-mail evidence is troubling if accurate. It has a similar flavor to Gen. Clark's accusation that someone from Canada asked him "on the Administration's behalf" to assert a link between Saddam and 9/11 while on the air. Even if you buy either of those stories, the Administration has "plausible deniability."

Have fun fending off CAD et al... ;)
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
"allegations"? hehe, I guess the head of the epa's resignation isn't valid enough. She gave a kissass resignation letter but the writing was on the wall for all to read.

Thanks for the quack logic tho.
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
Dont forget if the Greens would let us build Nuke plants we could radically drop co2 emissions.


Why build nuke plants that are great terrorist targets that leave radioactive waste when we already have the tech and resources to build massive windfarms that would provide 100% of our power usage? North Dakota, South Dakota, and parts of Iowa would be perfect for such farms.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
The Bush administration has a nasty habit shooting down the opinions and assessments by experts if it doesn't agree with the administration's policies. The truth is apparantly editable.

Around a week ago, the ozone hole over Antartica was reported to be back to its largest size on record:

TerraDaily.com

The hole in the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic, regarded as one of the world's major environmental challenges, has expanded more rapidly than in recent years, reaching the record level set three years ago, climate experts said on Wednesday.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I guess the head of the epa's resignation isn't valid enough. She gave a kissass resignation letter but the writing was on the wall for all to read.
The head of the EPA is a Presidential appointee, a non-scientist political hack. It wasn't HER research that was (allegedly) being twisted, it was the worker bee scientists who worked for her. If you're a serious scientist who does research saying the sky is blue, you'd let some political wanker like Karl Rove print your report with your name on it saying the sky is green? Or if he did, you'd stick around to write some more reports which would be twisted the same way? I don't think so.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,415
4,795
126
Sigh

Not only did the EPA head quit in disgust, but the most outrageous statements/directives to come out of the EPA occured when there was no Head at the EPA!
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
Dont forget if the Greens would let us build Nuke plants we could radically drop co2 emissions.


Why build nuke plants that are great terrorist targets that leave radioactive waste when we already have the tech and resources to build massive windfarms that would provide 100% of our power usage? North Dakota, South Dakota, and parts of Iowa would be perfect for such farms.
The farther you have to send electricity, the more you loose. That would otherwise be a great idea if there were major population centers in ND,SD and Iowa. Wind is good as a supplimental powersource, but it is not a reliable nor a predictable power source.

We have the technology to create safer nuke plants and reprocess a large amount of nuke waste.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
Dont forget if the Greens would let us build Nuke plants we could radically drop co2 emissions.


Why build nuke plants that are great terrorist targets that leave radioactive waste when we already have the tech and resources to build massive windfarms that would provide 100% of our power usage? North Dakota, South Dakota, and parts of Iowa would be perfect for such farms.
The farther you have to send electricity, the more you loose. That would otherwise be a great idea if there were major population centers in ND,SD and Iowa. Wind is good as a supplimental powersource, but it is not a reliable nor a predictable power source.

We have the technology to create safer nuke plants and reprocess a large amount of nuke waste.
I was listening to the old AM radio the other day....
They had some guy on talking about that Iowa has enough wind resources to possibly create over 400% of our yearly power needs. The problem though - as you stated is that it isn't constant. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done though. Not only does it currently save over a million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, it also pays the farmers who allow the turbines to be located on their land. This land is still usable for farming since the footprint of a turbine is minimal.

CkG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Piano Man
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: glenn1
If the scientists' allegations are true, why haven't there been more news stories about en masse resignations? That there haven't been leads me to be slightly skeptical of the complete truth of their allegations. I don't doubt that they are getting pressure to come up with the Administration's desired results. But evidently the changes being made aren't serious enough for them to consider the output completely compromised and actively working to stop it. Either that, or they're willing to prostitute their scientific credibility rather than rock the boat and put anything on the line to fight the changes. Griping about it afterwards doesn't count, scientists in their positions in life don't need to "suck it up" for the boss just to put food on the table.
Dont forget if the Greens would let us build Nuke plants we could radically drop co2 emissions.


Why build nuke plants that are great terrorist targets that leave radioactive waste when we already have the tech and resources to build massive windfarms that would provide 100% of our power usage? North Dakota, South Dakota, and parts of Iowa would be perfect for such farms.
The farther you have to send electricity, the more you loose. That would otherwise be a great idea if there were major population centers in ND,SD and Iowa. Wind is good as a supplimental powersource, but it is not a reliable nor a predictable power source.

