“The documents, first described on Wednesday in The New York Times , stirred reactions ranging from defenses of Mr. Cooney by oil lobbyists to strident criticism by environmental groups and satire from Jon Stewart on his comedy-news program “The Daily Show.” Most scientists and scientific groups, including the National Academy of Sciences in a letter released this week, have said the relationship between greenhouse-gas emissions and warming is clear enough to justify prompt actions by countries to curb emissions. Philip Clapp, the president of the National Environmental Trust, an environmental group in Washington, said the problem with White House treatment of the climate issue was broader than just one person. “His resignation is less surprising than the fact that the lead oil industry lobbyist on global warming should have been given this kind of power over climate science and scientists,” Mr. Clapp said.”

Thanks for your comment. You are of course correct there is an important distinction to be made between political appointees and career bureaucrats. But at the same time it is unrealistic to suggest that career bureaucrats do not have power or inclination to significantly shape agency documents. In fact before climate became so politicized (say in the first 7 years of the USGCRP) I’d bet that the career folks were 100% responsible for the scientific content of OCP (the CCSP SP is a different story). I don’t know this but I’d bet that the first sign off and editing of OCP (which, lets face it, is not a scientific document but a program brochure) by political appointees began around the time of Kyoto. The climate debate is complicated and it is unfortunate that is has been shoehorned into business-as-usual partisan politics – because the issue of politics and science (and climate change as a battleground) transcends these teapot tempests.

Notice I refer to Cooney in the past tense because he just resigned. See the NY Times.

You write, “But shouldn’t the characterization of the state of science be assessed by those in the White House with scientific background, i.e, OSTP? Why an ex-oil lobbyist with an economics bachelor’s degree?”

This raises a follow up question to you – If it is inappropriate for a economist who worked for an oil industry interest group opposed to regulations of greenhouse gases to edit Our Changing Planet, then why would it instead be perfectly OK for a person with training in political science who worked for an environmental interest group that supported regulations of greenhouse gases to oversee the editing of Our Changing Planet for 9 years?

Doesn’t this get to the utter nonsense of trying to evaluate agency documents by the characteristics of who is editing them (probably dozens and dozens of people), rather than what they actually say?