BushCo Administration Lies to America Again (and Again and Again and Again)
Quelle suprise. From the front page of today’s NYT:
A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Actually the changes don’t “tend to produce an air of doubt,” they do produce an air of doubt:
Mr. Cooney’s alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of “Our Changing Planet” originally read, “Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.” In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, “Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.”
Mr. Piltz, the whistle blower, who handed the docs over to the Government Accountability Project, didn’t mince words:
In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government’s $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.
“Each administration has a policy position on climate change,” Mr. Piltz wrote. “But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program.”
So the question for the NYT now is whose orders was Cooney following? Pick a scandal, any scandal …
UPDATE: Here’s a blast from the BushCo Environmental Lies past. C’mon, America! There’s righteous outrage around here somewhere. Just keep looking.



June 8th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Indeed.
June 8th, 2005 at 11:25 am
At least the National Academy of Sciences is willing to take a stand now.
June 8th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Banging your spoon on your highchair and screaming “Liar, Liar!” every time a conservative says something you disagree with is just juvenile nonsense. Unfortunately, that’s all the left can seem to muster these days.
Modifying a few subjective phrases in a report, which is all the NY Times reported, (no data was changed or anything of that kind) like changing “is” to “may” does not constitute a lie by any reasonable measure. It is a fact that there is disagreement and uncertainty in the field of climate science.
June 9th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
If you can’t see the harm in what was done by changing the intent of the report with careful editing, then we have nothing to say to each other. And I won’t sink to calling you names. Win/Win.