GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: White House interfered in climate change report, lawmaker says

• 20965
  

  Not claiming to be a political pundit, I must admit I herald from the days of "Kennedy's Camelot," always hoping for a "kinder and gentler world." Even so, I also admit to a more pragmatic outlook; I am from Missouri and often ask to be shown proof, facts, and figures. So, despite my personal beliefs (I try to avoid the terms "rants and raves"), I did read State of Fear. And I must admit I did appreciate Michael's "facts." I checked into a number of his assertions and assumptions, and felt he had a case for consideration. But I must also admit that even academia has its agendas.

  So saying, I acknowledge being a fence rider on the issue of human influence in global warming. Yes, the fact of global warming is acknowledged by everyone, but many still avoid admitting man's own hand in the mix. From the vanishing of the mammoth to the melting of the polar ice, the questions are "How much is our fault?," "What will happen?," and "What must we do?"

  But as the doctors have proclaimed, "First, do no harm." I believe that our government must stand as a leader; despite their obvious tendency to yield to the loudest special interest groups. And the criticality of that second question should indicate we must error on the side of caution.

  I am not wise enough to balance foreign and domestic policies, but I know I would like my children's children to be able to walk with their faces in the sun. I ask again, "Big Brother," do not shield me from the facts. Please, let me even know the questions.

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 5, 2007 10:26 AM
• 20934
  

  The only "experts in the field" that Bush is interested in hearing from are those in the oil field. Of course, they aren't going to do anything that would take money from their pockets, like research for alternate energy sources. Why do you think war profiteering is all the rage with these folks? They don't care about the environment because they can afford to live anywhere and move anytime. They never suffer the consequences of their actions. And, if anyone trusts the government to regulate the safety of a nuclear power plant, given the mess they've made of this world already, I hope you have a good supply of 7 billion SFP sun block.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 2, 2007 10:12 AM
• 20923
  

  Tip,
  If you need and want the "real" scoop you need to look outside of government! Government is only interested in two things - get re-elected and get more money! They are destroying the American economy in this effort and no one is looking at the results. Global warming has been around for decades and there has been plenty of supporting work to foster the concept but the science on the topic is faulty at best and out right bias. I believe there is global warming but where are the Congressional laws to get nuclear power started - if we start today it will take about ten years to get a plant online!

  Nuclear power would eliminate air pollution (increase radioactive pollution) and reduce our need for oil. Likewise, were are the Congressional laws that mandate autos average 30 mpg or do not sell in the USA? Cannot do this because it would get rid of the rich peoples SUVs except for the foreign hybrids that already get that mileage.

  Congress is yelling foul but they are not doing anything either other than what gets them re-elected and provides more money for their friends.

  taxpayer Posted February 2, 2007 7:04 AM
• 20914
  

  Has anyone looked into the more plausible reason for "Global Warming"? It's from all the hot air blown around by the Dummocrats and treehuggers about how the earth is heating up and we're all going to be extinct in the next 50 years.

  Has anyone paid attention to what the experts in the field have said? Although there is a significant problem with greenhouse gasses, it pales in comparison to natural events over the course of millennia which altered the course of the Ice Age, caused numerous species to become extinct while others evolved, and shaped the environment to what we know it as today. Along comes another chain of events which will, over millennia, change the environment though long after all our bones are in the ground.

  As far as Chricton is concerned, I think he ate too many tabs of windowpane in his youth. Waxman is just showing his true idiotic colors in normal fashion; chairman of Senate subcommittee for Twits and Dweebs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 1, 2007 4:15 PM
• 20906
  

  Yes, all good supervisors review and, often, edit their subordinates' reports. Is the EPA out of control? I can't say, but for a politically appointed administrator to arbitrarily change a scientific report to such an extent as to negate or obscure the significant portions of said report is to deny the public access to what is just about common knowledge today. In other words, that's waste and abuse of public funds and trust. Such actions continue a pattern of disinformation that has become the standard of government-to-population communication in today's society.

