UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DECEMBER 2007 

POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH 

CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE 

UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1 

A. State of the Science ...........................................................................1 

B. The Committee's Investigation..........................................................3 

II. FINDINGS ...................................................................... 4

A. The White House Censored Climate Scientists ................................4 

1. The White House Controlled which Climate Scientists Could 

Speak with the Media.......................................................................... 4 

a. NOAA .............................................................................................4 

b. NASA ................................................................................................. 9 

2. The White House Extensively Edited Congressional Testimony 

Regarding Climate Science.............................................................. 11

3. The Administration's Censorship of Climate Scientists was 

Widespread ......................................................................................... 16

B. The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports....16 

1. The White House Edited the Strategic Plan of the Climate 

Change Science Program ................................................................ 17

2. The White House Edited EPA's Report on the Environment.......... 21

3. The White House Edited Our Changing Planet.............................. 26

4. The White House Eliminated the Climate Change Section 

of EPA's Air Trends Report .................................................................. 27

C. Other Findings ...................................................................................28 

1. The White House was Involved in Editing EPA's Legal Opinions .. 27 

2. The White House Edited the EPA Administrator's Op-ed 

on Climate Change ........................................................................... 31

IV. CONCLUSION............................................................ 33
i| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has 

been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change 

science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the 

Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative 

hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made 

available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed. 

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before 

the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has 

engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead 

policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming. 

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications 

Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when ... average citizens 

‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science ... [and] recognition of uncertainties 

becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if 

the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials 

and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes 

and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, 

and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of 

climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy. 

The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists

The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists 

on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with 

federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. 

By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White 

House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with 

Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding 

the science of climate change. 

Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the Committee: “Our communications 

people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and 

who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests related to climate 

change issues were handled differently from other requests because “I would have to 

route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice was particularly evident after 

Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the Department 

of Commerce not want scientists who believed that climate change was increasing 

hurricane activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There was a consistent 

approach that might have indicated that.” 
ii| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional 

testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate 

change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas 

Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight 

Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and 

political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his 

written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that 

“we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very 

likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the 

observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in 

increased hurricane intensity became “may play.” 

The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports

There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate 

change by editing climate change reports. 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. 

The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so 

extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the 

report. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded 

paper. In a memo to the Vice President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to 

begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global 

climate change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate 

science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and 

signals of human induced ‘global warming.’” 

In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the 

entire climate change section of the report. 

Other White House Actions 

The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion 

disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton 

personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National 

Academy of Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the last several decades 

are likely mostly due to human activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes are 

unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made.” The first line of 

another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion 

reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The final opinion incorporating the White House edits 

was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA. 

The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA Administrator Christine Todd 

Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate change. Despite 
iii| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions 

of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified. 
1| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

I. INTRODUCTION 

 A. State of the Science 

The basic science of climate change has been well understood for many years. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the preeminent international 

global warming study panel comprised of top scientists from around the world. In 1990, 

the IPCC released its First Assessment Report, which found that anthropogenic emissions 

were substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and 

would enhance the greenhouse effect.1

In 1995, the IPCC released its Second Assessment Report, which found “[t]he balance of 

evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”2

In 2001, the IPCC released its Third Assessment Report, which confirmed that the planet 

was warming and found that “[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the 

warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”3

A key U.S. report was prepared by the National Academy of Sciences in June 2001. In 

the opening paragraph of its report, the National Academy explained:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human 

activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to 

rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several 

decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that 

some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. 

Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue 

through the 21st century.4

The National Academy also stated: 

The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is 

likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations 

accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.5

 

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers: Scientific Assessment of 

Climate Change (1990). 

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate 

Change (1995). 

3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, 

Summary for Policymakers (2001). 

4 National Academy of Sciences, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions 

(June 2001). 

5 Id. 
2| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

The report concluded that “[g]lobal warming could well have serious adverse societal and 

ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature 

increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections.”6

This year, the IPCC issued four new reports that further strengthened these conclusions, 

describing the certainty and causes of global warming, the impacts of global warming, 

and the options for addressing global warming. In its first report in February, the IPCC 

found: 

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from 

observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.7

Furthermore, the IPCC found that most of the increase in globally-averaged temperatures 

since the mid-20th century is “very likely” due to human-caused increased greenhouse 

gas concentrations.8 The IPCC asserted that it is more than 90% certain that global 

warming is mostly caused by humans. 

