Not exact matches
Cooney himself made 294 edits to the administration's 364 - page Strategic Plan for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program posted July 24, 2003, «to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming,» and Cooney and the CEQ played a role in eliminating climate change sections in the EPA's draft Report on the Environment as well as its National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Climate Change
Science Program posted July 24, 2003, «to exaggerate or
emphasize scientific
uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role
in global warming,» and Cooney and the CEQ played a role
in eliminating
climate change sections in the EPA's draft Report on the Environment as well as its National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
climate change sections
in the EPA's draft Report on the Environment as well as its National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.
Given that much of the
science backing the consensus view is not
in contention, and given that as we saw
in the last entry
in this series that there is an ethical need to be very careful
in talking about the
uncertainties associated with
climate science, a PR firm led strategy that
emphasizes uncertainty without regard to how much of the
science is settled is extraordinarily unethical.
CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration s Strategic Plan of the
Climate Change
Science Program to exaggerate or
emphasize scientific
uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role
in global warming.
For the next decade — as the emerging
science was becoming increasingly robust, and as international efforts to curb heat - trapping emissions gained steam and calls for action grew more urgent — the company persisted
in emphasizing the lingering
uncertainties of
climate science and the costs of ambitious policies, the documents show.