Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Hmm, wonder where I could find an editor that had to accept anything I wrote without question and without making any changes?

I wonder where I could find a boss that wouldn't scrutinze my reports for errors or inconsistencies and wouldn't exercise a right to amend, append, or edit them?

I wonder where I could find a message board where I could say any outrageous thing without anybody questioning or challenging the facts of the matter?

The President's staff exercised their executive privilege to review and amend or append a report before they published it? Horrors. We must immediately elect people who will turn a blind eye and swallow everything they are fed without question.

0 Replies

So, Foxfyre, you think it was okay to change the reports? You think a lawyer and former lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute is qualified to change the reports of the scientists that have been working for decades on the issue of climate change?

So you think that when Cooney added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," he was scrutinzing the reports for errors or inconsistencies?

You are saying that Cooney, a lawyer, was "challenging the facts of the matter"? And he did so by crossing out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of glaciers and snowpack?

0 Replies

No, OE. I am saying that it is neither unusual nor improper for the Presidential office to exercise oversight of what gets put out there for public consumption. I am not commenting on either the quality or competency of the original report or any changes that were made to it. I am only defending the right of the President to exercise oversight of the process.

0 Replies

I didn't critizise the "the right of the President to exercise oversight".

0 Replies

Actually, you even didn't mention it.

0 Replies

OE asked for an explanation so I gave him one.

0 Replies

No, you didn't. You asked suggestive questions.

0 Replies

The questions were sarcasm OE Smile

The questions were my way of illustrating how appropriate and also common it is for the President to exercise oversight and to okay or thumbs down what is published under his jurisdiction and under the (figurative) seal of his administration. Your implication was that it was completely inappropriate for the administration to do that.

0 Replies

Well, it was a scientific report, significantly edited and changed in its conclusions by the Chief of Staff of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality, who was, on a side note, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

As I said before, I never questioned the right of the President to exercise oversight. On the other hand, I don't think this right encompasses the right to manipulate and change scientific data.

0 Replies

The President has the right to--nay even the responsibility to--lookat all scientific data, and I can see situations in which He or those he delegates to would have to make a value judgment on which is more credible. If they put out information they believe or know to be wrong just because it is dubbed 'scientific data' they would have much more devil to pay than they do in using their judgment that may differ from yours.

0 Replies

The data came from the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA employs 18,000 people across the country, including headquarters offices in Washington, DC, 10 regional offices, and more than a dozen labs. EPA staff are highly educated and technically trained; more than half are engineers, scientists, and policy analysts.

In contrast, the guy who changed the report was a lawyer, plus a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Now, do you think the EPA report was wrongly dubbed 'scientific data'? Did Cooney have the background to make such a "value judgment" that the EPA report was mistaken?

0 Replies

Can you say that he did not? Are you privy to know what data he has access to or what scientists he utilizes to interpret it? Do you know what his credentials are? I don't know if he was right or he was wrong. I do know that to summarily condemn and criticize somebody without knowing these things could be viewed as disingenuous or specious or at least ill advised. The President is also responsible for oversight of administration of the EPA. He is not obligated to sign off on any reports furnished by career employees who may or may not have his or the country's best interests at heart.

I suspect you, OE, and I know I would appreciate consideration for the possibility that I was right on a point when those criticizing me are not looking at the same data I used to come to a conclusion.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Can you say that he did not?

He's a lawyer with no scientific training. I would say that he didn't have the background.

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you privy to know what data he has access to or what scientists he utilizes to interpret it?

He had access to the EPA reports. He utilized no scientists to interprete it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you know what his credentials are?

He seems to have been a lawyer and to hold a bachelors degree in economics, a onetime lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, and was hired by ExxonMobil June 2005, position as yet unknown.

Now, let's have a look at some of Cooney's changes (EPA original first, changed version in bold second):

Quote:

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change"
"Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"Much scientific evidence indicates that these changes are the result of a complex interplay of several natural and human-related forces."
"Much scientific evidence indicates that these changes are likely the result of a complex interplay of several natural and human-related forces."

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions will affect the global environment in the future."
"develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions might affect the global environment in the future."

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is difficult."
"The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"Scientists have started to assemble information on the complex relationships between natural variability and human activities that contribute to change."
"Scientists have started to assemble information on the complex relationships between natural variability and human activities that could contribute to change."

Our Changing Planet, 2002

"..the role for CCRI is to facilitate full use of this scientific information in policy and decisionmaking on response strategies for adaptation and mitigation"
"the role for CCRI is to reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated with human-induced climate change and facilitate full use of"

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

"Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow packs in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrologic events."

