Scientists allege White House pressure

[forrestkc]

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. scientists felt pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

Rick Piltz, a former U.S. government scientist who said he resigned in 2005 after pressure to soft-pedal findings on global warming, told the committee in prepared testimony that former White House official Phil Cooney took an active role in casting doubt on the consequences of global climate change.

Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned in 2005 to work for oil giant ExxonMobil.

Documents on global climate change required Cooney's review and approval, Piltz said.

"His edits of program reports, which had been drafted and approved by career science program managers, had the cumulative effect of adding an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about global warming and minimizing its likely consequences," Piltz said.

The hearing was one of two on Tuesday spotlighting global climate change; a Senate forum featured testimony from members of that chamber, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois among Democrats and Republican John McCain of Arizona.

[Axxman]

This is a typical Reuters liberal piece of reporting. As usual they report ONLY what they want you to see.

Fact is that the Union of Concerned Scientists (a liberal anti-Bush group) sent out over 1600 surveys to gov't scientists and 308 of them felt strongly enough to respond. Of those 308, less than half of them, felt that there was gov't pressure on their work. What we basically have here is a NON-STORY. Approximately 140 gov't scientists reported some form of pressure from the Bush Admin. out of 1600 scientists. How absolutely interesting that Reuters left that little bit of info out.

For a more thorough report:

The rest of the story...

[forrestkc]

This is a typical Reuters liberal piece of reporting. As usual they report ONLY what they want you to see.

Fact is that the Union of Concerned Scientists (a liberal anti-Bush group) sent out over 1600 surveys to gov't scientists and 308 of them felt strongly enough to respond. Of those 308, less than half of them, felt that there was gov't pressure on their work. What we basically have here is a NON-STORY. Approximately 140 gov't scientists reported some form of pressure from the Bush Admin. out of 1600 scientists. How absolutely interesting that Reuters left that little bit of info out.

For a more thorough report:

The rest of the story...

Now come on. Non-story? 150 scientists out of 1600 is a high number. One out of 1600 would be an abuse of power. The Bush Administration had an oil industry lobbyist with no scientific training at all reviewing scientific studies and then putting pressure on some scientists to modify their findings. In some cases he was editing reports. Moreover, that oil industry lobbyist eventually was forced to resign when this came to light. That is corruption and abuse of power.

There is what could only be described as a war against science being perpetrated by the religious right, and some in the fossil fuels industry. How is America served well when people in power are trying to subvert and interfere with science?

[Axxman]

Now come on. Non-story? 150 scientists out of 1600 is a high number. One out of 1600 would be an abuse of power. The Bush Administration had an oil industry lobbyist with no scientific training at all reviewing scientific studies and then putting pressure on some scientists to modify their findings. In some cases he was editing reports. Moreover, that oil industry lobbyist eventually was forced to resign when this came to light. That is corruption and abuse of power.

There is what could only be described as a war against science being perpetrated by the religious right, and some in the fossil fuels industry. How is America served well when people in power are trying to subvert and interfere with science?

Are you for real? 1 out of 1600 is an abuse of power? These survey results DO NOT indicate that "half" of the gov't scientific community feel pressured. If anything it shows that a SMALL group of scientists have a liberal agenda.

In regards to Phil Cooney, lets not act as if he is the ONLY guy working at the Council for Environmental Quality. He was the Chief of Staff, and he was in charge of making sure that reports stayed on point. Any editing he did was to that effect. When one of these few liberal scientists tried to interject his personal theories or opinions into studies it was Cooney's job to edit it out. Nothing more, nothing less. Of the thousands of reports generated, only 435 instances of political interference was reported. Keep in mind...this is just the opinion of scientists that were upset that they were not allowed to interject their bias into reports. Cooney also gave his reasons for editing sections whenever it was necessary to edit. It should also be noted that Mr Cooney was not forced to resign, although libs love that angle. Mr Cooney had accumulated 4 weeks of leave, which he took, before accepting a better position with ExxonMobil.

I am sure that it would sit well with you to let these scientists do and say whatever they wanted, but thats not how things work. It should also be noted that "scientists" or persons with a scientific background are RARELY nominated to gov't positions, including the CEQ.

