It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: White House Changes Reports to Cast Doubt on Climate Experts

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Phillip A. Cooney, a former lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, is a lawyer with no scientific training. Yet as chief of staff for the White House Council for Environmental Quality, he made dozens of changes to descriptions of climate research, casting doubt on links between greenhouse emissions and global warming. These changes made it into final reports that had already been approved by government scientists and senior administration officials.
 



www.nytimes.com
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.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Here we have yet another example of the fox guarding the hen house in the Bush Administration. That a former petroleum lobbyist would be put in charge of the White House Council on Environmental Quality to "promote administration policies on environmental issues" makes it pretty obvious where this administration stands on those issues. They are an impediment to Cheney's Energy Policy, and must be dealt with accordingly, with denial, deceit, and disinformation.




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Well is very true that when money talks the bs walk. So occurs we all know how much business and big corporation the Bush administration is, so all the presidents man are going to pull to their site of the fence to protect their interest.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Just another example of how people are sold out for quick profits. Unfortunately the effects aren't limited to our little corner of the world, the whole planet pays for those lies. Glaciers and icecaps melting, lakes drying up, gulfstream stopping, radical climate shifts, all universally aknowledged effects of the overuse of fossil fuels.

Universally aknowledged except in the US, where the White House Council for Environmental Quality is run by a former lobbyist of the American Petroleum Institute.

Co-incidence? :shk:



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   


Just another example of how people are sold out for quick profits


Not just any people....the american people by there own president. Yet another example of an oil man in a position that a freakin oil man shouldnt be. Anybody do anymore research on the guy and see if he was emplyed by Zapata oil or any of the shrubs other companies?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
It is things like this that seriously wind me up. Why the HELL should someone who's business is petrol be an environmental advisor????

How can America complain about being slated by every other country, when their leader does stuff like this!!



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Where are the good ol' boys in this forum now to defend their blessed savior???
I can't wait to see THESE excuses roll in...



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
-- Yoda



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'm a Bush supporter, but not a blind Bush supporter! Even I think this is stupid! While I still am not completely sold on "Global Warming" being caused by industry and whatnot, I think it's rather moronic to have a man who represented the Oil Industry put in this kind of environmental position. That being said, I've seen more solid research attributing farts to global warming than petroleum!


CTO

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Mr. Cooney isn't in charge of much of anything...

Every report that comes out of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is approved by Dr. John Marburger... This guy is no slouch!!!

Take a look at his bio:

www.climatescience.gov...

I can not, nor can anyone else that I'm aware of, positively state that global warming is ascribable to man...

I believe that it's a huge mistake to bridle industries with potentially unnecessary and expensive regulation until all the facts are in... Additionally, it's time to look to the rest of the world for possible sources of green house gases... We done remarkable work in cleaning up our house... Now it's time for the rest of the world to clean up theirs...



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Damage control.............Report!!

Come in Damage Control!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 8-6-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I heard a report about this on NPR this evening.

While it's true that Marburger signed off on things, he may not actually have been that aware of the changes in the document. If you're handed something to read, ask someone to edit it for publication, and are returned things that give the same conclusions (but are tweaked to look more alarming), you might not notice the words that were added.

Particularly if you've got a busy office.

Cooney, as lawyer and lobbyist, is well aware of the power of a few modifiers and in fact made his living from tweaking our language to make statements more favorable to his cause. He may not see a problem with changing "uncertain" to "extremely unlikely" -- but the two don't mean the same and the subtle differences are very critical.

For all you Bush supporters, you can assume that this man is feeding your political candidate a pile of disinformation (or hysteria-based information.) I think he should be censured and dismissed.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
major conflict of interest here.global warming who here thinks pretending will make it go away lol.its only too late. those who feed us storys must have santa clause on there mind right about now.........global warming means global death.other world problems dont even come close to the greatest threat to mankind.


CTO

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I heard a report about this on NPR this evening.

While it's true that Marburger signed off on things, he may not actually have been that aware of the changes in the document. If you're handed something to read, ask someone to edit it for publication, and are returned things that give the same conclusions (but are tweaked to look more alarming), you might not notice the words that were added.

Particularly if you've got a busy office.

Cooney, as lawyer and lobbyist, is well aware of the power of a few modifiers and in fact made his living from tweaking our language to make statements more favorable to his cause. He may not see a problem with changing "uncertain" to "extremely unlikely" -- but the two don't mean the same and the subtle differences are very critical.

For all you Bush supporters, you can assume that this man is feeding your political candidate a pile of disinformation (or hysteria-based information.) I think he should be censured and dismissed.



This is supposition... The only thing we know for sure is that Dr. Marburger signed off on the report.

I find it unlikely that he would not have read a report, which bore his signature, that was headed for the President's desk...