  Has not our government established itself a mission of helping the development of leading edge technology? Wasn't DARPA instrumental in the development of the computer? Today, isn't the use of that computer in developing accurate climate forecasting models also dependent on governmental support? Are not our very lives dependent on that information?

  I know another reason for the government is to foster the growth of business, but this administration seems highly subjective in its balance of growth versus the common good.

  We, Joe Public, need the real scoop to enable us to form valid opinions. Big Brother needs to stop editing everything and needs to allow a little intelligent discussion.

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 1, 2007 9:45 AM
• 20904
  

  "If you don't like the weather, just wait five minutes," Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said? Well, we all know that President Shrub is deeply committed to oil and the status quo, so what's new? The real issue here is whether climate change (a naturally occurring event) or global warming (a leftist blame-game) is happening. If you believe the first, try to conserve, recycle, and don't waste the earth's resources, period. If you subscribe to the second, wring your hands, throw up windmills/solar panels, and blame America for the perceived ills to come! The reality, as I see it, is that we can't stop or slow this process, whether we contributed to it or not. Michael Crichton's book State of Fear is well worth reading at this time.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 1, 2007 6:36 AM
• 20902
  

  It's one thing for the head of an organization to edit something like an artistic or fictional creation. Editing the conclusions of scientific papers is a completely other thing. Editing science results to (as "taxpayer" seems to recommend) "reflect the position of the elected representative in the White House" completely subverts the purpose of conducting a scientific analysis in the first place.

  Part of the reason why the issue of political tampering with science agency reports is so important is that, in order for science to work, you need to remove as much bias as possible. Judges often recuse themselves from cases where there is the nothing more than the appearance of a conflict of interest, and in so doing, help us have trust that their judgments are fair and free of undue influence. The public is losing its trust in science (and in science conducted by federal agencies) because of reports of tampering, be it for political gain, monetary gain, or other reasons.

  The federal government is, for some science sectors, the institution that can provide the most objectivity. In the past the government has done a pretty good job of being a disinterested and objective party and has in many cases been able to earn the public trust. With the recent reports of political tampering, where there is smoke there may be fire. But, even if the reports are all false, something else is probably going on that's making scientists worry about whether their conclusions will pass a political litmus test. And when the scientists themselves start to worry about their own ability to be objective, that begins to shatter public trust. And we're talking here not just about trust in science, but trust in the government itself.

  The thing about trust is, even if you spend generations building it up, all that hard work can be lost once doubt starts to creep in.

  Janet Posted January 31, 2007 6:47 PM
• 20897
  

  Those memorable words of Richard Nixon come to mind when I read this one: "The people need to know their president is not a crook."

  Well here we go again.

  rds Posted January 31, 2007 3:19 PM
• 20885
  

  "Waxman reported that according to staffers' notes, the White House made numerous, significant edits to the EPA document. "

  So what? Is Henry trying for press coverage that the head of the operation edited the work of subordinates? Isn't this the job of the head of an organization? Doesn't SOX require this of corporate financial mangers? Since when is it not the job of the head of the organization to edit the position established in papers issued by his organization?

  Doesn't everyone know that the EPA goes far beyond its legislative authority and issues rules based on what EPA wants to see and not what science establishes - just look at the recent EPA positions and leaks concerning percolate. Also, EPA is the agency that added chemicals to gasoline to reduce air pollution that created water pollution that is extensive and cannot be cleaned up effectively.

  The President surely should get control of the out of control agency known as EPA and they need to cover the tone in all guidance issued by federal agencies to reflect the position of the elected representative in the White House. If Congress doesn't like it they need to change the laws based on what they think is scientific and not review executive decisions. After all this administrating provided us with false information on health care costs, weapons of mass destruction and regime change in Iraq as well as the invasion of Afghanistan. Why is Henry interested in global warming at this point - he should have considered it under the Clinton administration. Henry you are proving yourself out-of-date and politically biased - so drop the issue before you look really stupid.

  taxpayer Posted January 31, 2007 7:05 AM