White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

McGentrix wrote:

I would hope that anyone given a task would perform that task to the best of their abilities regardless of their previous employment.

As it happens, it turned out just a few days ago that it will also be its future employment. The article is short and will go proprietary in a few days, so I'll post it in full shortly. You say you "would hope" that Mr. Cooney would do his job to the best of his abilities. Does your hope go far enough so that you defend Mr. Cooney's assignment to that task as being good policy?

Quote:

June 15, 2005
Former Bush Aide Who Edited Reports Is Hired by Exxon
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Philip A. Cooney, the former White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, will go to work for Exxon Mobil this fall, the oil company said yesterday.

Mr. Cooney resigned as chief of staff for President Bush's environmental policy council on Friday, two days after documents obtained by The New York Times revealed that he had edited the reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between the emission of greenhouse gases and rising temperatures.

A former lawyer and lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group for the oil industry, Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. The White House, which said on Friday that there was no connection between last week's disclosure and Mr. Cooney's resignation, repeated yesterday that his actions were part of the normal review process for documents on environmental issues involving many government agencies.

"Phil Cooney did a great job," said Dana Perino, a deputy spokeswoman for the White House, "and we appreciate his public service and the work that he did, and we wish him well in the private sector."

An Exxon spokesman, Tom Cirigliano, declined to describe Mr. Cooney's new job. Mr. Cooney did not respond to e-mail or phone messages.

Exxon Mobil has long financed advertising and lobbying efforts that question whether warming caused by humans poses risks serious enough to justify curbing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted by smokestacks and tailpipes.

Mr. Cirigliano said yesterday that the company was committed to acting responsibly on the issue.

"Exxon Mobil has taken, is taking and will continue to take tangible actions to reduce emissions in our operations, as well as in customer use of our products, and to better understand and prepare for the risks of climate change," Mr. Cirigliano said.

Source

0 Replies

Clearly, in such a wintry economic climate when a conscientious administration is pressed to stretch a dime and make ends meet, one can easily defend the savings to the taxpayers achieved through bypassing costly government all together and just having business write the legislation related to business.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:
I would hope that anyone given a task would perform that task to the best of their abilities regardless of their previous employment.

----

Don't you see that he did? He performed the exact task he was hired for: namely, to change reports to make them more favorable towards administration policies.

After he started taking heat, he goes right back to work for the same people who have seen their profits more than quadruple under the Bush admin. The same people he worked for BEFORE he went to work for the Bush admin.

The words 'conflict of interest' don't even exist in the Bush admin....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Blatham, who is a Canadian, I believe, shows his lack of knowledge of the US system of government in his smarmy remark about business writing the regulations for business. He obviously hasn't followed the judicial appointments debacle in which it is clearly shown that without congressional approval a president and his administration can do very little.

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

Blatham, who is a Canadian, I believe, shows his lack of knowledge of the US system of government in his smarmy remark about business writing the regulations for business. He obviously hasn't followed the judicial appointments debacle in which it is clearly shown that without congressional approval a president and his administration can do very little.

what?

I see no relationship between the advice and consent function of congress on appointments and the discussion of who is writing the business regulations.

Regulations are written based on the constitutional and legislative power given to the president and the agency he oversees. It really has nothing to do with Congress at that point unless a majority in Congress disagree with the regulations. (Congress can override regulations by passing laws.) The more important branch is the Court that can decide the constitutionality of any regulations based on constitution and existing laws.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

If I may get back to the subject of this thread. Aside of the question how scary global warming actually is: Would any supporter of the current administration argue that it is good policy when oil industry lobbyists review and edit scientific reports about the impact of CO2 emissions? Would you deny that the setup has "conflict of interest" written all over it?

I wasn't aware that Cooley was employed by the oil industry while he was a member of the president's staff.

But let me ask everyone a question:

Let's pretend that Cooley used to be an environmental lobbyist. Would we be having this discussion now? If not, why not?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Thomas wrote:
If I may get back to the subject of this thread. Aside of the question how scary global warming actually is: Would any supporter of the current administration argue that it is good policy when oil industry lobbyists review and edit scientific reports about the impact of CO2 emissions? Would you deny that the setup has "conflict of interest" written all over it?

