Digging.

Another bone to pick with the Bush administration? Let me shed a little light.
As a member of the scientific community, the following article was quick to catch my eye and burn my britches.
The ex-Bush official of topic, Philip Cooney, has no scientific expertise or background; as a matter of fact, when you consider that he is a lawyer, and earned his Bachelor’s degree in economics, it doesn’t take a dean’s list honoree to deduce that he has only basic and minimal documented science education. A climatologist, he is not. An environmental scientist, he is not.
What might have qualified him to be selected as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality? Surely he must have had some formal education or training pertaining to biology, environmental science, chemistry, climatology, meteorology, or some other scientific field?
Of course not (and are you really surprised?); before heading the Environmental Quality Council, he was a lobbyist and attorney for the American Petroleum Institute (can anyone say, “conflict of interest?”). He returned to his oily roots in 2005, when he resigned from the Environmental Quality Council and was hired by ExxonMobil. Hmmm….
So what we have is another incompetent government crony…this one taking liberties to edit scientific reports produced by qualified experts. And I’m not talking about grammatical or linguistic editing, but admitted removal of facts, data, and scientific theory. Apparently his inference of a single report provided all necessary data and research for his muddling of the works and research of competent, experienced, and knowledgeable professionals.
In the following article (from MSNBC.com), Cooney feebly defends himself and his moonlighting role as editor of scientific data by offering reference to this separate scientific article. Earlier this month, though, he more logically explained his actions to the house government reform committee, saying underoath in a congressional hearing,
"My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration."
Fantastic.

Ex-Bush official defends editing climate papers
WASHINGTON - A former White House official accused of improperly editing reports on global warming defended his editing changes Monday, saying they reflected views in a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.
House Democrats said the 181 changes made in three climate reports reflected a consistent attempt to emphasize the uncertainties surrounding the science of climate change and undercut the broad conclusions that man-made emissions are warming the earth.
Philip Cooney, former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, acknowledged at a House hearing that some of the changes he made were "to align these communications with the administration's stated policy" on climate change.
The extent of Cooney's editing of government climate reports first surfaced in 2005. Shortly thereafter, Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist, left the White House to work at Exxon Mobil Corp.
"My concern is that there was a concerted White House effort to inject uncertainty into the climate debate," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
Cooney's appearance before Waxman's committee Monday was the first time he has spoken publicly, or was extensively questioned, about the issue.
Cooney said that many of the changes he made to the reports — such as uncertainty about the regional impact of climate change and limits on climate modeling — reflected findings of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report on climate.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.