I know Piltz (I interned for House Science in 1991), but not Cooney. I have no basis for evaluating their knowledge of climate science, other than the large-picture perspective that neither is trained in science. Since the documents in question were not climate science products, but administrative documents, I am happy to assume that each were perfectly qualified for their jobs. As I suggested the context of the edits (or the writing original report) are not the most important inssue here.

If the NRC committee found some scientifically unsupportable statements in the reports I doubt it would remain silent. Here is an example of what happens when the White House plays too heavy a hand with the NRC:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000315nrc_perchlorate_repo.html

Re Piltz… via his new site:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/

“From 1995 until resigning in March 2005 [Piltz] served in senior positions in the office of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the program that coordinates support for climate and global change research by 13 federal agencies. From 1991-1994 he was a professional staff member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, supporting the committee’s oversight of climate change and energy technology issues.”

I know you are not trying to beat up Piltz… but I don’t think it is fair to put him on the same level as Cooney, just because he is a Democrat. What experience does Cooney have that would qualify him to review scientific information?

Also, does NRC really make many final edits after reports pass through the White House? I mean, if they did, would that trigger a new round of edits, etc? Regarding that EPA report that came out in the summer of 2003, I recall that the White House was very demanding about retaining certain language to the point that the EPA chose to publish the report without chapters on air quality and climate change because they had been altered so far beyond recognition by the White House. It’s certainly possible that the White House intimidated NSA into retaining their edits to Piltz’s work. I don’t know… but I would like to know… in light of their record on this sort of thing.

Either way, a better review process seems in order… I’ll agree with that!

Best, Mitch

“The CCSP should establish a mechanism for independent oversight of the program as a whole in order to maintain its long-term scientific credibility. This committee still believes (as in its first report) that establishing a standing advisory body charged with independent oversight of the entire program will be more effective than using a number of ad hoc external advisory mechanisms. Maintaining scientific credibility is especially important for the synthesis and assessment products designed to summarize and evaluate the implications of the program’s cumulative knowledge for scientific research and policy formation. The CCSP should ensure the credibility of synthesis and assessment products by producing them with independent oversight and review from the wider scientific and stakeholder communities throughout the process.”

and later…..
“In its first report, this committee recommended that the CCSP establish a standing advisory body charged with independent oversight of the entire program. The CCSP considered this recommendation (see Box 3-1), but decided that it would provide independent program oversight through “a number of external advisory mechanisms, including periodic overall program reviews by the NRC or other groups, rather than a single body” (CCSP, 2003, p. 175). The committee still believes that an independent, standing advisory body for the entire program would be the most effective way to maintain the long-term scientific credibility of the program. Such a group should include highly respected scientists and other stakeholders spanning the broad range of topics addressed by the program. This group would supplement advisory groups already established for many CCSP program areas. Whatever mechanism is chosen, the committee believes that independent program oversight will be essential to maintaining the long-term credibility of the CCSP.

Recommendation: The CCSP should establish a mechanism for independent oversight of the program as a whole in order to maintain its long-term scientific credibility.”

The entire report is at http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309088658/html and is mostly concerned with the management structure of the CCSP and the research goals of the program. It was very critical. To claim that the NRC panel issued Cooney a persilschein (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persilschein) is really stretching the rubber band.

Also, is it the case that Piltz wrote those drafts without feedback from the scientists? If the scientists OK’d his language but then complained about Cooney’s edits, trying to put the two on the same level seems to be straining too much.

1. Cooney (among others) edits report
2. Report goes to NRC
3. NRC approves report without contesting Cooney’s specific edits (The NRC committee _was_ the independent scientific oversight)
5. NRC accepted Cooney’s edits as being within the bounds of scientific acceptability

QED