In its second report in April, the IPCC found that due to global climate change, it was 

“very likely” that the frequency of floods would increase, “likely” that the frequency of 

droughts would increase, and “likely” that hurricane intensity would increase.9

In its third report in May, the IPCC found that “[c]limate change policies related to 

energy efficiency and renewable energy are often economically beneficial, improve 

energy security and reduce local pollutant emissions.”10 

In the final report in November, the IPCC integrated the findings of the year’s prior three 

reports into a single document.11 The scientist and economist who heads the IPCC 

concluded: “If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. ... What we do in the next 

two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”12

As these reports and countless others demonstrate, there is a scientific consensus that the 

Earth is warming and will continue to warm primarily as a result of emissions from 

human activities. This warming will have serious, potentially catastrophic impacts, 

including increased floods, droughts, and hurricane intensity. 

 

6 Id. 

7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 

Summary for Policymakers (Feb. 2007). 

8 Id.

9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers (Apr. 2007). 

10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, 

Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers (May 2007). 

11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Nov. 

2007). 

12 UN Panel: World Has 5 years to Avert Climate “Disaster”, New York Times (Nov. 18, 2007). 
3| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

 B. The Committee’s Investigation

The Committee began its bipartisan investigation into allegations of political interference 

with government climate change science in July 2006, when Rep. Tom Davis, who was 

then the Chairman of the Committee, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman, who was then the 

Ranking Member, wrote to James Connaughton, the Chairman of the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality. This letter requested documents from CEQ regarding 

reports that CEQ made edits to climate change reports and efforts to manage or influence 

the public statements of government climate scientists.13 

On September 19, 2006, Rep. Waxman sent a separate document request to the 

Department of Commerce regarding evidence that the Department prevented government 

scientists from publicly discussing their research on the link between global warming and 

increased hurricane intensity.14 

CEQ and the Commerce Department resisted providing many of the documents requested 

by the Committee. Correspondence exchanged between the Committee and CEQ 

describes the objections raised by CEQ and the Committee’s response.15 Chairman 

Waxman and Ranking Member Davis met with Mr. Connaughton on May 10, 2007, and 

August 1, 2007, to seek to resolve these disputes. 

Ultimately, the disputes over document production were resolved. Over the course of the 

investigation, the Committee received approximately 27,000 pages of documents from 

CEQ in response to the Committee’s requests. The Department of Commerce also 

provided hundreds of pages of documents to the Committee. 

 

On January 30, 2007, the Committee held its first hearing to examine allegations of 

political interference with government climate change science.16 At this hearing, the 

Committee heard testimony from Rick Piltz, formerly a Senior Associate at the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program; Dr. Drew Shindell, an atmospheric physicist at 

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and Dr. Francesca Grifo of the Union of 

Concerned Scientists. 

 

13 Letter from Reps. Tom Davis and Henry A. Waxman to James L. Connaughton (July 20, 2006). 

14 Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Carlos M. Gutierrez (Sep. 19, 2006). 

15 See Letter from James Connaughton to Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis (Jan. 29, 2007); 

Letter from James Connaughton to Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis (Feb. 9, 2007); Letter 

from Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis to James Connaughton (Feb. 14, 2007); Letter from 

Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis to James Connaughton (Feb. 26, 2007); Letter from James 

Connaughton to Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis (Apr. 25, 2007); Letter from Reps. Henry A. 

Waxman and Tom Davis to James Connaughton (June 20, 2007); Letter from James Connaughton 

to Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis (June 27, 2007); Letter from Reps. Henry A. Waxman and 

Tom Davis to James Connaughton (June 28, 2007); Letter from Martin Hall to Reps. Henry A. 

Waxman and Tom Davis (July 23, 2007); Letter from Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis to 

James Connaughton (July 27, 2007); Letter from Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis to James 

Connaughton (Aug. 23, 2007); Letter from James Connaughton to Reps. Henry A. Waxman and 

Tom Davis (Sept. 12, 2007). 

16 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, 110th Cong. (Jan. 30, 2007). 
4| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

On March 19, 2007, the Committee held its second hearing.17 At this hearing, the 

Committee heard testimony from Philip Cooney, former CEQ Chief of Staff; CEQ 

Chairman James Connaughton; Dr. James Hansen, the Director of NASA’s Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies; and George Deutsch, a former NASA public affairs officer. 

During the course of the investigation, the Committee also deposed Mr. Cooney and 

conducted a transcribed interview with Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at 

NOAA.18

II. FINDINGS 

A. The White House Censored Climate Scientists

The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists 

on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with 

federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. 

By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White 

House and agency political appointees suppressed dissemination of scientific views that 

could conflict with Administration policies. The White House and political appointees 

also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. 

1. The White House Controlled which Climate Scientists Could 

Speak with the Media

 a. NOAA 

CEQ routinely controlled which climate scientists at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could speak with the media. The White House and 

the Department of Commerce used this control to steer journalists towards scientists that 

did not believe that there was a link between climate change and increased hurricane 

intensity. 

CEQ documents and a transcribed interview with Kent Laborde, a career public affairs 

officer at NOAA, demonstrate that all media requests to interview NOAA climate 

scientists were sent to CEQ for approval. 

Mr. Laborde explained to Committee staff: “I would have to route media inquiries 

through CEQ. That didn’t change after Katrina, and it only recently ended.”19 He also 

 

17 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II, 110th Cong. (Mar. 19, 2007). 

18 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde (Aug. 9, 

2007); House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney (Mar. 

12, 2007). 

19 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 20 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 
5| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

stated: “at the time all of these things, particularly sensitive issues were vetted or were 

routed through CEQ to get their approval.”20 According to Mr. Laborde, climate change 

was considered a high profile issue and “[a]nything that was very high profile, anything 

that related to policy, anything that particularly related to a current policy debate or 

policy deliberation” had to be routed through CEQ for approval.21 In fact, climate change 

was apparently the only issue that fell into this category. When asked whether interview 

requests related to any other issues required CEQ approval, Mr. Laborde responded: 

“Besides climate? No. Not that I personally dealt with.”22 Mr. Laborde said that Jordan 

St. John, the director of the NOAA communications office, “instructed me that I should 

check with CEQ.”23 Over time, “[i]t just became a kind of tacit understanding” that all 

such requests must be sent to CEQ.24 Press releases related to climate change would also 

be sent to the Department of Commerce communications office for approval and then to 

the White House “for their awareness.”25 

 

During his deposition, former CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney confirmed that CEQ was 

directly involved in screening press requests to interview government scientists. He 

testified: “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone 

should give an interview or not or who it should be.”26 He also testified: “I was — may 

have been involved.”27 

Evidence obtained by the Committee shows that public affairs officers knew that climate 

change was a politically sensitive issue for the Administration. For example, on 

September 22, 2005, Scott Smullen, the deputy director of the NOAA public affairs 

office, e-mailed Mr. Laborde about a press request to interview Dr. Richard Reynold 

regarding warming of the Gulf of Mexico and its causes. In his e-mail, Mr. Smullen 

stated that the interview “is cleared, with the caveat that we tell richard to be very careful 

with how he frames the global warming signal aspect. sensitivities there, as you know.”28 

During his interview, Mr. Laborde confirmed “there was an ambient awareness that this 

has a greater level of sensitivity than any of our other issues.”29 He stated: “I can’t say 

exactly where it came from, but there was an elevated awareness when people were 

talking about climate that a lot of what they would be saying is scrutinized.”30 He 

explained: “Any time that there was a scientific underpinning for a certain policy that 

 

20 Id. at 72. 

21 Id. at 12. 

22 Id. at 2. 

23 Id. at 13. 

24 Id. at 14. 

25 Id. at 87-88. According to Mr. Laborde, in the year following hurricane Katrina, there was an 

even broader, more demanding approval process. During that period, “all requests, whether they 

were climate-related or not, were sent to Department of Commerce for their approval. Id. at 35. 

Mr. Laborde stated that “these extra layers really slowed the process down.” Id. at 67-68. 

26 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney, 162 (Mar. 

12, 2007). 

27 Id. at 161. 

28 E-mail from Scott Smullen to Kent Laborde (Sep. 22, 2005). 

29 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 82-83 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

30 Id.
6| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

people were afraid that — were leery that maybe the science would lean into some sort of 

policy outcome. ... It was public affairs leadership. It was NOAA leadership. It was 

Department of Commerce leadership.”31 

Mr. Laborde confirmed that CEQ was the ultimate decision-maker on whether an 

interview request would be granted. When asked whether an interview would take place 

if CEQ disapproved, Mr. Laborde answered: “No, it would not have gone forward.”32 

He explained: “they would give either the green light or otherwise.”33 He also confirmed 

that the Department of Commerce could veto any media request; if the Department 

“disapproved a request then that interview wouldn’t happen.”34 

Mr. Laborde and his career colleagues in the NOAA public affairs office did not believe 

that the White House’s role was appropriate. When asked “Did you personally think it 

was appropriate for the White House to decide whether a government scientist could 

speak with the press,” he responded “No.”35 And when asked whether other career 

officials in his office agreed with him, he stated: “They felt the same way.”36 

White House control of press access to government climate scientists went beyond 

approving or rejecting interview requests. Michele St. Martin, Associate Director of 

Communications at CEQ, required Mr. Laborde to provide written summaries of 

interviews that were approved. In a June 13, 2005, e-mail, Mr. Laborde told another 

NOAA official: “Michele wants me to monitor the call and report back to her when it’s 

done.”37 He explained to Committee staff that she “pretty often” instructed him to 

produce “a summary of an interview that was done.”38 When a reporter from the New 

York Times requested an interview with Dr. James Mahoney, Director of the Climate 

Change Science Program, in August 2005, Ms. St. Martin approved the interview, but 

instructed Mr. Laborde: “Give me a wrap up of the interview and how you think it 

went.”39 In response questions about this practice, Mr. Laborde told Committee staff: 

“Yes, it happened more than once.”40 

The Department of Commerce also instructed NOAA public affairs officers to “carry 

specific instructions about messages to our scientists.”41 In an October 18, 2005, e-mail 

to Mr. Laborde regarding a request for Dr. Christopher Landsea to appear on the

NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Chuck Fuqua, deputy director of communications at the 

 

31 Id. at 17. 

32 Id. at 23. 

33 Id. at 72. 

34 Id. at 44. 

35 Id. at 24. 

36 Id. at 24-25. 

37 E-mail from Kent Laborde to Jana Goldman (June 13, 2005). 

38 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 23 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

39 E-mail from Michele St. Martin to Kent Laborde (Aug. 19, 2005). 

40 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 45-46 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

41 Id. at 43. 
7| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Department of Commerce, told Mr. Laborde: “make sure Chris is on message.”42 Mr. 

Fuqua had been the Director of Media Operations for the 2004 Republican National 

Convention.43 When asked by Committee staff whether he believed it was appropriate 

for public affairs officers to tell scientists what they should and should not say when 

speaking with the press, Mr. Laborde stated: “It’s inappropriate if it’s related to their 

subject matter or their science because they are the experts on this. We’re not.”44

After Hurricane Katrina, there was a concerted effort by the White House and 

Department of Commerce to direct media inquiries to scientists who did not think climate 

change was linked to increased hurricane intensity. 

For example, in October 2005, NOAA received a request from the CNBC show On the 

Money for Dr. Tom Knutson to appear and discuss whether global warming is 

contributing to the number or intensity of hurricanes. In an October 19, 2005, e-mail, 

Chuck Fuqua of the Department of Commerce asked Mr. Laborde: “what is Knutson’s 

position on global warming vs. decadal cycles? Is he consistent with Bell and 

Landsea?”45 Dr. Bell and Dr. Landsea believed that the recent intensification of 

hurricanes was the result of natural variability. Mr. Laborde responded: “He is 

consistent, but a bit of a different animal. ... His take is that even with worse case 

projections of green house gas concentrations, there will be a very small increase in 

hurricane intensity that won’t be realized until almost 100 years from now.”46 In his 

reply e-mail, Mr. Fuqua stated: “why can’t we have one of the other guys on then?”47 

Mr. Laborde explained that “Bell is unavailable because of other commitments and 

Landsea is busy at the hurricane center with Wilma.”48

Chuck Fuqua then sent an e-mail to Katie Levinson, the Director of White House 

Television Operations, and Michele St. Martin at CEQ. Mr. Fuqua wrote: 

My understanding is that Knutson has been approved by CEQ for interviews on 

this topic in the past. He is a modeler and comes from a bit of a different angle, 

but is apparently consistent with Dr. Bell and Chris Landsea who represent the 

position that we are in a decadal cycle and that warming is not the cause of 

increased hurricane activity. Bell and Landsea are not available for this and I’ve 

pressed NOAA to make sure he’s consistant [sic] with the views represented, and 

am assured he is.49

 

42 E-mail from Chuck Fuqua to Kent Laborde (Oct. 18, 2005). 

43 George Washington University website, Republican National Convention — Organization 

(accessed on Nov. 21, 2007) (online at http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/convs/rconvorg.html). 

44 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 43 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

45 E-mail from Chuck Fuqua to Kent Laborde (Oct. 19, 2005; 11:04 a.m.). 

46 E-mail from Kent Laborde to Chuck Fuqua (Oct. 19, 2005; 11:11 a.m.). 

47 E-mail from Chuck Fuqua to Kent Laborde (Oct. 19, 2005; 11:13 a.m.). 

48 E-mail from Kent Laborde to Chuck Fuqua (Oct. 19, 2005; 11:14 a.m.). 

49 E-mail from Chuck Fuqua to Katie Levinson and Michele St. Martin (Oct. 19, 2005; 12:01 p.m.). 
8| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

In the next e-mail, Katie Levinson responded by asking: “Do we really want to be having 

this debate on a day when a Cat 5 is about to hit? Seems to me we would want our guys 

out talking about preparations for the storm.”50 In a subsequent e-mail she wrote: “Focus 

should be on this hurricane not academic debate in my opinion.”51 Mr. Fuqua agreed, 

stating: “I’ll take that tact during the hurricane.”52 

 

After the e-mail discussion with the White House, Mr. Fuqua instructed Mr. Laborde to 

contact On the Money. Mr. Laborde told Committee staff: “the response was tell them 

that we’re busy with an active hurricane right now and we don’t have time to talk about 

science right now.”53 When asked by Committee staff whether that was an accurate 

statement, Mr. Laborde answered: “I didn’t feel so, no.”54 In response to the question 

“Had Dr. Bell or Dr. Landsea been available, do you think he would have said, don’t send 

them, we’re too busy,” Mr. Laborde said: “No.”55

During his interview, Mr. Laborde explained: “I think that the intention was to show a 

unified position on opinion from within the agency on what’s driving hurricanes.”56 Mr. 