Entire paragraph deleted

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

"Warming temperatures will also affect Arctic land areas."
"Warming temperatures may also affect Arctic land areas."

Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program, 2003

"the hydrology of northern land areas will be substantially altered."
"the hydrology of northern land areas may be substantially altered."

Now, you're saying

Foxfyre wrote:

The President is also responsible for oversight of administration of the EPA. He is not obligated to sign off on any reports furnished by career employees who may or may not have his or the country's best interests at heart.

So, if there would be credible evidence that the reports were not furnished by career employees, but rather an objective, scientific analysis - would you say that in manipulating the reports in order to fit a political agenda, the White House did not have the country's best interests at heart?

0 Replies

OE writes

Quote:

So, if there would be credible evidence that the reports were not furnished by career employees, but rather an objective, scientific analysis - would you say that in manipulating the reports in order to fit a political agenda, the White House did not have the country's best interests at heart?

Any scientific analysis' that would have produced the original EPA report as you report it, I would not consider objective. The changes you post refelct the administration's consistent opinion based on what I believe to be more objective, scientific analysis and thus I have no reason to think they don't think it to be the more objective scientific analysis.

The President would be doing almost a complete 180 if he published the EPA report as written. He is leaving open all options and not buying into any of them at this time and that has been his position all along. I agree with him on that point and therefore, yes, I do believe this is in the best interest of the administration and the American people.

And how do you know whether or not anybody looked at different scientific data? You were there? You saw what they are looking at?

0 Replies

Interesting, Foxy. You think the political agenda of Bush and the administration's opinion is a "more objective scientific analysis" than the analysis of the gathered data by scientists.

That says a lot about you. You endorse manipulation of scientific data for political gains. Of course you know that that's against the law, don't you?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Interesting, Foxy. You think the political agenda of Bush and the administration's opinion is a "more objective scientific analysis" than the analysis of the gathered data by scientists.

That says a lot about you. You endorse manipulation of scientific data for political gains. Of course you know that that's against the law, don't you?

I don't think that at all. I am saying that I agree with the Bush administration's position on global warming. It is an opinion I held well before I knew what the Bush administration's opinion was.

I don't think there was manipulation of scientific data. I think they published the data consistent with the scientific data they consider to be the most credible at this time; namely, that scientists are all only guessing at this point. When they can't come up with a model that will accurately predict next week's weatherclimate or even today's weatherclimate starting from any previous point, I think the prudent thing is to keep all options open. The administration could, of course, have simply published the contrary scientific opinion side by side with the EPA report. I don't think that would be either good PR or good policy, however. The administration has to go with the best that it believes it has.

I know you and I disagree on this and I accept that.

0 Replies

The Bush administration believes that the scientific data gathered by departments and agencies of the United States Government are unreliable, and should rather be cross-checked with the opinions of ideologically-driven, well-funded lobby institutions for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business?

Hm. I'm glad that's not the way scientific data is looked at in the rest of the world.

By the way, it's really interesting that you, in the course of this thread, have several times pointed out that you don't believe in the "junk science" that comes out of the US departments and agencies...

I have previously suggested that you might name some sources on climate change you deem credible, so we might have a look at what they are saying.

On the other hand, you're saying that you have your opinion, and I somehow doubt that your opinion depends on scientific findings.

0 Replies

Well since you insist on making this personal, OE, I doubt you would find satisfactory any conflcting information that I would post. In fact I have posted some. Your response? Zippo. Nada. Nothing.

You see, I have an open mind on the subject. I don't know what the answers are. You seem to have your mind completely made up, no doubt because of your great scientific expertise; in fact your mind is so made up you are quite willing to pass judgment on the viewpoints of others, or at least me. One of the first laws of science, you know, is that there can be no enlightenment unless a mind is open.

0 Replies

You mean this post?

0 Replies

Foxy, you said

Foxfyre wrote:

Any scientific analysis' that would have produced the original EPA report as you report it, I would not consider objective.

And you said

Foxfyre wrote:

It is an opinion I held well before I knew what the Bush administration's opinion was.

If the conclusion is not something like "I've made up my mind, no matter what", then please let me know what conclusion I should draw from your statements.

The article you posted critizised the IPCC. You'll notice that I refrained from using the IPCC as a source. Neverthless, you discarded just about every source I gave you. For reference see above. Or, when I gave the NASA or NOAA as a source, you said that I would apply a "double standard". And that was it.

It's nice to hear these words

Foxfyre wrote:

One of the first laws of science, you know, is that there can be no enlightenment unless a mind is open.

I just question your open mind. On the other hand, I'm willing to learn. Which is why I asked you to specify a source we could both agree on, and subsequently have a look at the findings.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know