[Phys-L] Re: more scientific integrity problems

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

Here's a Republican who's accepted the science:


Governor's Global Warming Goals--What You Can Do to Make Them Reality

Dear Bernard,

Just over a month ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) sent a
letter to the Governor signed by nearly 500 California-based scientists
working on global warming. The letter urged him "to take significantly
stronger action to protect our health, economy, and environment." On
June 1, Governor Schwarzenegger began to answer that call by signing an
Executive Order committing the state to reducing its global warming
emissions more than 80% by 2050. "I say the debate is over," proclaimed
Schwarzenegger. "We know the science, we know the time for action is now."

These goals are a great starting point, but they must be backed up with
policies that result in large, tangible reductions of global warming
emissions. Please visit the new Clean California web page to learn more
about the Governor's announcement and take action to support two
important global warming bills now pending in the California Legislature.

bc, who usually can't stand the guy.

p.s.

http://www.ucsusa.org/general/clean_california/page.cfm?pageID=1475



John Denker wrote:

>  From AP:
>
>
> > Philip Cooney, who was chief of staff of the White House Council on
> > Environmental Quality, left Friday, two days after it was revealed
> > that he had edited administration reports on climate change in 2002
> > and 2003.
>
>
> > Based on documents provided to the Government Accountability Project,
> > a nonprofit group that helps whistle-blowers, The New York Times
> > first reported Wednesday that Cooney made changes in several federal
> > environmental reports. The changes tended to emphasize the
> > uncertainty of evidence that greenhouse-gas emissions are causing
> > global temperatures to rise. Cooney, a lawyer without a background in
> > science, once headed the oil industry's lobbying on climate change.
>
>
> > His departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure, White
> > House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
>
>
> Suuuure it was.
>
>
> > The White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the
> > normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an
> > administration pledge to rely on sound science.
>
>
> We know what that pledge is worth.
>
> It reminds me of the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists,
> http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/Scientific_Integrity_in_Policy_Making_July_2004.pdf
> which says in part:
>
>
> > > Since the release of the [first] UCS report in February, the
> > > administration has continued to undermine the integrity of science
> > > in policy making, seemingly unchecked. Many scientists have
> > > spoken out about their frustration with an administration that
> > > has undermined the quality of the science that informs policy
> > > making by suppressing, distorting, or manipulating the work done
> > > by scientists at federal agencies and on scientific advisory
> > > panels.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l