By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 19, 5:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON - A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editing changes Monday, saying they reflected views in a 2001 report by the
National Academy of Sciences. House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that man-made emissions are warming the earth.

Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change.The extent of Cooney's editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.

"My concern is that there was a concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty into the climate debate," said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., chairman of the
House Government Reform Committee.Cooney's appearance before Waxman's committee Monday was the first time he has spoken publicly, or was extensively questioned, about the issue.

Cooney said that many of the changes he made to the reports — such as uncertainty about the regional impact of climate change and limits on climate modeling — reflected findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report on climate.Waxman's committee also heard from James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the country's leading climate scientists, who said the White House repeatedly tried to control what government scientists say to the public and media about climate change.

"Interference with communications of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," said Hansen, who was one of the first to raise concerns about climate change in the 1980s.Hansen's battles with NASA and White House public affairs officials are not new and resulted in an easing of NASA's policies toward scientists talking to the media about their work.

But that was not always the case.

Hansen said that in 2005 he was told by a 24-year-old NASA public affairs official he could not take part in an interview with National Public Radio on orders from senior NASA public affairs officials. Instead, three other NASA officials were offered for the interview.The young press officer, George Deutsch, now 26, sat next to Hansen at the witness table Monday and told the committee he had simply been "relaying" the views of higher-ups at NASA that Hansen was not to participate in the interview.

Rep. Darrell Issa (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., suggested that Hansen was not being muzzled at all and that there is nothing wrong with government scientists being subject to some limits in what they say."You're speaking on federal paid time. Your employer happens to be the American taxpayer," Issa lectured Hansen. He said a Google search had shown Hansen cited on more than 1,400 occasions over a year in interviews and appearances.Hansen said he accepted only "a small fraction" of the requests for interviews and appearances and that, as a matter of free speech, government scientists should not be restrained in their remarks or have public affairs officers listening in on interviews.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/scientists_warming

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 9:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2007 9:31:43 PM

^ This is completely out of character for the Bush Administration. I can't imagine they'd do something so blatantly dishonest...

Oh.

3/19/2007 9:35:00 PM

I want a Republican to answer why appointing an oil industry lobbyist is qualified to be the Chief of Staff on Environmental Quality.

3/19/2007 9:37:17 PM

Same reason you hire a hacker to be in charge of network security. duh

3/19/2007 9:47:23 PM

hahhaah

3/19/2007 9:52:11 PM

Quote :

" want a Republican to answer why appointing an oil industry lobbyist is qualified to be the Chief of Staff on Environmental Quality."

Well I'm not a republican, but just for the sake of trying to keep the thread lively....

An oil industry lobbyist is probably just as qualified as Clinton's man for the job when he was president. George Frampton was Clinton's Chief of Staff on environmental Quality. Frampton was a past president of the socialist-leaning Wilderness Society. One of the original founders was Robert Marshall, who was a member of a Socialist Party and an advocate of overthrowing the American form of government.

The Wilderness Group championed the spotted owl issue in the northwest, a mess that eventually led to the loss of thousands of forest industry jobs.

Speaking at an Earth Day celebration, Frampton gave us this nugget of gold:
"We ought to make the whole state [of Alaska] an historical park so people can... see how folks thought in the 19th Century."

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 10:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2007 10:24:57 PM

yeah, let's just have the spotted owl go extinct.

you are an idiot.

3/19/2007 10:34:17 PM

Quote :

""My concern is that there was a concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty into the climate debate," said Rep. Henry Waxman "

Aren't there already a bunch of scientists who are already injecting uncertainty into the climate debate?

Also, looks like Al Gore is being challenged to a debate

Quote :

"PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous." "

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

3/19/2007 10:41:47 PM

^That would be interesting

btw there IS uncertainty in the climate debate so its GOOD that you dont just lie to people and tell them that you have everything figured out

3/19/2007 11:13:35 PM

Quote :

"An oil industry lobbyist is probably just as qualified as Clinton's man for the job when he was president. George Frampton was Clinton's Chief of Staff on environmental Quality. Frampton was a past president of the socialist-leaning Wilderness Society. One of the original founders was Robert Marshall, who was a member of a Socialist Party and an advocate of overthrowing the American form of government."

Horseshit. Even a "left wing environmentalist" is working in the public interest. An oil lobbyist is looking to undo environmental protections for the economic gain of a tiny amount of special interests. I'm also appalled at how many of you only look at economics when making an argument. It's like you have no conscience or humanity.

3/19/2007 11:21:19 PM

Quote :

"Even a "left wing environmentalist" is working in the public interest"

How are you so aware of the profit motives of the oil lobbyists but so unaware of the profit motives of the environmentalists? You think they are completely motivated by the good of humanity?

3/19/2007 11:28:03 PM

Ever occur to you guys that the oil companies interests are our interests. I mean like it or not we can't run automobiles on good intentions and happy thoughts.

3/19/2007 11:44:47 PM

Quote :

"An oil lobbyist is looking to undo environmental protections for the economic gain "

Just as that may be true. It could also be true that the left-wing environmental movement is the new home for capitalism-hating communists.

3/20/2007 12:02:01 AM

^^ whats their possible motive? that we can all live in a clean, healthy environment?

3/20/2007 12:02:55 AM

Quote :

"^^ whats their possible motive? that we can all live in a clean, healthy environment?"

When a founder of greenpeace refuses to associate with the environmentalists and greenpeace, it would not be unreasonable to think their motives are not what they once were.

3/20/2007 12:09:17 AM

^ Well, the destruction of the earth is a very extreme act. But somehow we have construed those who oppose this as being the extremists. 100 years ago, many of our ancestors farmed and depended on the earth for life. Now the earth and its protectors are the enemy. Makes you wonder how our values have changed.

3/20/2007 12:20:39 AM

I fail to see us destroying the earth.

3/20/2007 12:25:36 AM

perhaps you haven't been looking

half of Raleigh is a parking lot

3/20/2007 12:28:02 AM

Rewriting The Science
Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research

Quote :

"Politically, [NASA scientist James] Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was [emphasis added]. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Apparently, this part of the story has been forgotten--but not by me.

V That's a laughably inconsistent but typically liberal response.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 12:29:40 AM

err on the side of caution?

evidently it works for starting wars

3/20/2007 12:45:31 AM

Quote :

"perhaps you haven't been looking half of Raleigh is a parking lot"

change != destroy, though the environmentalists would have you think so, even as they fly jets to go rent a car to drive to the hotel to hold their protest in the streets in their 50% cotton shirts, holding cardboard signs written with sharpies.

Quote :

"err on the side of caution? evidently it works for starting wars"

And look where that got us. And instead of just a few hundred thousand lives, you're gambling with everyone's lives.

3/20/2007 12:54:12 AM

Quote :

" change != destroy, though the environmentalists would have you think so, even as they fly jets to go rent a car to drive to the hotel to hold their protest in the streets in their 50% cotton shirts, holding cardboard signs written with sharpies."

Yes! Lets assume people will listen to people who live an agrarian lifestyle! It worked so well on the continent of Africa!

Quote :

"And look where that got us. And instead of just a few hundred thousand lives, you're gambling with everyone's lives."

Ummm.

What the hell are you talking about?

3/20/2007 12:58:55 AM

Quote :

"But somehow we have construed those who oppose this as being the extremists."

The objective of protecting the earth from pollution is admirable and worthwhile. But how we do it is the key question. It seems that many pioneer envronmentalists have decried the fact that the movement has been infiltrated by anti-capitalists who don;t care so much about the earth as they do promoting their political agenda.

Rather than shutting down progress, true environmentalists are trying to work with the economic system -such as with emissions trading.

Take a closer look at the radical environmentalist's proposals next time. Will it really accomplish its stated purpose or actually do little more than retard progress, throw people out of work, and lower standards of living.

I've always supported protecting the earth. I can even still remember all the words to the Woodsy The Owl song. But we have to do it in a way that still allows people to use the land to better their lives.

3/20/2007 1:05:31 AM

Quote :

"Rather than shutting down progress, true environmentalists are trying to work with the economic system -such as with emissions trading"

emissions trading means that there is a financial incentive to not pollute. if there was a true free market and businesses had to incorporate the costs of their actions in their business model, they wouldn't do the stupid shit they do. as long as we subsidize stupidity it will continue.

3/20/2007 1:12:24 AM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Rather than shutting down progress, true environmentalists that I can appreciate are trying to work with the economic system -such as with emissions trading."

Fixed.

The fact that you would invent this concept of "true environmentalists" and base it on whether or not they make compromises with you (and your precious market shit) is ridiculous and reveals you to be completely worthless in any debate that touches on the environment.

3/20/2007 3:04:30 AM

^ nice!

3/20/2007 3:09:07 AM

this is so old about james hansen and phil cooney.

it was on 60 minutes a year ago. they actually showed some of the changes that the bastard made... it was unbelievable.

james hansen is not allowed to talk to the press either. however, he was given special permssion to talk to 60 minutes, and couldn't say certain things.

btw, not being allowed to talk to the press... isn't that an infringement of certain rights or a violation of certain laws?

or do laws not apply to the BUSH GOV?

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 5:30 AM. Reason : ]

3/20/2007 5:29:09 AM

Quote :

"or do laws not apply to the BUSH GOV?"

they just pick and choose the ones they want to follow.

3/20/2007 8:27:20 AM

Quote :

"err on the side of caution?"

Fuck the science since thats been exposed

Lets just combat global warming to "err on the side of caution" since "it works with wars" (even though theres actually proof Saddam used WMDs, etc whereas theres no proof humans are causing global warming)...wow...can you come up with a bigger copout? I doubt you can

We don't have hard evidence...but we have the environmentalists who by rule don't care about money and who by rule are "trying to make the Earth a better place" (for themselves financially)

Also global warming is quite evident...I mean look at the parking lots! Hooray for alarmists!

3/20/2007 8:53:38 AM

*hand on head*

3/20/2007 8:58:26 AM

solid contribution

way to address anything i said intelligently or even specifically

Hey I'm gonna go watch a movie made by a politician and think I know everything because Bush is corrupt...but Gore is honest!

3/20/2007 8:59:37 AM

bush and gore are both douches.


you're too polarized.....it amazes me.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:11 AM. Reason : ']

3/20/2007 9:11:19 AM

its truly sad how misguided some people are about climate change

believing anything just because their emotions have been catered to

sad really

but please...continue to not address any of the science

3/20/2007 9:12:02 AM

I thought the whole debate is that nobody really understands it?

Or would you care to give me a breakdown in your infinite wisdom? (w/o mentioning bush, gore, cheney, iraq, sadam, terrorism, iran, republicans, democrats, liberal, conservative ect...)

3/20/2007 9:14:27 AM

you havent listened yet, why would you start now

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:18 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 9:16:36 AM

pretty hard to explain something you have no idea about isn't it? especially when you can't do your usual twist the conversation to how everyone hates bush.....

3/20/2007 9:19:26 AM

its like trying to explain to a 5 year old that santa claus isnt real

its pointless

the 5 year old already knows everything

the 5 year old's business classes and television watching have given him all the knowledge he needs on santa claus

3/20/2007 9:20:27 AM

funny, thats' sort of how I feel about your position.

3/20/2007 9:26:09 AM

whatever

business major knows it all about science from television

science major knows nothing about science from college

THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE

3/20/2007 9:27:24 AM

hey guys, i took a couple classes back in college about the weather! you should listen to me since i obviously know what im talking about.

3/20/2007 9:27:33 AM

I TRUST AL GORE TO TELL ME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE HE SEEMS LIKE HE CARES ABOUT IT

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 9:28:01 AM

I TRUST AL GORE TREETWISTA TO TELL ME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE HE SEEMS LIKE HE CARES ABOUT IT

3/20/2007 9:30:00 AM

I was in Jordan the other day and some professor seems to be giving a lecture on "How humans can cause global climate change" or maybe the sign actually said "How humans can cause global climate change?"

3/20/2007 9:31:10 AM

^^^you couldn't resist the gore reference

Quote :

"Fuck the science since thats been exposed Lets just combat global warming to "err on the side of caution" since "it works with wars" (even though theres actually proof Saddam used WMDs, etc whereas theres no proof humans are causing global warming)...wow...can you come up with a bigger copout? I doubt you can We don't have hard evidence...but we have the environmentalists who by rule don't care about money and who by rule are "trying to make the Earth a better place" (for themselves financially) Also global warming is quite evident...I mean look at the parking lots! Hooray for alarmists!"

I see those science classes schooled you well in the art of bad sarcasm. I've yet to see a scientific argument about anything from you.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:33 AM. Reason : ^^]

3/20/2007 9:33:15 AM

The nihilism of some in the ecology movement really hurt the image for the average person. Comments like below do nothing to erase the feeling that hard core environmentalists are out to destroy the economy and return us to the bucolic days of yore

Quote :

"David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature: "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. "

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 9:37:44 AM

listen to both sides but realize the truth is somewhere in between.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 9:43:58 AM

Quote :

"I've yet to see a scientific argument about anything from you"

in case you havent noticed there have been dozens of threads on climate change in TSB...i've explained plenty of science on those threads...feel free to actually read through them since your understanding of the subject is clearly minimal

its just a shame you let your emotions dictate your view of a scientific issue when emotion has no place in the scientific process

if its not your emotions, i just wonder how you are so convinced that humans are causing catastrophic climate change when I studied the issue for years and never got enough evidence for or against to make up my mind...maybe its because Exxon pays me...or maybe (GASP) its because the issue isnt as onesided as you like to think it is...I sure as hell dont think its onesided

3/20/2007 9:44:25 AM

^if you'll read my posts in those threads, I never once said catastrophic....in fact I went to great lengths to emphasize that I don't believe we're causing catastrophic (destroying the earth) changes....but simply speeding up a cycle that is already there. You are crazy if you think that pumping millions of tons of soot into the atmosphere does nothing.

Quote :

"listen to both sides but realize the truth is somewhere in between."

3/20/2007 9:49:49 AM

Quote :

"You are crazy if you think that pumping millions of tons of soot into the atmosphere does nothing."

why?

Quote :

"listen to both sides but realize the truth is somewhere in between"

i've been listening to both sides...so whats your point? you must have me confused with someone who has made up his mind on such a complex issue

3/20/2007 9:58:48 AM

^common sense.

^you sure seem like your mind is made up.

3/20/2007 10:05:05 AM