Fuqua wanted a unified position “on the scientific question” even though “[t]here was not 

a scientific consensus necessarily.”57 When asked why Mr. Fuqua wanted Dr. Bell or Dr. 

Landsea to appear on the program instead of Dr. Knutson, Mr. Laborde told Committee 

staff: “it’s probably because he wanted a consistent message coming from the agency.”58

Mr. Laborde’s understanding is confirmed by e-mails between the White House and 

Chuck Fuqua regarding other media requests from September 2005. The Today Show

requested Dr. Gerry Bell “to discuss if there is a link between hurricanes and global 

warming.”59 Ms. Levinson responded: “Not sure this is a good idea. Gets into Al Gore 

statement/politics of global warming.”60 Dana Perino, then White House Deputy Press 

Secretary, interjected: “Problem is we need people to be pushing back on his statements 

— especially when the facts are on our side. If you don’t want a fed gov scientist on, can 

NOAA suggest a surrogate?”61 Michele St. Martin added: “We should be out there with 

our statement that says no connection ... it is accurate and 90% of scientists agree.”62 

Despite the absence of an actual scientific consensus on the link between hurricane 

intensity and global warming, White House and Commerce Department officials were 

 

50 E-mail from Katie Levinson to Chuck Fuqua and Michele St. Martin (Oct. 19, 2005; 12:05 p.m.). 

51 E-mail from Katie Levinson to Chuck Fuqua and Michele St. Martin (Oct. 19, 2005; 12:13 p.m.). 

52 E-mail from Chuck Fuqua to Katie Levinson and Michele St. Martin (Oct. 19, 2005; 12:12 p.m.). 

53 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 39 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

54 Id. at 40. 

55 Id. at 40. 

56 Id. at 36. 

57 Id. at 36. 

58 Id. at 38. 

59 E-Mail from Chuck Fuqua to Katie Levinson (Sept. 19, 2005; 4:40 p.m.). 

60 E-mail from Katie Levinson to Chuck Fuqua (Sept. 19, 2005; 4:40 p.m.). 

61 E-mail from Dana Perino to Katie Levinson and Chuck Fuqua (Sept. 19, 2005; 4:42 p.m.). 

62 E-mail from Michele St. Martin to Dana Perino, Katie Levinson, and Chuck Fuqua (Sept. 19, 2005; 

4:44 p.m.). 
9| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

intent on selectively providing media access to government scientists who would deny 

the existence of such a link. 

These were not isolated occurrences. According to Mr. Laborde: “There was a 

preference for which scientists would respond to inquiries.”63 When asked “Did the 

White House and the Department of Commerce not want scientists who believed that 

climate change was increasing hurricane activity talking with the press,” he responded: 

“I’ve never heard that expressly stated. ... There was a consistent approach that might 

have indicated that.”64 Mr. Laborde was also asked to assess the accuracy of Rick Piltz’s 

statement that “NOAA’s actions are often subtle but they reflect a pervasive pattern of 

deflecting the public’s attention and manipulating the way science is presented to the 

public.” Mr. Laborde stated: “I would say that there is some truth in that. ... I would say 

that there was an influence that was exerted over who could speak.”65 

 b. NASA 

Administration efforts to censor climate scientists extended beyond NOAA and the issue 

of increased hurricane intensity. Sworn statements to Congress and internal e-mails from 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reveal a pattern of political 

interference with the efforts of NASA climate scientists to share their research findings 

with the public. 

Like some of his colleagues at NOAA, Dr. James Hansen, a climate scientist and Director 

of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was prevented by political appointees 

from giving a press interview about climate change. On December 8, 2005, a National 

Public Radio (NPR) journalist requested an interview with Dr. Hansen about global 

warming.66 The request e-mail was sent to Leslie Nolan McCarthy, a career civil servant 

in the Goddard Institute’s public outreach office. According to Ms. McCarthy, about a 

week earlier, a career public affairs officer for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate 

named Dwayne Brown told her that “there were ‘heavy politics’ at NASA Headquarters 

and that the ‘only emphasis is to not make President look bad.’ He also said that he had 

‘never seen this as bad.’”67 

 

Within two hours of Ms. McCarthy’s receipt of the NPR interview request, George 

Deutsch, a political appointee in NASA’s press office, sent an e-mail to Dr. Colleen 

Hartman, a Deputy Associate Administrator at NASA. He wrote: “We discussed it with 

the 9th Floor, and it was decided that we’d like you to handle this interview.”68 At a 

March 19, 2007, Oversight Committee hearing, Mr. Deutsch testified that the “9th Floor” 

 

63 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview with Kent P. Laborde, 85 

(Aug. 9, 2007). 

