White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

See you later then, McG. You won't find me crying if you wish to leave the discussion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McG
Cooney made handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.

And essentialy changing the scientists conclusions.

You said "what reason can there be for a layman to change technical data".

I asked "Where did technical data get changed?"

removing or adjusting language is a far cry from changing technical data. Where you merely exagerrating?

0 Replies

Changing the summaries of the results can be just as damaging as changing 'technical data.'

But I suspect you knew that already

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Mcg.
I would assume that removing or adjusting language on climate research would change or modify the data, findings and conclusions.

0 Replies

I thought au1929 may have read something I missed. Changing technical data would be a big no-no. changing verbiage is not.

0 Replies

Sure it is, when you are changing the verbiage of the results of the data. What is the point of having accurate data if you simply change the resulting conclusions to make them seem inaccurate?

It's not like people are bitching because the guy changed the title....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

No, data is data. Interpretations of data vary greatly. Didn't you say you worked in the science field Cyc.?

0 Replies

MgC
Changing verbiage definitely is a big deal when it has the effect of changing the reports conclusions.

0 Replies

Yeah, I do.

But I don't rely upon lawyers to properly interpret scientific data. That's the job of scientists; not merely to collect data, but to interpret it.

I don't have a problem at all with scientists who want to disagree, or want to interpret the same data differently. This is not a case of that. This is a case of scientists collecting data, creating a report, and having that report changed by someone who is not a scientist for political reasons.

You cannot argue that anyone can interpret scientific data differently and that all results of those interpretations are equally valid; some are obviously much more qualified to reach conclusions than others.

Once again, I suspect you know all this already and are merely arguing for arguments' sake. But it is fun.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Let's be specific...

au1929 wrote:

I would assume that removing or adjusting language on climate research would change or modify the data, findings and conclusions.

Let's look at an actual example of the editorial markups this person made:

Original: "In this new phase of the climate science programs, information that compares the potential consequences of different responses to global changes, including climate change, will be developed in a form useful to national debate and decision making."

His edits: "In this new phase of the climate science programs, information that might allow comparisons of the potential consequences of different responses to global changes, including climate change, will be pursued."

In your view, do these specific edits constitute "chang{ing} or modify{ing} the data, findings and conclusions"?

0 Replies

Link to the edits?

Presumably some of them will be innocuous and some will not be. One example does not prove the whole case.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: More grist for the mill...

Scrat wrote:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp?p=1

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html

Read. Digest. Discuss. Enjoy. :-)

What is your point? The "hockey stick" effect has been discussed on this board before including a rather lengthy explanation of the math for it. The article hardly disputes global warming or man made reasons for it. Rather it points to a single study that was a little flawed. For more info on the entire exchange between Mann et al and McIntire et al start here - Climate contrarians

There isn't 100% consensus, I agree. The overwhelming science however does point to it. To argue that it doesn't exist just because someone foolishly wrote an article claiming 100% agreement doesn't do much to get rid of the overwhelming evidence.

0 Replies

Scrat
I have no Idea what all the changes were. However, there is a difference between "compares the potential consequences" which is a definitive statement and that "might allow comparisons of the potential consequences" which is a maybe and a hope.

Subtle change. However, it waters down the report. Which I do not doubt it was intended to do.

0 Replies

Lets examine ALL the edits posted by NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html

Click the graphic for a larger version of the actual changes.

One of the changes was to eliminate the following paragraph from an article.

Quote:

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack 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 hydrological events.

Looks to me like eliminating some pretty substantial scientific conclusions.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Link to the edits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Presumably some of them will be innocuous and some will not be.

I'll take that to mean that you consider the example I offered to be innocuous. Good start. The reality that said edits can be deemed--even by you--to be innocuous necessarily disproves the notion that any such edits must automatically be worrisome.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

One example does not prove the whole case.

No, but it does disprove your consistent claim that any such edits must be cause for concern.

0 Replies

Any such edits are cause for concern. Having a cause for concern means you are worried about the possiblities, not that you have confirmed said possibilties.

I never made the claim that every line or word that was changed was hostile to the original intention of the writers; merely that some or many of the changes seem to be, and the fact that it is a lawyer making the changes (in some cases AFTER his superiors had ALREADY approved the report) doesn't help matters at all.

See parados' comment above for an example of why this isn't just an innocous thing; real, substantial changes were made in order to fix the science around the policy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo - Perhaps we're closer together on this than at first appears. If your contention is that we should be concerned when something like this comes to light, I can agree with that. If your contention is that the only way to interpret the available facts is to conclude that Cooley's edits were intended to mislead people as to the facts, then I have to disagree. (It is of course possible that was his intent, but it is also possible that he was merely removing language that indicated certainty where there is none.)

0 Replies

Were the materials given back to the scientists for review after the edits?

That is standard practice in my field. Write your stuff, let the lawyers go over it and do their thing - and then it comes back to make sure they didn't change what the bottom line message is. Lawyers know how to write legalese, but they don't always understand the science/medicine whatever.

The same thing applies when the 'writing wizards' edit materials - they come back before they go out. They know how to make things make sense grammatically, but they don't always understand what the information is about.

~~~~~~

If the report went out after a lawyer puttered with it, and without going back to the scientists to make sure the results were still being correctly communicated, then I'd say that's bad practice. Heads would roll here if that happened.

Changing the tone is one thing. Changing the message is something else.

0 Replies

Scrat

Quote:

(It is of course possible that was his intent, but it is also possible that he was merely removing language that indicated certainty where there is none.)

You see, we aren't close together on this one. Because a Lawyer is not competent to decide whether there is certainty or not. Only Scientists are competent to make that decision. In this case, the scientists indicated certainty. It is not a lawyer's place to change the written words to indicate otherwise.

I'll re-post a deleted paragraph that Pardos posted just a little above, to make sure you see it:

Quote:

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack 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 hydrological events.

Now, I know that you disagree with this for political reasons, but that doesn't give you (or the lawyer) the right to delete passages such as this one from scientific reports.

Until you admit this, you and I are nowhere near agreement on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That whole paragraph is an opinion. It has no facts represented within it. The reason it appeared to be deleted was it was so edited that it became useless and could be replaced in a much simpler way with less opinion.

0 Replies

White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know