Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Climate official resigns, blasting White House influence

Expand Messages
  • Pat Neuman
    Is there interest by people with ClimateArchive on the subject of the NOAA led Bush adminstration Climate Change Science Program (CSSP)? Please post a reply if
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 5, 2005
      Is there interest by people with ClimateArchive on the subject of the
      NOAA led Bush adminstration Climate Change Science Program (CSSP)?
      Please post a reply if you are interested...
      to: Paleontology_and_Climate@yahoogroups.com
      at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate/

      Pat N

      ------- Forwarded Message ---------
      Friday, March 4, 2005


      Climate official resigns, blasting White House influence

      Brian Stempeck and Andrew Freedman, Greenwire reporters

      A top climate official announced plans to resign his federal post
      next week, blasting the Bush administration's global warming research
      plan and raising concern about the potential for politics to
      influence federal findings.

      Rick Piltz, senior associate with the Climate Change Science Program,
      said he would resign at the end of next week after 10 years at CCSP
      and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the agencies responsible
      for federal climate research.

      Piltz expressed frustration with what he sees as the intrusion of
      politics into the scientific arena and a questionable scientific
      review process overseen by top White House officials.

      "I resigned because of a number of differences with the Bush
      administration's approach to climate change and climate science over
      the past four years," Piltz wrote in an
      to Greenwire this morning.

      "There is a problem with the process that has been established for
      final review and revision of these reports and clearance for
      publication," he continued, noting that lead scientists on climate
      studies are not given the power to approve their final reports. "The
      final review and clearance would be done inside the administration,
      through a process that was seen as potentially subject to political
      influence on how the scientific conclusions were expressed.

      "There is a governmental process, and potential political influence,
      in the way these reports are approved," Piltz said. "It's not clear
      yet how big a problem this will become in practice. But it occurs in
      the context of a widespread distrust of the Bush administration in
      the scientific community -- for exactly the reason that the
      administration has come to be perceived as not keeping politics out
      of science, on climate and other issues."

      Piltz described oversight of CCSP research at part of a larger
      pattern. "The administration chose to have the CCSP Synthesis Reports
      be government documents rather than asking the independent scientists
      to write them and let the chips fall where they may -- and this leads
      to a number of potential problems," he concluded. To view Piltz's
      full statement,
      here .

      "He felt some differences in his view about the way the work is being
      done," said James Mahoney, director of CCSP and deputy administrator
      of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "I certainly
      have commended him for his diligent work over 10 years on the
      program," Mahoney added, noting that Piltz is only one of the 300
      officials working on CCSP reports.

      But other climate researchers say Piltz's resignation should send a
      message to the Bush administration.

      "I think it's a clear indication of a growing frustration," said
      Michael MacCracken, a scientist at the Climate Institute who
      previously worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 34
      years and also spent nine years with the U.S. Global Change Research
      Program. "A number of other people are quite frustrated by the
      administration's attempt to control the scientific findings, the
      presentation of the scientific findings."

      Just two weeks ago, the lead author of a forthcoming CCSP climate
      report asked to have his name removed from the study, questioning
      whether White House officials are looking to put their own spin on
      climate research.

      Eric Sundquist -- formerly a lead author of the U.S. State of the
      Carbon Cycle Report -- announced he was removing his name from the
      study in a Feb. 22
      circulated to his colleagues.

      "A year and a half after the submittal of the first SOCCR proposal,
      not a word of the report has been written," Sundquist wrote.
      "Inevitably, many potential authors and reviewers of the SOCCR have
      expressed concerns about the purpose and nature of the government
      review and approval process."

      At issue is the federal scientific review process. When scientists
      finish their report, they must then submit it to the National Science
      and Technology Council, a Cabinet-level group, for final approval.
      Sundquist and other scientists question why their work needs the
      approval of top Cabinet officials.

      "The involvement of the NSTC (or any agency) in giving final
      clearance to this report seems to be potentially suspect," MacCracken
      wrote in a public comment about the process. "For an administration
      supposedly committed to openness and credibility in the scientific
      process, this is a serious shortcoming."

      Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said there is a
      concern that changes will be made to the CCSP reports without authors
      being given the opportunity to review them and make sure they are
      "scientifically correct or consistent with their research."

      "Given the track record that we've seen from this administration in a
      number of areas, that's not an illegitimate concern," Meyer said.

      Meyer cited the example of the 2003 U.S. EPA "State of the
      Environment Report" that included a short paragraph on climate change
      after the White House requested that the agency make significant
      changes to a longer proposed section. According to a UCS account that
      was confirmed by an EPA official, the White House requested revisions
      that EPA officials believed stretched the credibility of climate
      change science

      , August 30, 2004).

      Federal officials maintain that they are not looking to rewrite CCSP
      findings, and that the review process will be transparent. "The core
      issue here is that somehow there's going to be an editing or a spin
      that would tend to change the underlying science," CCSP Director
      Mahoney explained. "I think it's a hollow critique."

      Before a climate report is sent the National Science and Technology
      Council, a draft will be posted on the Web, making it possible to
      track changes in the final report. "The full text of these documents
      will be all posted online for public review before that approval
      step," he said.

      Mahoney conceded that the process is taking longer than CCSP
      initially thought. "We were somewhat naively optimistic about the
      scope of the work," he said. "It's been a tremendous amount of effort
      getting moving. I wouldn't deny that there's an element of criticism.

      "This is a bureaucratic process, but these are controversial
      questions," Mahoney added. "The very process we set up has been set
      up to make sure all of the relevant views are aired."

      Bob Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House's Office of Science and
      Technology Policy, said that CCSP's strategic plan has twice been
      reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and received high marks.
      "They have a track record of getting things done on a timely and
      professional basis," Hopkins said.

      Ultimately, climate researchers are optimistic that kinks in the
      review process will eventually be worked out.

      Anthony King, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who is
      heading up the carbon cycle report from which Sundquist removed
      himself, said many scientists are concerned that the review process
      will provide an opening for political officials to alter report
      language. But those fears may be allayed following the end of the
      public comment period on the report "prospectus," he noted.

      "When it gets to the final level of review there is some ambiguity in
      that [review] process," King said. "It can be and will be resolved."

      To view Piltz's e-mail detailing his reasons for resigning,
      here .

      To view Sundquist's letter about why he removed his name from the
      CCSP report,
      here .

      To view public comments about the CCSP review process,

      here .

      Want more stories like this every day? Sign up for a free trial and
      get the best environmental and energy policy coverage available. Go

      Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC
      Copywrite <http://www.eenews.net>http://www.eenews.net
      --- End forwarded message ---

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.