64 Id. at 40-41. 

65 Id. at 82-83. 

66 E-mail from National Public Radio to Leslie Nolan McCarthy (Dec. 8, 2005; 3:02 p.m.). 

67 Affidavit of Leslie Nolan McCarthy (Mar. 19, 2007). 

68 E-Mail from George Deutsch to Colleen Hartman, et al. (Dec. 8, 2005; 4:49 p.m.). 
10| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

referred to NASA Press Secretary Dean Acosta.69 When asked whether he was “telling 

Dr. Hansen’s staff to tell him that the higher-ups didn’t want him to be on National 

Public Radio,” Mr. Deutsch told the Committee: “That’s fair.”70 According to Mr. 

Deutsch, the press secretary’s main concern was “hitting our messages and not getting 

dragged down into any discussions we shouldn’t get into.”71 

The next day, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail to Ms. McCarthy stating: “Senior management 

has asked us not to use Jim Hansen for this interview.”72 Sixteen minutes later, George 

Deutsch and Dwayne Brown left Ms. McCarthy a voicemail “in which they said that they 

did not want Dr. Hansen to do the NPR interview.”73

Three days later, on December 12, 2005, Mr. Deutsch wrote another e-mail to Ms. 

McCarthy, stating: “Headquarters does not want Dr. Hansen doing this interview 

tomorrow.”74 Mr. Brown also left another voicemail message to say “no NPR 

interview.”75 According to Ms. McCarthy, “Mr. Brown also stated: ‘If Hansen does 

interview, there will be dire consequences.’”76 In the voicemail, Mr. Brown also 

explained that “NPR turned down Colleen Hartman” and “may try to get Hansen.”77

That afternoon, Ms. McCarthy participated in a conference call with George Deutsch, 

Dwayne Brown, and others. According to a signed affidavit Ms. McCarthy submitted to 

the Committee: 

Mr. Brown and Mr. Deutsch explained that they had offered Drs. Cleave and 

Hartman as guests to NPR, but that NPR “kept pressing for Hansen.” Mr. Brown 

and Mr. Deutsch reported that the 9th Floor said: “Do not do interview.” Don 

Savage (a career employee and deputy head of public affairs at the [Goddard 

Space Flight Center]) responded that we “always referred reporters to those 

scientists with expertise in their field” and that nothing is “solved by muzzling 

scientists.”78 

Nearly a month later, the political appointees at NASA were still concerned about Dr. 

Hansen speaking with the press. On January 2, 2006, Dwayne Brown told Ms. McCarthy 

that “political sensitivities are at a high level right now.”79 And on January 9, 2006, 

 

69 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II, 110th Cong. (Mar. 19, 2007). 

70 Id. 

71 Id.; see also, e-mail from George Deutsch (Dec. 8, 2005; 5:05 p.m.). 

72 E-mail from George Deutsch to Leslie Nolan McCarthy, et al. (Dec. 9, 2005; 11:51 a.m.). 

73 Affidavit of Leslie Nolan McCarthy (Mar. 19, 2007). 

74 E-mail from George Deutsch to Leslie Nolan McCarthy (Dec. 12, 2005; 1:46 p.m.). 

75 Affidavit of Leslie Nolan McCarthy (Mar. 19, 2007). 

76 Id.

77 Id.

78 Id.

79 Id.
11| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

George Deutsch told her that “Hansen is extremely disrespectful of government — this 

belief is shared by management.”80

Ultimately, Dr. Hansen was not permitted to do the interview with NPR about climate 

change science. During his March 2007 testimony before the Committee, Dr. Hansen 

explained that this type of political interference is “going on all the time, but most of the 

people doing that ... won’t make the mistake of putting the thing on paper like that.”81 

Referring to the threat of “dire consequences,” he added: “It’s unusual that they will 

make such an explicit threat. ... [T]he mechanisms for keeping government scientists in 

line with policy are pretty powerful, and they don’t need to make an explicit threat.”82

 

Dr. Hansen expressed serious concerns about the impact of this political interference on 

the public discourse: 

The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current 

Administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than 

the facts indicate and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to 

human-made greenhouse gas emissions. 

* * * 

There is little doubt that the Administration’s downplaying of evidence about 

global warming has had some effect on public perception of the climate change 

issue. The impact is to confuse the public about the reality of global warming, 

and about whether that warming can be reliably attributed to human-made 

greenhouse gases.83

Dr. Drew Shindell, another NASA climate scientist, raised similar concerns in his 

testimony before the Committee: 

Suppression of results demonstrating ever-increasing scientific knowledge of the 

principles underlying global warming, of the data demonstrating its rapidity and 

its consequences, and exaggeration of the remaining scientific uncertainties, 

certainly gave the appearance that scientific evidence that could undermine a 

rationale for inaction on climate change was being targeted.84

2. The White House Extensively Edited Congressional Testimony 

Regarding Climate Science 

White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional 

testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate 

 

80 Id.

81 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II, 110th Cong. (Mar. 19, 2007). 

