James Ridgeway wrote earlier today about Henry Waxman's ongoing oversight hearings that are looking into the government's role in distorting climate research. In his post, Jim mentioned the new Union of Concerned Scientists report that found the Bush Administration pressured scientists in a number of agencies to suppress evidence of global warming. ThinkProgress has culled some details. Synergy!

46 percent of government scientists "personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

46 percent "perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work."

25 percent "perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Newsweek has a long and glowing article about Chuck Hagel (R-NE), his presidential chances, and his path from Midwestern boyhood to the corridors of the Senate. Sample sentence: "He is manly, Middle American — and when he talks about military matters, he exudes the cool confidence of a warrior-statesman who knows that war is hell."

The one piece of information from the article that I didn't know, other than all the biographical information, is this: "According to Congressional Quarterly, [Hagel] voted with the White House more times in 2006 than any other senator." I guess I was so agog over the chutzpah Hagel has displayed in loudly and continuously objecting to the war and the Bush Administration that I neglected to closely examine the man's record. Hagel's Planned Parenthood rating: 0%. Secular Coalition for America rating: 0%. Darfur Scoreboard grade: C. League of Conservation Voters rating: 14%. Human Rights Campaign (gay rights) rating: 0. The man supports a constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the flag.

So for all his tough (and seductively honest) talk about Iraq, I would have a hard time disagreeing more completely with his politics. That said, I think if conservative Americans get to know Hagel they'll find him pretty appealing. He's got a strong conservative record on social and economic issues (as I just learned) and yet has led the charge against a war and a president that even Republicans are deserting. He's a decorated veteran -- which is a huge 180 from Bush, Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the "other priorities" brigade -- and actually saved his brother's life in Vietnam. He grew up in the Midwest (take that, Obama!) and had parents that "taught their boys that loyalty to country was paramount."

And so Hagel is shaping up like the McCain of 2000, with the media taking it upon themselves to explain to the American people why they are missing a great candidate who -- unbeknownst to everyone outside the inner circle -- has presidential stuff. (Mickey Kaus is the only one puncturing the balloon.) Two weeks ago, Jonathan Alter wrote an article on Hagel for Newsweek cautiously titled "Hagel Could Have a Shot." Now, as you can see from the Newsweek profile, this GQ interview, and this truthdig column, his media treatment has drastically changed.

But here's what will hurt Hagel:

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Sunday night, during the closing ceremonies in Park City, Utah, the 2007 Sundance Film Festival winners were announced. I wasn't there, four days at Sundance was plenty for me, but the onslaught of emails from the press office were evidence enough. But I wonder, does anyone really care about which film won the Special Jury Prize or the World Cinema Audience Award? It seems all anyone is talking about is how "Little Miss Sunshine," "Iraq in Fragments" (read Mother Jones' review of the film here) and "An Inconvenient Truth" raked in the Oscar nominations last week.

Sundance tends to be repetitious in its subject matter. This year, "No End In Sight" will surely give you your Iraq fill, "Everything's Cool" contains a deluge of information on Global Warming and "Blame It On Fidel," much like "Little Miss Sunshine" tells the story of a young girl shaped by her society. But really, would the festival be complete without a film on Iraq or Global Warming?

[Read more]

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, opened oversight hearings this morning with a sharp attack on Phil Cooney, the former oil lobbyist who headed the Council of Environmental Quality, for tampering with scientific reports on global warming in order downplay its importance. (You can watch the hearings live online here.) Cooney resigned in 2005 after he was publicly criticized for playing politics with global warming. One New York Times report discussing government climate change reports written in 2002 and 2003 said, "In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, [Cooney] crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was 'straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.'"

Waxman says the committee knows the White House is hiding documents that show the Bush administration sought to weaken government reports by emphasizing the "beneficial effects," of global warming, and downplaying its effects on human health.

Witnesses at the hearing are to include Dr. Drew Shindell, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Rick Piltz, the former senior associate of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, both of whom have protested at the White House meddling.

Mother Jones reporters at the hearing will be reporting as they go on.

Update: A new report from Union of Concerned Scientists uncovers new evidence of the Bush Administration tampering with global warming science.

An investigative report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has uncovered new evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science. The report, which includes a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for climate change research but broad interference in communicating scientific results.

"The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."

Read more about the report here.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet