White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

I would think anyone familiar with the reality that global warming theories are just that, and a high school level proficiency in English, would be qualified to do that.

Ah, so you think the government predictions were wrong, and if they are, I'm engaging in "scare tactics". LOL!

Of course, they weren't just talking about gas going up, they were talking about all energy. Yes, gas prices are higher right now than their worst case projections. Given where we are now, the question is whether you would want them between 17 and 83% higher, and whether such an increase over where we are now would help or hinder the economy.

BTW... Just curious, but why the hostility? Seems kind of silly. I'm just offering my opinions here and you seem to be driven to make me cry uncle. I'm sure I'm not the first person to disagree with you, but maybe I can be the first to do so civilly? I do have a basis for my opinions. You disagree. Fair enough. Any reason to make that hostile? I don't see one.

Shrug. There's no point in flaming you, just no point in talking to someone who willfully ignores the presented information and facts.

You bring up Kyoto again, and again, and again... but the topic isn't the Kyoto treaty. It is the President's lawyers changing what the scientists wrote. Do you bleieve it is right?

Feeling the Heat


Published: June 14, 2005
President Bush has been running from the issue of global warming for four years, but the walls are closing in. Scientists throughout the world are telling him that the rise in atmospheric temperature justifies aggressive action. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other prominent Republicans are telling him to get off the dime. His corporate allies are deserting him. And the Senate is inching closer to endorsing a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

A result is that Mr. Bush seems increasingly isolated and his rhetoric of denial increasingly irrational. Last week, a whistleblower asserted that a senior White House official, formerly an oil lobbyist, had changed scientific reports to minimize the climate problem. The official, Philip Cooney, resigned last Friday, although the White House insisted that the embarrassing disclosures had nothing to do with his departure. Whatever the truth, this was hardly the first time Bush officials cooked the books for political ends. It was just this kind of nonsense that persuaded an exasperated Christie Whitman to return to private life.

Out in the real world, hardly anyone denies the importance of the issue anymore. Just over a week ago, Mr. Schwarzenegger pledged to slow, stop and ultimately reverse California's greenhouse gas emissions by requiring big improvements in automobile efficiency and pushing for energy sources other than fossil fuels. "The debate is over," the governor said. "We know the science, we see the threat, and we know the time for action is now."

As if on cue, the National Academy of Sciences and 10 of its counterparts around the world declared that the science of global warming is clear enough to warrant prompt reductions in greenhouse gases. Mainstream scientists have long accepted the link between warming and human activity. What made this statement exceptional was its tone and its timing, coming a month before Mr. Bush and other leaders from the Group of 8 industrialized nations are to meet in Gleneagles, Scotland, where Prime Minister Tony Blair will put climate change near the top of the agenda.

As things stand now, Mr. Bush will be going to that meeting empty-handed, despite Mr. Blair's efforts last week to make him take the issue more seriously. Perhaps the Senate can give him something positive to point to, although it will have to act fast. Three different global warming proposals requiring mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, could surface as amendments during the forthcoming debate on the energy bill, scheduled to begin in earnest this week.

One of these, the McCain-Lieberman bill, received a surprising 43 votes in October 2003. That was before the rest of the world began moving toward mandatory controls and before American power companies began to slowly accept that such controls were not only inevitable but also necessary to spur the development of more efficient ways of producing energy.

The results could be better this time. There is speculation that a less ambitious but also less costly bill sponsored by Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, and modeled after proposals from the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, could win a filibuster-proof 60 votes. That may be a long shot. But what is clear is that the warming issue is gaining traction at home and abroad, inspired partly by Mr. Bush's incorrigible stubbornness.

To make sure the idiot scientists do not report something as fact when there is no fact in evidence.

McG

Quote:

To make sure the idiot scientists do not report something as fact when there is no fact in evidence.

Here's the thing you don't seem to get: Lawyers are not competent to judge which scientific findings are fact and which are not. Especially ones who used to be lobbyists for the Petroleum industry.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt it is uncommon for lawyers to change the verbiage of any "official" report.

McGentrix wrote

Quote:

I doubt it is uncommon for lawyers to change the verbiage of any "official" report.

In this White House apparently it is not.

However, what reason can there be for a layman to change technical data other than to change the reports conclusions. That used to be called lying. That is before this gang came to power. Now you call it "Lawyering' the report.

Oh, I read all right.

Your first link is pointless, and your second link is pointless. The fact that you can find the occassional scientist who disagrees with the vast body of scientific experience and opinion on the matter does not invalidate that body of opinion, which you wish to ignore because it contradicts your argument.

And I really wouldn't rely on any stories from CNS news in the future if I were you; they are known to fabricate items in order to make more compelling stories, and really is nothing but a right-wing group trying to hide behind a legitimate news service.

McG

I'm sure his law background was far more useful for what he was doing: lying and bending what the SCIENTISTS had written because it didn't fit with the President's agenda.

Cycloptichorn

parados - You are welcome to cherry-pick the facts that suit your point of view. I will continue to look at the big picture. I remain concerned that any large environmental program like Kyoto would be BAD (let's just say "bad") for the economy. I further see no reason in implementing a fix for a problem no one has proved exists nor has proved we're causing.

Those are my opinions. Feel free to flame me all you want for them. :-)