Quote:

---

Aide may have doctored global warming reports

09jun05

A WHITE House official has been accused of repeatedly editing government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

The New York Times report came as scientists, including those from the United States and China, threw down the gauntlet to world leaders yesterday saying humankind was the main source of global warming and urging action.
Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the New York Times said, citing internal documents. Mr Cooney previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute.

The White House declined comment on the report.

The report said the documents were obtained by the newspaper from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal help to government whistleblowers.

Also yesterday, a British newspaper claimed to have seen official papers showing pressure from oil and gas giant Exxon Mobil partly prompted President George W. Bush to reject the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Citing documents from the US State Department, the London-based Guardian newspaper said the administration thanked Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to shape climate change policy, and also sought its advice on what such policies the company might find acceptable. Exxon has maintained it had no involvement in the Government's rejection of Kyoto.

The papers emerged as British Prime Minister Tony wrapped up a lightning US trip in a bid to drum up support for a two-pronged initiative at a G8 summit to tackle climate change and poverty in Africa.

President Bush offered no backing for Mr Blair's climate initiative, but said afterwards: "We lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions spent on research about climate change".

---

Quote:

---

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
June 8, 2005


Q Scott, the Government Accountability Project, a private group, has obtained internal White House documents that show that a White House official that was formerly a lobbyist for the oil industry has doctored and edited administration scientific reports in ways that consistently emphasize supposed uncertainties about global warming -- uncertainties that the vast consensus of science doesn't think are that severe. And I wonder, does the President think that helps the credibility of the administration on scientific issues?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, first, I disagree with the characterization. I think that your characterization is contradicted by the scientific community. The National Academies of Science came out with a report in 2001 that was requested by the President; it took a look at science of climate change, and in that very report it talked about how there are considerable uncertainties. So some of the language that you referenced was based on the very report from the scientific community that the President had requested.

And in terms of this report that came out earlier today, let me just step back and talk to you a little bit about our interagency review process, because that's all this is. We have an interagency review process when it comes to issues like climate change and the environment. There are some 15 federal agencies that are involved in that interagency review process. It includes policy people; it includes scientists. And when we're getting ready to put out a report, it goes through that interagency review process so people can have their input into the report.

One of the very reports highlighted in the article today was the administration's 10-year plan for climate science. And that plan was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science.

Q The person in question, Phil Cooney, does he have any scientific background at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, there are policy people and scientists who are involved in this process, in the interagency review process. And he's one of the policy people involved in that process, and someone who's very familiar with the issues relating to climate change and the environment.

Q Because of his work lobbying for the oil industry?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to get you his background, Terry. But he's one of many people who are involved in the interagency review process, including those 15 federal agencies, and the White House offices like the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality. And the Office of Science and Technology Policy is very ably led by Dr. Marburger; he is a well-respected scientist. And they are very involved in that interagency review process. And that office not only is involved in the review process, but signs off on these reports before they go out. And they have signed off on these reports because they know that they are scientifically sound.

Q But administration scientists, Mr. Hansen at the Goddard Center in New York, a NASA scientist for 25 years, and others have come forward saying that the politicization of science in this administration -- these are not democratic activists; this is a scientist who works for the government -- has reached an extreme. And they point to instances like Mr. Cooney's editing and doctoring of these summaries, scientific summaries as proof of that.

MR. McCLELLAN: I encourage you to go look at the reports, because one of the reports that you highlighted was widely praised by the scientific community, including the National Academies of Science. These reports should always be based on our scientific knowledge and what is the best available science. And that's what we expect. And that's what those reports are based on.

Q So the administration scientists who are saying you have politicized scientific research are just wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I -- go back and look at what the scientific community said about that 10-year plan on climate science, and what the National Academies of Science said. And I point you back to the very first question you brought up when you talked about how there's some dispute that there are uncertainties regarding the science of climate of change.

Q That they are serious, that there --

MR. McCLELLAN: Right --

Q -- that there's uncertainty about the fact of global warming, and that there's a significant human component to it. The consensus is in.

