Whitehouse Slammed in New York Times Editorial

The Bush administration’s to manipulate climate science took another hit this week. The New York Times ran a editorial highlighting the damning report just issued by The Inspector General of NASA showing that political appointees from the Whitehouse were apparently massaging the messaging around climate science.

Specifically, the Inspector General found NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public…”

The New York Times was not amused and ran a scathing editorial titled The Science of Denial:

“The Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change.”

In the waning days of Bush Administration, the mainstream press is becoming increasing critical of Whitehouse’s ham-handed manipulation of climate science, including efforts to silence scientists speaking the truth about climate change.

The Times said of the Whitehouse’s propaganda efforts:

“Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders. And its strategy has been far too successful.”

The Bush Administration has also missed mandatory reporting requirements around the progress and implications of climate change. According to the editorial:

“A 1990 law requires the president to give Congress every four years its best assessment of the likely effects of climate change. The last such assessment was undertaken by President Clinton and published in 2000. Mr. Bush not only missed the 2004 deadline but allowed the entire information-gathering process to wither. Only a court order handed down last August in response to a lawsuit by public interest groups forced him to deliver this month.”

The legacy of the Bush Whitehouse is being etched in editorial ink all across the nation. The Times summed it up nicely:

“This administration long ago secured a special place in history for bending science to its political ends. One costly result is that this nation has lost seven years in a struggle in which time is not on anyone’s side.”


Hey Joe!

What rock-solid, bullet-proof empirical evidence that shows with absolute certainity that there is “global warming” do you have?

Meet me in Death Valley where I will show that CO2 has no effect of warming the atmosphere.

The diurnal temperature variation is reducing. Which is consistent with warming from the build-up of CO2 and other GHGs.
BTW: This is contrary to heating from solar causes.

Please get your facts right!

Please stop spreading disinformation!

Since when did deniers need stinking facts?

Definition: 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

With little science to prove your claims Harold, I would say not coming to the conclusion that climate change is happening is an act of faith on your part. Please show me “rock-solid, bullet-proof empirical evidence with absolute certainty” on anything in science.

Please also define for me at what point does anything in science cross your post of proof. 

Thank you for the report, but as a former copy editor, I can’t resist calling attention to the repeated references to the “Whitehouse.” The official name of the American executive mansion is the “White House”—two words, each beginning with a capital letter.

for definitive verifiable proof that climate change is just a hoax created by the world’s scientists in a vast scientific conspiracy against society, just ask the Black House (used to be the “White House” before it was soiled by it’s oil soaked resident) and you’ll get the real story! Anyone with any common sense at all would believe everything the oil industry says (I’m referring to Bush and Co), they don’t have an ulterior motive. They already have vast quantities of the taxpayer’s money and their windfall profits so it’s obviously not financially motivated. On the other hand, the scientists of the world are stooopider, they only think global warming is real because they are all liberals!