I wasn't aware that Cooley was employed by the oil industry while he was a member of the president's staff.

But let me ask everyone a question:

Let's pretend that Cooley used to be an environmental lobbyist. Would we be having this discussion now? If not, why not?

If he wasn't a scientist but was editing scientific reports. Yes, we would.

0 Replies

Why would it be any different?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Then you are both suggesting that no one in the Clinton administration ever made a single editorial change to an environmentally-related report?

0 Replies

No, we didn't say anything of the type at all. Why are you trying to shift the topic of conversation to the Clinton admin? It is immaterial and your 'comparison politics' won't fly here....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You have consistently asserted that a non-scientist editing a scientific report is a bad thing and not to be tolerated. I am asking a reasonable question: whether you believe this practice is unique to the current administration, or something likely to have been done by the previous one. You are welcome to dodge that question if you wish, but it goes to the reasonableness of your position.

0 Replies

No, it doesn't.

I don't have any information on whether or not environmental reports were edited in previous administrations or not.

I cannot form a belief based upon zero information.

Therefore, there is no answer to give ya. And I don't see why it would matter anyways; all changes of reports would be equally condemnable, no matter what the politics of the Administration involved happen to be.

This is a lame tack

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Then you are both suggesting that no one in the Clinton administration ever made a single editorial change to an environmentally-related report?

No. As I think I made very clear, I was asking whether any supporter of the current administration would come forward and defend Mr. Cooley's assignment to this editing job as being good policy. So far, we've had two supporters show up and change the subject, but none who would defend it.

0 Replies

Did I change the subject? Huh.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Then you are both suggesting that no one in the Clinton administration ever made a single editorial change to an environmentally-related report?

No.

My "you are both" was intended for Cyclo and Parados, both of whom were kind enough to answer my question.

Thomas wrote:

As I think I made very clear, I was asking whether any supporter of the current administration would come forward and defend Mr. Cooley's assignment to this editing job as being good policy.

Actually, you asked whether it was okay to have an oil industry lobbyist doing so. I tried to point out that you were being disingenuous in this, and hoped to point out that those who think this non-event is some big deal would not be complaining if the person making the edits had a history as an advocate for environmental groups.

Thomas wrote:

So far, we've had two supporters show up and change the subject, but none who would defend it.

But let's pretend you offered a legitimate question. Yes, based on the nature of the edits I have seen I see nothing wrong with what this person did, nor do I think his previous employment makes him inappropriate for the position he held. I am disappointed in the administration's failure to stand up for what appears to have been a guy doing his job. I can only assume that they believe they can't win this in the media.

Now, I believe I've answered your question. Perhaps you can answer mine? ... Let's pretend that Cooley used to be an environmental lobbyist. Would we be having this discussion now? If not, why not?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Now, I believe I've answered your question. Perhaps you can answer mine? ... Let's pretend that Cooley used to be an environmental lobbyist. Would we be having this discussion now? If not, why not?

We absolutely would have this discussion now.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Now, I believe I've answered your question. Perhaps you can answer mine? ... Let's pretend that Cooley used to be an environmental lobbyist. Would we be having this discussion now? If not, why not?

We absolutely would have this discussion now.

You believe the media would even have picked it up?

0 Replies

Why not? Changes are changes.

The important part of the story is that the guy changed the report, not that he works for the Oil Industry; that part is merely ir-- well, it isn't even ironic, now that I think of it. Just typical of the Bush admin.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Are you implying that scientists wouldn't care if an environmentalist changed the science? Afraid they would. Any Murdoch news outlet would be happy to run with it. Let alone the NY and LA Times. It would have made news. It might have been viewed differently based on the news source but if it was factual I see no reason that my opinion would have changed.

The question for you is would you have responded differently if it was an environmentalist.

0 Replies

The reality is that nobody changed the science. You continue to claim this, but there is nothing in the available facts that would lead a reasonable person to make this claim. Cooley altered language that made things that are uncertain sound certain. You clearly don't like that, but it seems a perfectly reasonable correction to me.

If you believe he did more than that, please show me the evidence. Otherwise, given the facts as I know them, I conclude that those who are making a big deal of this are doing so either for political reasons, because they don't really understand the state of the science, or because they don't know how trivial the edits were.

0 Replies

White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know