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 Id.
12| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A comparison of Dr. Gerberding’s 

draft written statement and her final statement after White House review showed that the 

White House altered her testimony by eliminating two entire sections of the testimony 

entitled “Climate Change is a Public Health Concern” and “Climate Change 

Vulnerability.”85 Dr. Gerberding says she was “absolutely happy” with her final 

testimony.86 CDC scientists said they were “outraged” and that the White House “gutted” 

the testimony.87

Dr. Gerberding’s testimony is being investigated by the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works.88 For this reason, the Committee did not interview Dr. 

Gerberding or investigate the changes to her testimony. The Committee’s investigation 

did, however, reveal other examples of the White House altering congressional testimony 

to downplay the threat of global warming. 

On July 20, 2006, Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data 

Center, testified before the Committee about climate change science. Previously 

undisclosed internal documents reveal that Dr. Karl’s written and oral testimony was 

extensively edited by the White House and political appointees at NOAA and the 

Commerce Department. 

On July 12, 2006, NOAA circulated draft written testimony for comment.89 Six days 

later, Bob Rainey of CEQ provided a number of edits to Holly Fitter of OMB. According 

to Ms. Fitter’s notes, Mr. Rainey told her that “these comments come from high up the 

chain at CEQ.”90 Several of the edits are reflected in the final testimony Dr. Karl 

submitted to the Committee. For example: 

● The initial draft read: “The state of the science continues to indicate that 

modern climate change is dominated by human influences.” Mr. Rainey 

replaced “dominated” with “affected,” which significantly weakened the 

statement. His explanatory comment was: “not supported by evidence, 

there are views all over the place.”91

● Mr. Rainey deleted the statement: “In many respects we are venturing 

into the unknown territory with changes in climate, and its associated 

effects.” His comment was: “doesn’t add anything to testimony & opens 

up for real hard question.”92

 

85 Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Statement of Julie L. Gerberding (Oct. 23, 

2007); Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, draft Statement of Julie L. Gerberding. 

86 White House 'eviscerated' climate testimony, MSNBC (Oct. 24, 2007). 

87 CDC Director’s Message on Risk Runs Afoul of White House Edits, Science (Nov. 2, 2007). 

88 Letter from Chairman Barbara Boxer to the President (Oct. 24, 2007). 

89 E-mail from Noel Turner to Jennifer Sprague, et al. (July 12, 2006). 

90 E-mail from Kelly Brown to Holly Fitter (July 14, 2006; 4:37 p.m.). 

91 Id.

92 Id.
13| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

These edits were reinforced by a July 18 e-mail sent from Kelly Brown of the Commerce 

Department’s Office of General Counsel to NOAA. The e-mail stated: “These 

comments are in addition to the two CEQ edits we just discussed for the Conclusion 

paragraph on page 10 (replacing ‘dominated’ with ‘affected’, and deleting the last 

sentence).”93

The White House Office of Management and Budget also made changes to the testimony 

that appeared in the final version. For instance: 

● The draft read: “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are 

largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate over the 

past several decades.” OMB deleted the statement. The accompanying 

comment was: “Haven’t seen this before — what’s source? Is it his 

personal opinion — vs — Admin’s position? OMB’s open to reworking 

(vs — deletion).”94

● OMB also insisted on weakening the following statement: “The state of 

the science continues to indicate that modern climate change is dominated 

by human influences.” OMB commented: “The testimony does not seem 

to adequately demonstrate/support this statement.”95

Some efforts by CEQ and OMB to weaken the testimony’s statements regarding climate 

change science were rebuffed by NOAA. For instance: 

● The initial draft read: “there is considerable confidence that the observed 

warming, especially the period since 1970s is mostly attributable to

increases in greenhouse gases.” Mr. Rainey sought to change this to 

“there is considerable confidence that the observed warming, especially 

the period since 1970s is influenced by increases in greenhouse gases.”96 

In this case, however, Mr. Rainey told OMB “he may back off this if he’s 

not right. He’d like to talk to Karl about that.”97 

● The draft included the factual statement: “Recent carbon dioxide emission 

trends in the United States are upward.” OMB responded: “Why is it 

relevant to point this out here?”98

● The draft read: “Today, there is convincing evidence from a variety of 

model and data climate attribution studies pointing to human influences on 

climate.” OMB commented: “Insufficient evidence here that it is 

‘convincing.’”99

 

93 E-mail from Kelly Brown to Noel Turner (July 18, 2006; 2:37 p.m.). 

94 Id.

95 Id.

96 E-mail from Kelly Brown to Holly Fitter (July 14, 2006; 4:37 p.m.) (emphases added). 

97 Id.

98 E-mail from Holly Fitter to Kelly Brown, et al. (July 17, 2006; 1:31 p.m.). 

99 E-mail from Kelly Brown to Noel Turner (July 18, 2006; 2:37 p.m.). 
14| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Political appointees at NOAA and the Commerce Department made their own attempts to 

water down Dr. Karl’s testimony to the Committee. On July 14, 2006, Jennifer Sprague, 