We have the technology to create safer nuke plants and reprocess a large amount of nuke waste.
I was listening to the old AM radio the other day....
They had some guy on talking about that Iowa has enough wind resources to possibly create over 400% of our yearly power needs. The problem though - as you stated is that it isn't constant. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done though. Not only does it currently save over a million tons of carbon dioxide emissions, it also pays the farmers who allow the turbines to be located on their land. This land is still usable for farming since the footprint of a turbine is minimal.

CkG
I dont disagree with wind farm. That technology is maturing and should be used where it makes sense.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Why build nuke plants that are great terrorist targets that leave radioactive waste when we already have the tech and resources to build massive windfarms that would provide 100% of our power usage?
I thought the environmentalist types didn't like wind power anymore because the mills were killing birds who were too dumb not to fly into giant spinning blades, and they disliked the idea of stupid northern spotted owls being puréed.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
You people advocating windmills would be the sames one complaining about them being an eyesore if they were built anywhere NEAR where you lived. Yeah, I can just imagine miles upon miles of massive windmills.. THATS the answer..

The whole "We're killing the planet" thing got old in the 80's and 90's.. let it go..
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Someone on NPR was talking about the dramatic reduction in wind power in rural areas. Apparently states like CA and TX have fewer wind-powered facilities (residential/farm) than they did in the early 20th century.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Crimson
You people advocating windmills would be the sames one complaining about them being an eyesore if they were built anywhere NEAR where you lived. Yeah, I can just imagine miles upon miles of massive windmills.. THATS the answer..

The whole "We're killing the planet" thing got old in the 80's and 90's.. let it go..
Nope - not me:) My home town(NW Iowa) has wind farms near it - nobody seems to care much.

glenn1 - yeah:p there was like a 750K grant awarded to a group to study windmill kills here in iowa. they walked the corn fields charting/counting dead birds. Didn't hear the results - must not have been "bad" for windmills.

CkG
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
Bah, you all are approaching the power problem wrong. It's quite simple really.

1. Legalize cocaine farms
2. Hook generators up to millions of hampster wheels
3. Breed tons of hampsters
4. Keep them high.
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Someone on NPR was talking about the dramatic reduction in wind power in rural areas. Apparently states like CA and TX have fewer wind-powered facilities (residential/farm) than they did in the early 20th century.
Of course they have less. Every farm had a windmill to pump water and many were later converted to generators to charge large banks of batteries which would provide lighting and power for radios. They worked for these purposes becuase the loads were very small and they were establishing storage (of water or battery power). However, as soon as electrical lines were built these were abandoned because central electricity was much cheaper, always available and of much greater quantity. Most of these "facilities" were not adequate to allow people to have refrigerators or other appliances. In fact, few people got enough benefit from the windmills to install indoor plumbing.



 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
You people advocating windmills would be the sames one complaining about them being an eyesore if they were built anywhere NEAR where you lived. Yeah, I can just imagine miles upon miles of massive windmills.. THATS the answer..

The whole "We're killing the planet" thing got old in the 80's and 90's.. let it go..
Actually, I would love to live near a field of windmills. They look really cool.
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
Bah, you all are approaching the power problem wrong. It's quite simple really.

1. Legalize cocaine farms
2. Hook generators up to millions of hampster wheels
3. Breed tons of hampsters
4. Keep them high.
better go with gerbils
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Someone on NPR was talking about the dramatic reduction in wind power in rural areas. Apparently states like CA and TX have fewer wind-powered facilities (residential/farm) than they did in the early 20th century.
We have growing wind farms in Texas.
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
Originally posted by: Crimson
You people advocating windmills would be the sames one complaining about them being an eyesore if they were built anywhere NEAR where you lived. Yeah, I can just imagine miles upon miles of massive windmills.. THATS the answer..

The whole "We're killing the planet" thing got old in the 80's and 90's.. let it go..
That's a pretty desperate statement since almost of these wind farms are actually on farms away from most, and the farmer who has them gets government grants. And the problem with transmission over a long distance has nothing to do with power, because the power is there. The problem comes with the rate hikes that different power companies would charge for power to be sent through thier lines.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY