Global Warming? Let Cooney Handle it.

[Sazar]

Just days after the whole Cooney affair came to light, he has resigned so perhaps the title is a little belated in its meaning.

The whole "climate of change" thing that goes round the white house with regards to regimes and other things seems to have found a happy home in the editing of global warming documents.

Cooney did his part, deleting links and changing reports to downplay global warming. I know there are plenty of people on this board who have consistently downplayed the effects of global warming on climate change and while their reasonings are understandable, I cannot fathom why a man with no scientific background decided to edit things to help his pals in the oil industry?

Good riddance at best, unless another oil lobbyist is appointed to the same position and pursues the exact same party line as has been toed thus far.

A senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality has resigned, days after a newspaper reported he changed some government reports to downplay links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Philip Cooney, the council's chief of staff and a former energy industry lobbyist, resigned on Friday, two days after The New York Times reported he edited some descriptions of climate research in a way that cast doubt on links between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino confirmed Cooney had resigned from the council but said it was unrelated to the Times story.

"Mr. Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service in the administration," she said. "He had accumulated four weeks of leave and decided to resign and take the summer off to spend time with his family."

The Times said it obtained the environmental documents from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that provides legal help to government whistle-blowers.

The White House has denied Cooney had watered down the impact of global warming.

The newspaper noted Cooney previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group for the oil industry.


And this is one of the kinder articles about Cooney.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11554960.htm

[Son Goku]

Based on some scientific evidence I've seen in the past, I'm not convinced of the argument for global warming. Climate Review journal, or whatever it was called, was also extremely thorough in putting forth their proposition. But it was done from the standpoint of science, and a presentation of evidence...

However, there was none of this dude's apperent nonsense. I'll look at the article latter (in class now, and hip deep in trying to correct some problems with the hard drive image we got ghosted over. Needless to say, the nmap front end we needed, everything is appearing as if in a foreign language not on the box, and portsentry stopped working...pretty much waiting for patching, etc so have a moment).

However, what is shown in your quote is inexcusable IMO. One shouldn't be editing and deleting stuff from reports to downplay anything. Anything collected should be presented as such so people can review it, and come to their own conclusion based upon the evidence itself. Regardless of one's view on global warming, it should be argued from the basis of the scientific data which has been obtainable over time; not on the basis of trying to edit reports so people won't see whatever was there.

[CybrSage]

The biggest problem with Global Warming is that the creator of the famous Hockey Stick chart has refused to release his data for scrutiny.

REFUSED

As far as I know, science REQUIRES scrutiny of your data by groups that are for and against your results.

To me, this means he is a liar and a fraud.

I point you to the Kyoto Clock:

http://www.junkscience.com/

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about XXXX while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is XXXX (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean)

I put in the XXXX, since they are constantly changing.

[saturnotaku]

Global what now?

[vampireuk]

Global warming has something to do with this planet, America is on this planet, George Bush lives in America. Therefore this is all Bush's fault and America is evil, case solved!

[saturnotaku]

Global warming has something to do with this planet, America is on this planet, George Bush lives in America. Therefore this is all Bush's fault and America is evil, case solved!

<Morpheus voice>

That sounds exactly like the thinking of a liberal to me.

</Morpheus voice>

[jnd3]

OK, so that Kyoto clock cost is counting upwards of $49,000,000,000. Imagine if all that money went to something like fighting AIDS and malaria and malnutrition and unclean drinking water. How many lives could that money have saved? But no, global warming is THE most important issue for the survival of the world. :rolleyes:

[Son Goku]

Actually, some of the biggest probs has been that many weather models that were used to predict global warming in the past; had been based on arguably overly simplistic simulations of the planet, that were never meant for such purpose. They were meant as an educational tool for meteorology students, to help them learn how to forecaste the weather.

Put to uses they were never intended, they have since predicted the planet (some of the models) should be 30 degrees warmer then it is right now, and the gap between actual temps and their predicted temps keep growing.

Further, weather satilites themselves (from the global temps reported from space) show a slight cooling trend, but it had been fairly insignificant less then the margin of error for the measing equipment aboard the satilite. This contradicted what some ground based stations were showing, though in the case of ground based stations cities had built up around many after they were constructed...aka more blacktop to help hold heat in. Unfortunately, I leant the sources I had for some of this info out to a friend quite a number of years ago (back in 1996), and guess he doesn't remember... As such, it'd be a task to try to site my source on this...sorry

The deliberate tampering with, deletion of data, or editing of of someone elses report doesn't look good though; no matter who's doing it. If one wants to argue against certain data or a report, it's best to present one's argument wrt it. But down right deletions and editings (regardless of what side of an argument is doing it) is downright suspect IMO...

[vampireuk]

<Morpheus voice>

That sounds exactly like the thinking of a liberal to me.

</Morpheus voice>

Be thou accusing me of something, Che? :p

[Sazar]

The biggest problem with Global Warming is that the creator of the famous Hockey Stick chart has refused to release his data for scrutiny.

REFUSED

As far as I know, science REQUIRES scrutiny of your data by groups that are for and against your results.

To me, this means he is a liar and a fraud.

I point you to the Kyoto Clock:

http://www.junkscience.com/



I put in the XXXX, since they are constantly changing.

Did Cooney change the data to suit the oil lobbyists he was once part of?

Yes.

Your points stand obviously but do not in anyway contradict the fact that Cooney manipulated data. Hence he is a liar and a fraud too isn't it? His data was used liberally (heh :D ) by the administration to support their ambiguity about the validity of claims for Global Warming.

[CybrSage]

Sorry, I did ignore Cooney. He needs to be tossed into jail for what he did, imho.