During my tenure on the Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) from 2001 to 2003, I witnessed firsthand the fight to protect scientific integrity in government documents.
– Alan Hecht Director for sustainable development in the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since 2003 he has led ORD’s planning on sustainability research.

via Protecting the Science of Climate Change – Eos.

My comment that I left there (the first one)  “these are perfect examples of the scientific cluelessness of the “public debate” and this obsession with “balance” which is a completely deceptive pseudo-balance. It’s “pseudo” because PUBLIC and MEDIA debates are not the scale on which to determine where a balance lies. The actual scientific work is the only scale. If people consider those conclusions to be “political”, and therefore “unbalanced”, then that only reveals how their own perspective is driven by political partisanship. Science is Science. The trends are the trends. The earth is the earth. That’s that. Sorry. Great article.

I especially love this particular piece of the story:

The situation only got worse when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a note to CEQ chief of staff Phil Cooney on 4 March 2003 saying, “Phil, I don’t know whether you have reviewed the Climate Section of the EPA report, but I think you and Jim need to focus on it before it goes final. Even though the information is generally not new, I suspect this will generate negative press coverage.”

NEGATIVE PRESS COVERAGE.  The OMB is telling us they are more concerned with “Press Coverage” than they are scientific information on the issue?  A sad tale of a group that we are supposed to be able to depend on to tell us the state of the economic outlook?  Incredible.

Also the attempts to include as “balance”, a paper thoroughly discredited as junk science.  The CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality)  put their foot down,  so the EPA removed the chapter on climate change from their report

Whitman’s position was that the chapter—as edited—would diminish EPA’s credibility as an environmental agency.

That “credibility” actually meant it had to be “uncontroversial”,  even though the “controversy” was nonsense stoked by the economic powers with deep interests that the “unsettled science” continue to be so.  The science that had been increasingly SETTLED was a true “inconvenient truth”.

Frankly I am unsure how Hecht thought Whitman “put science above politics”,  when in this case,  she caved to the latter.  Perhaps in the sense that the “credibility” is , in the end,  DEPENDENT on public opinion,  even though that public opinion is becoming less and less educated and science based. Perhaps I misread something. I’m open to alternative meanings,  since Hecht seems extremely credible.

One of those principle White House “editors” (read “censors”) went through that infamous revolving door:

Two days after this leak, Cooney resigned and joined Exxon Mobil.

(Footnote:  I added a second comment just now to the post.  The comment goes as follows:

I do have to be honest and ask how Whitman came across as “protecting the integrity of science” in the described case. Did she not acquiesce to the removal of the chapter. Did this not put politics ahead of science? Does “protecting the reputation of the EPA” include withholding important information from the public because so much of the public is ignorant of the science or its methods? Help me understand another angle on this. I respect Hecht for this article, which is why I was confused on this matter.

It would be cool if Hecht himself responded.)