[dgolvach]

I actually see the Global Warming Doomsdayers as useful idiots because it would be good for the States to start using less and less oil. Oil money if how terrorist are funded in the end. I want a divorce from the middle-east oil producers. As far as "Global Warming" is concerned, I live in Houston and its been freezing. Bring it on!

Dan

[forrestkc]

Are you for real? 1 out of 1600 is an abuse of power? These survey results DO NOT indicate that "half" of the gov't scientific community feel pressured. If anything it shows that a SMALL group of scientists have a liberal agenda.

In regards to Phil Cooney, lets not act as if he is the ONLY guy working at the Council for Environmental Quality. He was the Chief of Staff, and he was in charge of making sure that reports stayed on point. Any editing he did was to that effect. When one of these few liberal scientists tried to interject his personal theories or opinions into studies it was Cooney's job to edit it out. Nothing more, nothing less. Of the thousands of reports generated, only 435 instances of political interference was reported. Keep in mind...this is just the opinion of scientists that were upset that they were not allowed to interject their bias into reports. Cooney also gave his reasons for editing sections whenever it was necessary to edit. It should also be noted that Mr Cooney was not forced to resign, although libs love that angle. Mr Cooney had accumulated 4 weeks of leave, which he took, before accepting a better position with ExxonMobil.

I am sure that it would sit well with you to let these scientists do and say whatever they wanted, but thats not how things work. It should also be noted that "scientists" or persons with a scientific background are RARELY nominated to gov't positions, including the CEQ.

I think you are misinformed as to the nature of modern science and peer review. Scientists publish work based on empirical evidence to peer review journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or Nature. Their scientific peers in their respective field then review that work both in draft and final form be it a study or simply an article. This review process exposes and critiques bias, errors, or conclusions that are not adequately supported by the empirical evidence given to support them.

That is why this whole notion of studies or articles passing peer review process with some political agenda is total hogwash. As a scientist, you are simply not going to be able to publish your work with some evident bias or agenda in it before the body of modern science and your peers not point that out in the review process.

Now what was going on was Philip Cooney, an energy industry lobbyist who served as Chief of Staff of Environmental Quality for the Bush Administration from 2002 to 2005 (which is like hiring an avowed atheist as your senior pastor), was unilaterally editing some reports that had already been subject to peer review, in a obvious and deliberate attempt to produce an air of doubt as to the reports findings. For example, when he would find the term

[Leonard]

Keep telling the big lie forrest! Atta boy! Lenin would be proud of how you just keep it up. Man, Marx's thirst must be getting slaked after all the water you've been carrying for him.

And forest still doesn't want us to believe he's a Marxist...........

[nebula]

I think you are misinformed as to the nature of modern science and peer review. Scientists publish work based on empirical evidence to peer review journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or Nature. Their scientific peers in their respective field then review that work both in draft and final form be it a study or simply an article. This review process exposes and critiques bias, errors, or conclusions that are not adequately supported by the empirical evidence given to support them.

Do you truly believe the "peer review" process in infallible? Do you also believe scientists are somehow purged from personal biases in their thinking and mode of operation?

[forrestkc]

I think you are misinformed as to the nature of modern science and peer review. Scientists publish work based on empirical evidence to peer review journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or Nature. Their scientific peers in their respective field then review that work both in draft and final form be it a study or simply an article. This review process exposes and critiques bias, errors, or conclusions that are not adequately supported by the empirical evidence given to support them.

Do you truly believe the "peer review" process in infallible? Do you also believe scientists are somehow purged from personal biases in their thinking and mode of operation?

No I do not believe it is. However, do you honestly think that it is better to have an oil industry lobbyist with no scientific training at all to modify scientific reports on climate and deliberately water them down?

[forrestkc]

I think they are both equally suspect. The scientific community you trust in is made up of left-wing socialists with an agenda to harm industry. On the other hand, of course those in the oil companies are biased, and they are fighting back.

As to the complaints by some scientists that the administration is pressuring them to take a stand against global warming, big deal? They are likely liberals who hate the President and are just making claims to harm him politically. To me, they have zero credibility.

How do you know the scientific community is made up of left wing socialists with an agenda to harm industry?