Gold9472
12-11-2007, 09:42 AM
Report Alleges that Bush Administration Censored Scientists
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/report-alleges.html
By Alexis Madrigal December 10, 2007
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a draft report (pdf) Monday alleging that the Bush administration "engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."
The 37 page report is the result of a 16 month investigation led by Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California. Republicans on the committee disputed the finding. A key issue is how the White House Council on Environmental Quality managed and massaged the media's access to scientists within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, effectively censoring those with opinions that diverged with the White House's stance on man-made global warming.
The report comes as US negotiators continue to fight greenhouse gas emissions caps that scientists believe are necessary to stave off the worst effects of global warming.
Among the litany of complaints contained in the report, these are the most salient:
The White House prevented scientists who were not aligned with the Administration's position from giving interviews. As former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney said, “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be.”
Cooney changed climate reports submitted by scientists to come into line with Administration positions. The report alleges he "made at least 294 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming."
Republicans are claiming that the whole report is a political attack that relies too much on the testimony of a career public affair officer with the NOAA, Kent Laborde. But read these emails, and it is immediately clear that the NOAA press officers had gotten the message loud and clear that White House "sensitivities" were going to dictate the messaging that was coming out of their organization.
September 22, 2005, Scott Smullen, the deputy director of the NOAA public affairs office, e-mailed Mr. Laborde about a press request to interview Dr. Richard Reynold regarding warming of the Gulf of Mexico and its causes. In his e-mail, Mr. Smullen stated that the interview “is cleared, with the caveat that we tell richard to be very careful with how he frames the global warming signal aspect. sensitivities there, as you know.
To be honest, it sounds like the corporate press relations BS that reporters (like me - do I sound bitter?) deal with every day. But this is OUR government and scientists whose salaries are paid with OUR money. Shouldn't our press have reasonably free access to them?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/report-alleges.html
By Alexis Madrigal December 10, 2007
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a draft report (pdf) Monday alleging that the Bush administration "engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."
The 37 page report is the result of a 16 month investigation led by Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California. Republicans on the committee disputed the finding. A key issue is how the White House Council on Environmental Quality managed and massaged the media's access to scientists within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, effectively censoring those with opinions that diverged with the White House's stance on man-made global warming.
The report comes as US negotiators continue to fight greenhouse gas emissions caps that scientists believe are necessary to stave off the worst effects of global warming.
Among the litany of complaints contained in the report, these are the most salient:
The White House prevented scientists who were not aligned with the Administration's position from giving interviews. As former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney said, “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be.”
Cooney changed climate reports submitted by scientists to come into line with Administration positions. The report alleges he "made at least 294 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming."
Republicans are claiming that the whole report is a political attack that relies too much on the testimony of a career public affair officer with the NOAA, Kent Laborde. But read these emails, and it is immediately clear that the NOAA press officers had gotten the message loud and clear that White House "sensitivities" were going to dictate the messaging that was coming out of their organization.
September 22, 2005, Scott Smullen, the deputy director of the NOAA public affairs office, e-mailed Mr. Laborde about a press request to interview Dr. Richard Reynold regarding warming of the Gulf of Mexico and its causes. In his e-mail, Mr. Smullen stated that the interview “is cleared, with the caveat that we tell richard to be very careful with how he frames the global warming signal aspect. sensitivities there, as you know.
To be honest, it sounds like the corporate press relations BS that reporters (like me - do I sound bitter?) deal with every day. But this is OUR government and scientists whose salaries are paid with OUR money. Shouldn't our press have reasonably free access to them?