The doom sayers can chant all they like but there still is not sufficient evidence that global warming is a man made phenomenon...

How do we rationalize this little quirk???

www.nasa.gov...

To those who would blame man for everything from global warming to the recent Tsunami this must be a devastating blow...



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   


These changes made it into final reports that had already been approved by government scientists and senior administration officials.

This could probably be why Dr. Marburger didn't see the changes, he'd already approved it and didn't know they were going to be made.



How do we rationalize this little quirk???



To those who would blame man for everything from global warming to the recent Tsunami this must be a devastating blow...


Its hardly a blow at all, ozone is being destroyed by man made chemicals and in one year when there were strange weather patterns ozone was blown from other places around the globe.

NASA Spacecraft Measures Unusual 2005 Arctic Ozone Conditions
While the Arctic polar ozone was being chemically destroyed toward the end of winter, stratospheric winds shifted and transported ozone-rich air from Earth's middle latitudes into the Arctic polar region


If anything this article supports the idea that man affects the earth's climate.



there still is not sufficient evidence that global warming is a man made phenomenon...


Yet we know its happening. Basically you have two choices:
1) wait and see until we know beyond doubt whether global warming is a man made phenomenon and do what we can then if it is.
2) Do something now that might cost money but could eventually safe us the ability to life on this planet.

Option one is, to be honest, stupid. If global warming is man made then if we wait too long then we won't be able to fix it, and even if it isn't man made how can not pumping billions of tons of excess gases into the atmosphere be a bad thing?
I know which one I'd pick.



[edit on 9/6/05 by cmdrpaddy]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
since you think your the ultimate authority on global warming; and since you claim it is not man made
and you also claim that pollution from industry is not harmful or bad to earth or humans

may i ask that you drink a glass of gasoline?
how about get in a garadge closed; with a car running?

would you like to go live in juarez mexico next to the factorys?

is it ok we dump radioactive waste in your backyard?

seriously ; only a blind, deaf, and mute man would claim such a thing

we know as a fact you would NOT live in a landfill
we know you would NOT allow your garbage to pile up all over your house

and we know that humans polluting thousands of tons of industry by-products into the atmosphere is equal to self-destruction

ya so what if Global Warming is natural earth process

Industrial Pollution isnt a natural earth process

we all know that the odds of human pollution increasing the effects of global warming or whatever its called; are pretty good

heres a good metaphore
a forest is burning down quickly;
and we humans have a choice;
1) let it burn on its own
2) stop it from burning by fighting the fire
3) help it burn faster by pouring gasoline on it

earths' choice towards "stopping the forest fire"
is to pour gasoline on it
LOL

im sorry but humans are totally stupid
and industrial goons are even dumber than that
industrial goons are either completely retarded or completely evil

i dont care if you believe me or not thats not the point
the point is that you know that someone disagrees with you wholeheartedly

and the burdon of proof is on you and your oil company friends!

why dont all of you PROVE humans arent contributing to global warming

WHERES YOUR PROOF?


the only thing im trying to prove is that your lying
so the only proof i need is your absence of proof


dont take it personally lets just try to have a good fun debate

thanks mate



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I remember some time ago the Pentagon issuing a report on the likely consequences, and imminent danger, of global climate change to the White House. That too was suppressed


www.commondreams.org...

Personally I think it's a natural cycle for the earth to go through, but perhaps we have speeded the process up a bit.


CTO

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
"dont take it personally lets just try to have a good fun debate"

First you accuse me of considering myself to be 'the ulitmate authority on global warming' (which I never claimed) and then you call me a liar and expect me to engage in 'a good fun debate'?

No way , bloke...

I merely stated the obvious about the report that Marburger signed off on... If you can't see that you need to get your eyes examined...

Additional, the VAST majority of organizations chanting the global warming mantra are doing it for self-serving purposes, not to attempt to save the planet... Hell, even NASAs projects are little more than a shabby attempt to preserve funding...

Poeple jump on bandwagons like this because of the notariety brought to the topic by media, the Hollywood elite and just plain whackos...

Has the average temperature of the earth increased? Yes... and guess what... just a bit more than 24 years ago the fear was GLOBAL COOLING...

www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=24085

Debate yourself... I've got better things to do...



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Heres a Very Good update to this ongoing story. White House Defends the editing and Some Scientists arent very happy about it.

Wednedsay Announcement and Response

Wonder where this is headed.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Cooney needs to go--now. Even if he is totally innocent of everything he should go. The appearance of evil is just as bad (in this case) as the evil itself.


CTO

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I don't know if I would call it what he did 'evil'... certainly stupid and irresponsible...

I do agree that he needs to find another line of work... something not involving public trust...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join