# Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

This is a little dated (January) but I just came across it.
According to the article, it seems this scientist is not alone. I wonder how much there is to it.

*Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'*
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&site=5


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

> Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."


Ever since man found a way to be paid a salary and make a living based on a cause, what is fact and what is not has increasingly become blurred for sure. Good read, thanks for posting.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

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.

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

Sample
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/07/politics/20050608_climategraph.html


----------



## snakebit67 (Oct 18, 2003)

Ranger, dont forget the almighty federal grant :lol:


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Ranger Ray said:


> Ever since man found a way to be paid a salary and make a living based on a cause, what is fact and what is not has increasingly become blurred for sure. Good read, thanks for posting.


 
You take some people with an agenda and put some money behind it and you'll begin to get a lot of junk science and strands of truth written as irrefutable facts.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Yep, the big polluter companies have teamed up with polluty GW Bush to add paid liar "biostitutes" to falsify and skewer scientific data to produce all the junk science data flooding the science community. The campaign contributions and paid biostitutes policy is designed to boost profits at public health expense. Fortunately the universities and science professionals around the world recognize the GW Bush administration as the junk science promoters.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

HR, setting aside your opinion of President Bush, because this is much broader than a current president of one country; do none of the statements in the linked article trouble you?


> A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
> The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
> 
> The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
> ...


I don't know all the minutia of science invloved, nor of the politics of the scientific organizations, but it sure smells like a bum rush to me.
Is none of this suspicious to you?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

I thought you might be interested in this letter from Congressman Waxman and Senator Kerry to David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, on recent reports that reports on global warming were altered by a top White House official, former oil industry lobbyist Phillip Cooney.
--- Tom Manatos

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For more information, contact:
Karen Lightfoot, (202) 225-5051

June 9, 2005

GAO Asked to Investigate White House Interference with Scientific Climate Change Reports

Today Rep. Waxman and Sen. Kerry asked the General Accountability Office to look into a recent whistleblower report that former oil industry lobbyist Phillip A. Cooney altered government reports on global warming and that the "White House so successfully politicized the science program that it was impossible" for the whistleblower to carry out his duties with integrity. The text of the letter to GAO follows:

June 9, 2005
Mr. David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States
Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Walker:
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a top White House official, former oil industry lobbyist Phillip A. Cooney, has reviewed and altered government scientific reports on global warming. According to the Times, Mr. Cooney has "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between [greenhouse] emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."[1]

In addition to altering documents, political appointees dictated government climate research priorities, according to a government whistle-blower, Rick Piltz, former Senior Associate with the U.S. Climate Change Science Policy Office and former Associate Director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Mr. Piltz resigned in protest in March 2005.[2] He states, "The White House so successfully politicized the science program that it was impossible for me to carry out my duties with integrity."

We are writing to request that the Government Accountability Office investigate these serious allegations.

The Times article reported on numerous documents where Mr. Cooney's edits changed scientific conclusions made by government and academic researchers. For example, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program regularly compiles and transmits to Congress a report on the program's research activities entitled "Our Changing Planet." In an October 2002 draft of this report, Mr. Cooney deleted as "speculative" a summary of findings by government climate researchers that climate change had been projected to reduce mountain glaciers and snowpack. Similarly, Mr. Cooney systematically changed language to introduce uncertainty in affirmative statements (e.g., changing "is" to "may") and to amplify references to uncertainty made by scientists (e.g., adding "extremely" to a statement indicating that an attribution is difficult). According to the New York Times, Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics who has no scientific training.

Unfortunately, the incidents reported by the Times are simply the latest in a pattern of interference with climate science by the Bush Administration. This pattern is evident across government agencies. For example, early in the Administration, ExxonMobil successfully lobbied the White House to oppose the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to chair the preeminent international global warming study panel.[3] The State Department complied, giving no scientific rationale for its opposition to Dr. Robert Watson. Lacking the support of his own country in an election to an international body, Dr. Watson was not re-appointed.

Dr. James E. Hansen, a world-renowned climatology expert at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was told by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe not to talk about "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate.[4] Dr. Hansen has publicly objected to what he views as the Administration's unprecedented screening of information flow from scientists to the public.[5]
Other examples include changes made by the White House or agency political appointees that distorted scientific findings and summaries in reports, articles, and press releases from EPA, NASA, and NOAA addressing climate change.[6]

We request that the Government Accountability Office investigate the extent to which White House officials and political appointees at federal agencies have interfered with federally funded science on global warming. Specifically, we request that GAO:

- Review and evaluate the changes made or requested by White House officials to documents produced by federal agencies that relate to climate change;

- Review and evaluate the changes made or requested by political appointees at federal agencies to documents produced by federal agencies that relate to climate change;

- Review and evaluate any efforts by White House officials or political appointees at federal agencies to influence the direction of federally funded science related to climate change.

- Review and evaluate other efforts, if any, made by White House officials or political appointees to interfere with federally funded science related to climate change.

We look forward to consulting with you about this important request.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives

John F. Kerry
U.S. Senator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, New York Times (June 8, 2005)

[2] Personal Statement of Rick Piltz (June 8, 2005).

[3] Battle over IPCC Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy, Science (Apr. 12, 2002).

[4] NASA Expert Criticizes Bush on Global Warming Policy, New York Times (Oct. 26, 2004).

[5] Putting Some Heat on Bush, Scientist Inspires Anger, Awe for Challenges on Global Warming, New York Times (Jan. 19, 2005).

[6] See, e.g., Jeremy Symons, How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science, Washington Post (July 13, 2003); Report by E.P.A. Leaves out Data on Climate Change, New York Times (June 19, 2003); Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue, New York Times (Oct. 19, 2004).


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Amos said:


> HR, setting aside your opinion of President Bush, because this is much broader than a current president of one country; do none of the statements in the linked article trouble you?


 
Hello???


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Forget it.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

according to the article a rebuttal by a scientist wasn't published in one journal. The article the that person had problems with was not about the actual science of global warming but instead a survey of abstracts of scientific papers
about global warming. 

My god someones letter to a journal didn't get published!!!!!!! That has never happened before!!!! It must be a conspiracy!!!!! 

I'm sure if you dig deep you'll find that Hillary was behind this somehow!


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

The article was about a great deal more than _one _scientist and one publication. It is not the only article to address this question. Those who question the more popular opinions are not all in the pockets of a political party, nor pawns of energy companies.
I tried to stress that this issue is not about a given party at a given point in time. I don't know why you brought Hillary into this TC. I think you are just being sarcastic about something that I think deserves actual consideration, but that is your prerogative.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Amos said:


> I think you are just being sarcastic about something that I think deserves actual consideration, but that is your prerogative.



I stand corrected two peoples rebuttals don't get published. and someone doesn't get review work. What kind of actual consideration should be given? I think a sarcastic response is a perfect response to attempts to portray this as censorship. 


It nice to see your concern about so called censorship at a private journal. Do you care to comment how the Bush admin censors science? seeing how the bush admin is actually creating policy that does have an effect on the enviroment you would think it might be important that it be based on something credible. 

Please comment on this

former oil industry lobbyist Phillip A. Cooney, has reviewed and altered government scientific reports on global warming. According to the Times, Mr. Cooney has "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between [greenhouse] emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

Why is an attorney with no scientific training editing scientific reports???????
Do you think there are any problems with a former oil industry lobbyist editing reports on global warming??


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

TC-fisherman said:


> Please comment on this
> 
> former oil industry lobbyist Phillip A. Cooney, has reviewed and altered government scientific reports on global warming. According to the Times, Mr. Cooney has "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between [greenhouse] emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."


If it is true, I think it is very bad. 


TC-fisherman said:


> Why is an attorney with no scientific training editing scientific reports???????
> Do you think there are any problems with a former oil industry lobbyist editing reports on global warming??


Yes. If Phil Cooney broke the law he should be prosecuted. If he behaved unethically in his position he should be fired.

But that was not the point of this thread.

Concern about a government official editing reports to impact policy, and concern about whether healthy debate is fostered for theories around which the whole world is making economic and political decisions, are not mutually exclusive.

If one tries hard enough, one can turn nearly any topic into an opportunity to bash a particular politician or party. That gets pretty tiresome pretty quickly, in my opinion. 
If someone is just on the site to do political gotcha's against a particular party or person, I would imagine that they would eventually get bored on a hunting/fishing/outdoors site. I could be wrong though ...
- Not that the above applies to you TC.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Amos said:


> I don't know all the minutia of science invloved, nor of the politics of the scientific organizations, but it sure smells like a bum rush to me.


if someone want's to characterize the science about global climate change as a bum rush then i'm sorry but I'm going to call BS.



Amos said:


> But that was not the point of this thread.
> Concern about a government official editing reports to impact policy, and concern about whether healthy debate is fostered for theories around which the whole world is making economic and political decisions, are not mutually exclusive.


I'm sorry if i misunderstood what this thread was about. I didn't know it was about fostering healthy debate. It looked like to me it another "global climate change isn't real thread".



Amos said:


> If someone is just on the site to do political gotcha's against a particular party or person, I would imagine that they would eventually get bored on a hunting/fishing/outdoors site. I could be wrong though ...
> - Not that the above applies to you TC.


Sorry Amos if you think its a political gotcha to point out BS in regards to something about the enviroment. Last i checked the enviroment has a big effect on hunting/fishing/outdoors. The more i pay attention to enviromental issues and learn whats going on the more i want to speak up on it. 




Amos said:


> If one tries hard enough, one can turn nearly any topic into an opportunity to bash a particular politician or party.


One doesn't have to try hard to point out the Bush admin record on enviromental policy sucks. Even though i care about the enviroment i voted for Bush over Gore ( i used to be a straight ticket repub.) because i didn't thiink it possible that someone could do as much damage as BUsh has. Boy was i wrong. 

As long as the admin in charge keeps up crap like having an oil lobbyist edit enviromental research i'm going say something about it on this hunting/fishing/outdoors site because its a *THREAT* to hunting fishing and the outdoors!


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Unfriggin believable thread, the attempts to derail this thread are shameful.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Posted 6/12/2005 7:31 PM Updated 6/12/2005 11:02 PM

The debate's over: Globe is warming
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

Former Bush Aide Who Edited Reports Is Hired by Exxon

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 15, 2005

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. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/politics/15climate.html?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

The Observer | International | New US move to spoil climate accord 

Extraordinary efforts by the White House to scupper Britain's attempts to tackle global warming have been revealed in leaked US government documents obtained by The Observer. 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1509839,00.html


----------