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple things. The National Academy of Science report back in 2001 said there are considerable uncertainties about the science of climate change. Now, there are some things we do know. That report pointed out that surface temperatures are still rising, and that that is in large part because of human activity.

That's why this President is not waiting for us to have the full knowledge of science, as it continues to come in and we continue to learn more. The President is acting. We are moving forward on the President's initiative to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent come 2012. We are making steady progress. We are on track to meet that goal. We are moving forward on partnerships like the methane-to-markets initiative that the President outlined, and that the very individual you bring up was very involved in developing. This will help us produce cleaner burning electricity, and it will help capture a greenhouse gas emission and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These are very important initiatives. We're also leading the way, when it comes to research, around the world. We are providing more resources and funding into the research and development of new technologies, cleaner technologies, that will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Q But in every example that you've cited --

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, do you all want to --

Q In every example that we have seen, and Mr. Cooney's emendations and deletions from these reports have been to the effect of making them less critical, less stringent, less apparently in need of immediate action. In other words, he's done everything in the examples we've seen to pull back from worst-case scenario. He is not a scientist.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's your opinion, and I think your opinion is wrong.

Q No, no, no, it's evident in the reading of it. He is not a scientist. It upsets the scientific community that non-scientists are doing this. That's why they say that he has a political agenda. Why wouldn't they think that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, let me repeat what I just said: This is not based on any one individual. This is an interagency review process, where everybody who is involved in these issues should have input into these reports. And that's all this is. And if you go and look at the reports, namely the one I just referenced, the 10-year plan --

Q That's the only one you can reference. There are others that you can't reference because he changed them in a significantly different way.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where?

Q Well, right here, for example, in the October 2002 draft of Our Changing Planet. He says, "Many scientific observations indicate the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." He made that, "may be." He cut out a section of another document on -- I can read that to you if you want, but you get the idea.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you're selectively quoting things. I think you ought to go and look at some of the things he pointed out in his --

Q But the only thing you can point to is that one 2002 --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just pointed to what Terry brought up, when he talked about serious uncertainties, or something to that effect, and that is language that was used in the National Academy of Science report. So, I mean, if you want to talk about the facts, I'm glad to do that, and I think the facts point out that our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge, and they're based on the input --

Q But, Scott, you're not talking about the same thing here.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- they're based on the inputs of scientists.

Q But, Scott, you're clearly -- I mean, the United States is -- and I'm not making a judgment about this -- is out of step with other countries in the world, in terms of the existence of climate change and the causes of it. That debate is clear. I mean, the President, just yesterday, when asked about this, said, the United States is spending millions of dollars --

MR. McCLELLAN: Billions.

Q -- billions of dollars to research this issue, which is to say that he has not reached a conclusion yet. Fine. But --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, let me just correct you on that one point. It's to say that there are still -- there is still a lot of uncertainty when it comes to the science of climate change, and that's pointed out in the National Academy of Science report that the President requested when he came into office.

Q Right, but there is other -- there's the body of opinion here that still works against that. The point is, if you go back to June of 2003, an EPA report on climate change had a whole section on climate change simply deleted out of it, and critics charged the very same thing, which is that -- it's not that the view -- it's not a judgment about the view, it's that the process here, the science here is being overwhelmed by the politics. Is that not a fair criticism?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it has been contradicted by the scientific community, itself, when they look at these reports and they widely praise the report that I referenced. It was one of our major reports on climate change. It was our 10-year plan on climate science research. And that is an important undertaking that this administration led. And there's an interagency --

Q There's ample evidence that you guys are -- that policy people are putting their own spin on the science.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I guess, David, you want to let me finish and respond. I'm trying to get you the information that you want, not that some people may want us to say, because that's not the case. I'm going to tell what the facts are. And the facts are that there is an interagency review process with a number of agencies involved that are impacted by -- or that are involved in these decisions, in these reports. And many people have input into that interagency review process.

Our reports are based on the best scientific knowledge. There are number of scientists involved in this. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is involved very much in this process, and the head of that office is a well-respected scientist. And he has signed off on these reports because they're based on sound science. They're based on the best available science.

