On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:33:15 -0500, Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Michael -
>
>Total lack of anything substantive in what remains in the realm of
>'opinion' but the Union oc Communist, er Concerned Scientists.
>
>I have yet to see what they have to say on global warming.
>

Mr. Yokem,

has you have so much trouble finding the articles other then the ones you
prefer. I gladly help you:

http://webexhibits.org/bush/5.html

 Intro  ·   Climate Change  ·   Air Quality  ·   Reproductive Health  ·
Airborne Bacteria
Iraq's Aluminum Tubes  ·   Endangered Species  ·   Forest Management  ·
Peer Review
    « »







This temperature records showing the last 1,000 years from deleted from the
EPA report discussed below.





Since taking office, the Bush administration has consistently sought to
undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority
of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global
warming.

After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate
science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong
opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American
Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists,
has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions of
Earth’s climate.3 Yet Bush administration spokespersons continue to contend
that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are
too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4

In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department
report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the
accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative
consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put out
by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed a
section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had been
discussed in the report for the preceding five years.

Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly
tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency
when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to
the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8

A front-page article in the New York Times broke the news that White House
officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s
section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review
and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly
to climate change.9

Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA
memo reviewed for this report (see Appendix A) reveal that the White House
Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget
demanded major amendments including:

The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to,
according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [which]
supports the administration’s favored message.” 10
The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House
itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change. 11
The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records
funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. 12
The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the
science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has
global consequences for human health and the environment.” 13
According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many
qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have
been to insert “uncertainty... where there is essentially none.”14

In a process now-departed EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has
since described as “brutal,”15 the entire section on climate change was
ultimately deleted from the version released for public comment.16
According to internal EPA documents and interviews with EPA researchers,
the agency staff chose this path rather than compromising their credibility
by misrepresenting the scientific consensus.17 Doing otherwise, as one
current, high-ranking EPA official puts it, would “poorly represent the
science and ultimately undermine the credibility of the EPA and the White
House.”18

The EPA’s decision to delete any mention of global warming from its report
drew widespread criticism. Many scientists and public officials—
Republicans and Democrats alike—were moved to decry the administration’s
political manipulation in this case. Notably, the incident drew the ire of
Russell Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and
Ford. In a letter to the New York Times, Train stated that the Bush
administration’s actions undermined the independence of the EPA and were
virtually unprecedented for the degree of their political manipulation of
the agency’s research. As Train put it, the “interest of the American
people lies in having full disclosures of the facts.”19 Train also noted
that, “In all my time at the EPA, I don’t recall any regulatory decision
that was driven by political considerations. More to the present point,
never once, to my best recollection, did either the Nixon or Ford White
House ever try to tell me how to make a decision.”20

Were the case an isolated incident, it could perhaps be dismissed as an
anomaly. On the contrary, the Bush administration has repeatedly intervened
to distort or suppress climate change research findings despite promises by
the president that, “my Administration’s climate change policy will be
science-based.”21

Despite the widespread agreement in the scientific community that human
activity is contributing to global climate change, as demonstrated by the
consensus of international experts on the IPCC, the Bush administration has
sought to exaggerate uncertainty by relying on disreputable and fringe
science reports and preventing informed discussion on the issue. As one
current EPA scientist puts it, the Bush administration often “does not even
invite the EPA into the discussion” on climate change issues. “This
administration seems to want to make environmental policy at the White
House,” the government scientist explains. “I suppose that is their right.
But one has to ask: on the basis of what information is this policy being
promulgated? What views are being represented? Who is involved in the
decision making? What kind of credible expertise is being brought to
bear?”22

Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a Clinton administration appointee to the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) who also served during the first year
of the Bush administration, offers a disturbing window on the process. From
the start, Bierbaum contends, “The scientists [who] knew the most about
climate change at OSTP were not allowed to participate in deliberations on
the issue within the White House inner circle.”23

Through such consistent tactics, the Bush administration has not only
distorted scientific and technical analysis on global climate change and
suppressed the dissemination of research results, but has avoided
fashioning any policies that would significantly reduce the threat implied
by those findings.

