Entire article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/p...&en=54e7b911a5d025aa&ei=5094&partner=homepage
And I'm shocked - shocked! - that an administration with ties so close to the oil industry would try to skew the data to support the conclusion they've already reached. I was really hoping that all of the screeching about stuff like this was just the product of overly paranoid (and with a bunch of Texas oilmen running things, the paranoia's kinda justified) delusions.
But I guess not. It's a sad day when our environmental and energy policy is based on the word of the people who want to make money first, and the people who have our best interests at heart second (if at all.)
.
.
.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/p...&en=54e7b911a5d025aa&ei=5094&partner=homepage
And I'm shocked - shocked! - that an administration with ties so close to the oil industry would try to skew the data to support the conclusion they've already reached. I was really hoping that all of the screeching about stuff like this was just the product of overly paranoid (and with a bunch of Texas oilmen running things, the paranoia's kinda justified) delusions.
But I guess not. It's a sad day when our environmental and energy policy is based on the word of the people who want to make money first, and the people who have our best interests at heart second (if at all.)
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.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
.
.
.
.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.