Q Scott, there's another player in all of this. It's a fellow who has been held out as a whistle-blower essentially, who is accusing the administration more or less of basically not giving an honest assessment on the environment. What's your take on him? Is he a whistle-blower? Does he have an axe to grind? To what extent can you weigh in on --

MR. McCLELLAN: Who is this individual?

Q The fellow's name is Rick Piltz.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what's his background?

Q He's been held out by the Government Accountability Project as a government employee --

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, you might ask him --

Q -- who, in fact, works for --

MR. McCLELLAN: You might ask him those questions.

Q He's a senior associate for government climate change. So he's in the office affected, and he's the person making the assertions.

MR. McCLELLAN: And when did he come into that office and what was his background before that?

Q Well, he obviously left the office because he did not like the way these documents were being filtered. So are you not familiar with him? He was also mentioned in the article.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you might want to look into his background. I don't know all the answers to that and why he has such motives. But that's something for you to do, and to look at his background, why he came to these -- or why he came to this. That's not for me to do. I'm here to tell you what the facts are. And the facts are that our policies and our reports are based on the best available science, and that this administration is acting and leading the way when it comes to addressing the serious long-term challenge we face from climate change.

Q So you disagree with his assertions? You disagree with the notion that the administration is, in fact, making the assessment of --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what his assertions are. I saw them referenced in a report, but I haven't heard exactly what his assertions are. That's for you to ask him, and it's for you to look at what his background is.

---

Quote:

---

Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush

White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance

John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday June 8, 2005
The Guardian

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.
Other papers suggest that Ms Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto.

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

"Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon "among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon's head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: "I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto."

Exxon, officially the US's most valuable company valued at $379bn (£206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House's unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change.

The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company and the US administration on the need for more global warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto "would be unjustifiably drastic and premature".

This line has been taken consistently by President Bush, and was expected to be continued in yesterday's talks with Tony Blair who has said that climate change is "the most pressing issue facing mankind".

"President Bush tells Mr Blair he's concerned about climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming truth, that policy in this White House is being written by the world's most powerful oil company. This administration's climate policy is a menace to humanity," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace's executive director in London last night.

"The prime minister needs to tell Mr Bush he's calling in some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in US emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric," said Mr Tindale.

In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, both of which have followed the US line against Kyoto.

The purpose of the meeting with Mr Pearlman, who also represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which the administration says "works against most US government efforts to address climate change", is said to be to "solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends and allies".

ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian in the US but did not return calls, is spending millions of pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8 meeting at Gleneagles.

---

Quote:

---

Poverty Lad said:
Not. Surprised.

---

Quote:

---

Some Like It Hot

News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

---

Quote:

---

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank


Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty
$155,000
Calls CO2 caps "a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist."
Advised by an AEI fellow.

Advancement of Sound Science Center
$40,000
Run by FoxNews.com's Steve Milloy.

American Council for Capital Formation
$250,000
"Science questions must be addressed before the United States and its allies embark on a path as nonproductive as that of the Kyoto Protocol."
Group netted nearly a million dollars from ExxonMobil from 2000-2003 but the real science bashing was in 2001 when they got a quarter million.

American Council on Science and Health
$90,000
"Policymakers can safely take several decades to plan a response" to global warming.
Michaels and Singer are advisors.

American Enterprise Institute
$960,000
Published 2004 climate article titled "Don't Worry, Be Happy."
Dick Cheney is a former senior fellow.

American Legislative Exchange Council
$712,200
Published Michaels' paper that claims "global warming could actually save lives."
Launched attack on "Sons of Kyoto" state legislation in 2004.

Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
$427,500
"Answering questions about global warming takes more than a few thermometers, an agenda and a press release."
Baliunas is an adviser; honored Senator Inhofe for "supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making."

Arizona State University Office of Climatology
$49,500
They got this amount in 2001 when the office was headed by
Robert C. Balling, a well known climate change "skeptic."

Atlas Economic Research Foundation
$440,000
"As the science behind global warming becomes increasingly sketchy, many environmentalists clutch even harder to their views."

Atlas fellow, Deroy Murdock , "You call this global "warming"?" The Washington Times, May 31, 1996.

Cato Institute
$75,000
One of the modern right's most respected think tanks
Michaels is a senior fellow.

Capital Research Center
$115,000
Right-wing nonprofit watchdog group
"Scientists disagree about climate change, but you wouldn't know that from the [Kyoto] treaty.

It is based on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide, or CO2, gas emissions caused by industrial activities

have created the so-called 'global warming' effect."

CRC President, Terrence Scanlon, "Outside View: Hot air blows away," United Press International, February 8, 2002.

Centre for the New Europe
$40,000
"Not only is the scientific basis of global warming increasingly uncertain, but Kyoto will also ultimately prove to be an economic disaster for Europe--and the developing world,"

CNR President, Tim Evans, "Kyoto will chill the global economy," The Daily Telegraph (letter), October 2, 2004.
Singer offers up his contrarian commentary on their website.

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
$40,000
Called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment "as phony as a three-dollar bill."
Driessen is a senior policy adviser.

Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change
$55,000
Calls CO2 emissions "a force for good, enhancing the organic matter that sustains all of humanity."

Citizens for a Sound Economy
$305,250
"The science behind global warming is inconclusive, and to teach otherwise is fearmongering."

Peggy Venable, director of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy in, "Groups criticize proposed texts ;

Conservatives duel liberals over books," San Antonio Express-N ews, September 7, 2001.
In 2001 its Texas branch fought to get rid of global-warming talk in school textbooks

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
$252,000
Website features "Some surprisingly clean facts about SUVs."
Driessen is a senior fellow;

Baliunas and Michaels are advisers.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
$1,380,000
Likens the danger of global warming to that of "an alien invasion."
Milloy is a fellow.

Congress of Racial Equality
$40,000
Says there is no "convincing, real evidence that humans are disrupting the earth's climate."
This year's Martin Luther King Day civil rights honoree was Karl Rove.

Consumer Alert
$35,000
Funds the Cooler Heads Coalition's denialist website, globalwarming.org
Michaels is an adviser.

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
$30,000
"The mounting evidence over the most recent years demonstrates that the forecasts for global warming were greatly exaggerated. This new evidence suggests that global warming may not even be occurring." (PDF)

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
$100,000
Montana-based thinktank
"Given the uncertainty around warming, and the fact that some models predict that temperature increases of up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit would have beneficial effects, increasing our adaptability to change may be more important than cutting emissions."

FREE's Research Associate John C. Downen, "Resiliency is the Key to Climate Change," Bozeman Daily Chronicle, November 13, 2002.

Fraser Institute
$60,000
Vancouver-based thinktank questions the "still-speculative risk of global warming."

Chief Scientist Kenneth Green, "Old school environmentalists need to become more business-minded," The Vancouver Province, June 2, 2003.
Soon and Baliunas co-authored Fraser's "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science."

Free Enterprise Action Institute
$50,000
Another of Milloy's projects, registered to his home address

Frontiers of Freedom
$612,000
"To listen to eco-radicals tell the story, it is a proven scientific fact that the climate is warming and that mankind is responsible...Nothing could be farther [sic] from the truth."
Driessen is a senior fellow.

George C. Marshall Institute
$310,000
Challenging global warming (and promoting missile defense) since 1989
Baliunas is a senior scientist; Michaels is a visiting scientist.

Heartland Institute
$312,500
Compares Michael Crichton to Rachel Carson and Upton Sinclair.
Publishes op-eds by Soon and Baliunas.

Heritage Foundation
$340,000
"For the next several decades, fossil fuel use is key to improving the human condition."

Hoover Institution
$140,000
Published "Happiness is a Warm Planet."
Singer is a former fellow.

Hudson Institute
$15,000
Got funding in 2000, the same year they published Singer's article, "Cool Planet, Hot Politics: The next president needs to know that the global warming hypothesis, though politically powerful, is scientifically weak."

Independent Institute
$30,000
Published 2003 report entitled: "New Perspectives in Climate Science: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us."
Singer is a former fellow.