In the course of this investigation, UCS learned of the extent to which
these policies seem to extend. In one case that has yet to surface in the
press, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) sought in September 2003 to reprint a
popular informational brochure about carbon sequestration in the soil and
what farmers could do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to one
current government official familiar with the incident, the brochure was
widely viewed as one of the agency’s successful efforts in the climate
change field. The NRCS had already distributed some 325,000 of the
brochures and sought a modest update, as well as proposing a Spanish
edition.24

Notably, even this relatively routine proposal was passed to the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for review. William
Hohenstein, director of the Global Change Program Exchange in the office of
the chief economist at the USDA, acknowledged that he passed the request on
to the CEQ, as he says he would “for any documents relating to climate
change policy.”25 While Hohenstein denies that he has been explicitly
ordered to do so, he says he knows the White House is concerned “that
things regarding climate change be put out by the government in a neutral
way.”26 As a result of CEQ’s objections about the brochure, staff at the
NRCS dropped their proposal for a reprint.27 “It is not just a case of
micromanagement, but really of censorship of government information,” a
current government official familiar with the case noted. “In nearly 15
years of government service, I can’t remember ever needing clearance from
the White House for such a thing.”28


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

2 National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and
Resources, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, 2001.

3 See AGU.

4 P. Dobriansky, “Only New Technology Can Halt Climate Change,” Financial
Times, December 1, 2003.

5 US Climate Action Report, Department of State, May 2002.

6 K.Q. Seelye, “President Distances Himself from Global Warming Report,”
New York Times, June 5, 2002.

7 See www.epa.gov/airtrends.

8 “Report on the Environment,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June
23, 2003.

9 A.C. Revkin and K.Q. Seelye, “Report by EPA Leaves Out Data on Climate
Change,” New York Times, June 19, 2003.

10 EPA internal memo, April 29, 2003. (See Appendix A.)

11 Ibid. Deleted reference: National Academy of Sciences, Commission on
Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Climate Change Science: An Analysis
of Some Key Questions, 2001.

12 Revkin and Seelye, New York Times. Discredited study: W. Soon and S.
Baliunas. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000
years. Climate Research 23(2):89-110. Study discrediting it: Michael Mann
et al. 2003. On past temperatures and anomalous late 20th century warmth.
Research 23(2):89-110. Study discrediting it: Michael Mann et al. 2003. On
past temperatures and anomalous late 20th century warmth. Research Eos 84
(27):256-257.Eos 84(27):256-257.Eos

13 EPA internal memo.

14 Ibid.

15 NOW with Bill Moyers transcript, September 19, 2003. NOW with Bill
Moyers transcript, September 19, 2003. NOW with Bill Moyers

16 Revkin and Seelye, New York Times.

17 Author interviews with current EPA staff members. Names withheld on
request. See also “option paper” in EPA internal memo, Appendix A.

18 Author interview with EPA staff member, name withheld on request,
January 2004. EPA internal memo.

19 Russell E. Train, “When Politics Trumps Science” (letter to the editor),
New York Times, June 21, 2003.

20 Russell E. Train, “The Environmental Protection Agency just isn’t like
it was in the good old (Nixon) days,” www.gristmagazine.com, September 22,
2003.

21 White House, President’s Statement on Climate Change (July 13, 2001).

22 Author interview with EPA scientist, name withheld on request, January
2004.

23 As quoted in N. Thompson, “Science friction: The growing—and dangerous—
divide between scientists and the GOP,” Washington Monthly, July/August
2003.

24 Author interview with USDA official, name withheld on request, January
2004.

25 Author interview with William Hohenstein, USDA, January 2004.

26 Ibid.

27 Author interview with William Hohenstein, USDA, January 2004.

28 Author interview with USDA offi cial, name withheld on request, January
2004.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *