Comments on: Manufactured Controversy http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: The Post-Normal Times - Perspectives on Environmental Science and Policy Decisions http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1163 The Post-Normal Times - Perspectives on Environmental Science and Policy Decisions Fri, 17 Jun 2005 01:11:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1163 <strong>Redundant behavior</strong> The banter about whether or not there is uncertainty about climate change once again exploded in the blogosphere last week, after the New York Times published an article about edits of scientific reports made by now former White House official... Redundant behavior

The banter about whether or not there is uncertainty about climate change once again exploded in the blogosphere last week, after the New York Times published an article about edits of scientific reports made by now former White House official…

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1161 Eli Rabett Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:29:45 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1161 Observer, you are correct. Observer, you are correct.

]]> By: Observer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1160 Observer Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:35:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1160 Eli, as anyone who has ever served on an oversight body would attest, there is a fourth possibility. That the submission for review, as written, is editorially acceptable. Eli, as anyone who has ever served on an oversight body would attest, there is a fourth possibility.

That the submission for review, as written, is editorially acceptable.

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1159 Eli Rabett Sun, 12 Jun 2005 03:29:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1159 "Whatever effects the Bush official's edits had on the plan did not stop the NRC from endorsing its scientific content. Thus, we should conclude that the edits were not particularly significant or they did not remain in the final version." Does not follow at all as anyone who has ever submitted a report to a requesting authority can attest. Essentially your choices are to 1) swallow the cant, knowing now that there will never be any action, 2) to try and insert for publication that there should be urgent action, knowing now knowing that there will never be any action, 3) to go public loudly, knowing that there will never be any action, and that you will never work in this town again. The outcome of this little farago appears to be a mixture of 2 and 3. “Whatever effects the Bush official’s edits had on the plan did not stop the NRC from endorsing its scientific content. Thus, we should conclude that the edits were not particularly significant or they did not remain in the final version.”

Does not follow at all as anyone who has ever submitted a report to a requesting authority can attest. Essentially your choices are to 1) swallow the cant, knowing now that there will never be any action, 2) to try and insert for publication that there should be urgent action, knowing now knowing that there will never be any action, 3) to go public loudly, knowing that there will never be any action, and that you will never work in this town again.

The outcome of this little farago appears to be a mixture of 2 and 3.

]]> By: OnTheInside http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1158 OnTheInside Fri, 10 Jun 2005 05:05:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1158 While the examples Revkin cites are admittedly trivial, they're symptomatic of a much larger effort within the WH to downplay scientifically documented (by bodies like the NRC and the IPCC) risks of climate change and control information. This effort includes much more signifant (and, occasionally, scientifically egregious) edits to prior reports, unprecedented political oversight of climate-related documents/processes, and on several occasions, blocking/slowing the release of climate-related information. The significance of this has nothing to do with its implications for policy (because, as as you say, the "gotcha" game won't work). Rather, its significance is the additional revelation, albeit weak, of inappropriate scientific interference at the highest levels of government and importantly, for the first time, naming a name and providing possible motivations. While the examples Revkin cites are admittedly trivial, they’re symptomatic of a much larger effort within the WH to downplay scientifically documented (by bodies like the NRC and the IPCC) risks of climate change and control information. This effort includes much more signifant (and, occasionally, scientifically egregious) edits to prior reports, unprecedented political oversight of climate-related documents/processes, and on several occasions, blocking/slowing the release of climate-related information.

The significance of this has nothing to do with its implications for policy (because, as as you say, the “gotcha” game won’t work). Rather, its significance is the additional revelation, albeit weak, of inappropriate scientific interference at the highest levels of government and importantly, for the first time, naming a name and providing possible motivations.

]]> By: Observer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1157 Observer Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:29:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1157 ...I would have to agree with your assertion that this "controversy" over minor, even inconsequential, edits is manufactured. I would suspect the real reason for printing the story had more to do with Tony Blair's arrival and a desire to create a "perfect storm". The synergies, even collusion, that routinely occur on these media blitzes, by an iron triangle composed of the media, foundations and their grantees, and party operatives, would startle most casual observers. …I would have to agree with your assertion that this “controversy” over minor, even inconsequential, edits is manufactured.

I would suspect the real reason for printing the story had more to do with Tony Blair’s arrival and a desire to create a “perfect storm”.

The synergies, even collusion, that routinely occur on these media blitzes, by an iron triangle composed of the media, foundations and their grantees, and party operatives, would startle most casual observers.

]]> By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1156 Roger Pielke Jr. Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:59:25 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1156 The press gaggle at the White House yesterday had a lengthy Q&A with Scott McClellan, White House spokeman, on this issue (Thanks Chris Mooney for the link.) It is worth reading in full: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050608-2.html#d The press gaggle at the White House yesterday had a lengthy Q&A with Scott McClellan, White House spokeman, on this issue (Thanks Chris Mooney for the link.) It is worth reading in full:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050608-2.html#d

]]> By: Crumb Trail http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1162 Crumb Trail Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:16:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1162 <strong>Times Twit</strong> It's no news that journalism in general and major news organizations in particular just plain stink. I haven't yet managed to completely ignore them like any other common stink. I do ignore Typical Times Twit Andy Revkin since he... Times Twit

It’s no news that journalism in general and major news organizations in particular just plain stink. I haven’t yet managed to completely ignore them like any other common stink. I do ignore Typical Times Twit Andy Revkin since he…

]]> By: kevin vranes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3493&cpage=1#comment-1155 kevin vranes Thu, 09 Jun 2005 03:33:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3493#comment-1155 funny thing about informational democracy and the advent of search-based news: the at-large community of journalism decides whether it's a real story or not and they've voted with their pens. Google news shows hundreds of outlets picking up the story. Doesn't make your analysis wrong (I agree with it), but perhaps gives a nice insight into what "The Media" is fishing for. funny thing about informational democracy and the advent of search-based news: the at-large community of journalism decides whether it’s a real story or not and they’ve voted with their pens. Google news shows hundreds of outlets picking up the story. Doesn’t make your analysis wrong (I agree with it), but perhaps gives a nice insight into what “The Media” is fishing for.

]]>