Institute for Energy Research
$67,000
A 2003 "Letter to President George W. Bush" (PDF) advised that "the uncertain link between industrial emissions and global warming after a century of [greenhouse gas] buildup and decades of study points toward lower-range, benign warming scenarios."

International Policy Network
$50,000
"The temperature variations read in the past century could be part of a larger process that is alien to humanity."

IPI author Kendra Okonski ed., Adapt or Die: The science, politics and economics of climate change, London: Profile Books, 2003. p. 205

Mackinac Center for Public Policy
$15,500
Funding amount from 2001when a board of scholars member opined: "The Kyoto Protocol seems to be built on the following two assumptions: First, global warming is a function of human activity (with the biggest villains being automobiles, factories, and power plants), and second, we are currently experiencing unprecedented levels of global warming. However, a review of the earth's most recent 'geological history' brings into question both assumptions and puts the entire subject in a different light."

Media Research Center
$50,000
Blasted the "networks' overwhelmingly one-sided picture of the global warming debate."
Robert Novak dubs MRC an "indispensable counterpunch to liberal reporting." (PDF)

Mercatus Center
$40,000
George Mason University shop that included an eight-page speech by Michael Crichton in its official comments to the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2003.

National Black Chamber of Commerce
$75,000
Kyoto could "reverse the…economic progress that blacks and Hispanics have achieved in recent years." (PDF)

National Center for Policy Analysis
$205,000
"There is still no conclusive evidence that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise."
Singer is an adjunct scholar.

National Center for Public Policy Research
$160,000
In their "Questions and Answers on Global Warming." it states, "There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place," and "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming."
Its Envirotruth.org website debunks "myths" of climate change, including,

"Humanity is the primary cause of global climate change"; and

"The consensus of world scientists, as revealed by the UN's IPCC agree--humanity is causing significant climate change."

Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
$145,000
"No one seriously claims to know whether the past warming was caused by human activities; whether further warming will occur and, if it does, whether it will result from human activities, and whether such warming in some general sense would be a bad thing."

Senior fellow Benjamin Zycher, "State's Auto Emissions Bill Is Just So Much Gas," Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002.

Pacific Legal Foundation
$15,000
"Whether global warming is happening is a matter of debate"

PLF attorney, Anne M. Hayes, "Legislature declares war on SUVs," San Diego Union Tribune, July 12, 2002

Property and Environment Research Center
$60,000
Gave Bush a B- on global warming, applauding his acknowledgment of "the importance of scientific uncertainty." (PDF)

Reason Public Policy Institute
$230,000
Their website reads, "The sun, not a gas, is primarily to 'blame' for global warming."

Science and Environmental Policy
$10,000
"We should have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere"
Singer's pet project

Tech Central Science Foundation
$95,000
A virtual HQ for global warming deniers
Baliunas is a commentator; Soon is the science director; and Milloy is a contributing writer.

Run by former FoxNews.com editor and hosted by an AEI fellow.

Total 2000-2003
$8,678,450

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:
scientists, including those from ...China, threw down the gauntlet to world leaders

---

...the Copenhagen Consensus [is] the brainchild of Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg [and] is an attempt by leading economists (including three Nobelists) to set priorities for spending on development using traditional cost-benefit analysis.

To that end, Mr. Lomborg and his colleagues looked at more than a dozen development challenges, ranging from malnutrition to water sanitation to migration to climate change.

By contrast, the three projects the Consensus put at the bottom of the list all had to do with the threat (which the Consensus considers serious) of global warming.

Adopting the Kyoto Protocol to curb carbon dioxide emissions, for instance, might reduce warming to 6.1 degrees centigrade by the year 2300, compared with an anticipated 7.3 degree warming if nothing is done. This "achievement"--a world that is on average 1.2 degrees cooler than it otherwise would be in 300 years--comes with a price tag of about $94 trillion (in 1990 dollars).

"The benefits [of tackling climate change] are far into the future and the substantial costs are up front and immediate," notes Nobel Prize-winning economist Douglass North. "Given the uncertainties associated with both the projections and the consequences, climate change cannot compete with the other urgent issues we confront."