Policy Advisor in the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, appears to have made several edits. She deleted the statement that climate 

change and its associated effects “could be quite disruptive.”100 She also eliminated the 

statement: “The rate of human-induced climate change is projected to be much faster 

than most natural processes prevailing over the past 10,000 years.” Her explanatory 

comment was: “Speculation. No need to state.”101 Ms. Sprague also cut the line: 

“Global changes in the atmospheric composition occur from anthropogenic emissions of 

greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide that results from burning fossil fuels and 

methane and nitrous oxide from multiple human activities.” None of the statements she 

deleted appeared in Dr. Karl’s final written testimony. 

Ahsha Tribble, Technical Chief of Staff in the Office of Assistant Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere, made some of the same edits. In addition, with respect to 

hurricanes, she replaced “global warming is playing some role in the increased activity” 

with the less certain statement “climate change may play some role in the increased 

hurricane intensity.”102

Moreover, Eric Webster, NOAA’s Director of Legislative Affairs, made “significant 

modifications” to Dr. Karl’s oral testimony.103 For example, the original draft testimony 

read: “Slide 1 shows a strong positive correlation between increases in carbon dioxide 

and global temperature.” Mr. Webster called into question human causation of climate 

change when he changed the statement to read: “While Slide 1 shows a strong positive 

correlation between increases in carbon dioxide and global temperature, a specific cause 

and effect relationship cannot be assumed.”104 Dr. Karl included that caveat in his actual 

oral statement. 

In September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Max Mayfield, the Director of 

the National Hurricane Center, was scheduled to testify before the Senate Commerce 

Committee. On September 6, 2005, Tom Jones of Senator Ted Stevens’ Commerce 

Committee staff e-mailed Noel Turner in NOAA’s Office of Legislative Affairs. He 

wrote: 

We’re going to work on smacking the shit out of this issue. At the hearing on the 

14th we’re going to ask max mayfield about it. I’d love to have an answer from 

him that doesn’t contain any long words or flavor of equivocation. Something 

like, “mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has something 

to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t understand the 

 

100 E-mail from Jennifer Sprague to Noel Turner (July 14, 2006; 11:22 a.m.). 

101 E-mail from Jennifer Sprague to Noel Turner (July 14, 2006; 11:22 a.m.). 

102 E-mail from Ahsha Tribble to Noel Turner (July 14, 2006; 1:11 p.m.) (emphases added). 

103 E-mail from Eric Webster to Thomas Karl (July 20, 2006; 12:32 a.m.). 

104 Id. 
15| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of a national 

tragedy.”105

Noel Turner then e-mailed John Sokich of NOAA, stating: 

Talked to Tom Jones a bit today, and have additional insight into what he is 

looking for. With respect to the climate change issue, he is looking for something 

quotable. I believe his exact words were something “pithy, short, and quotable.” 

While I don’t think his verbage is quite right, he is looking for something along 

the lines of “Mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has 

something to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t 

understand the science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of 

a national tragedy.” I would not say that, verbatim, would be appropriate for 

either the VADM [Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of Commerce for 

Oceans and Atmosphere] or Max, as it just doesn’t sound like something they’d 

say — but if we can get something close and quotable, that would probably be 

good. ... I think [t]he number one priority with this hearing is making FEMA look 

bad. Number two could be killing the climate change and hurricanes issue.”106

The priorities articulated by NOAA’s Office of Legislative Affairs may have impacted 

NOAA testimony and talking points. Mr. Mayfield’s written testimony included the 

statement: “The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of 

hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it 

and not enhanced substantially by global warming.”107 The same sentence appeared in 

Mr. Mayfield’s testimony to the House Science Committee.108 His talking points read: 

“Those who would link Hurricane Katrina to global warming just don’t understand the 

science. ... There is always natural variability in our planet’s climate and we are in a 

period of heightened hurricane activity, similar to the period experienced during the 

1940s through the 1960s.” 109 The talking points also included the statement: “These 

natural cycles are far greater than any human influences that may be related to 

hurricanes.”110 

Mr. Mayfield asserts that he was not forced to change his testimony, stating: “I can 

truthfully say that no one told me at any time what to say in regard to possible impacts of 

climate change on tropical cyclones.”111 In his recent statements, he also says: “Most 

meteorologists with knowledge of tropical cyclones think that there will be some impact 

from global warming on hurricanes. The debate is over how much of an impact.”112 In 

 

105 E-mail from Tom Jones to Noel Turner (Sep. 6, 2005; 1:50 p.m.). 

106 E-mail from Noel Turner to John Sokich (Sep. 6, 2005; 3:26 p.m.). 

107 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster 

Prevention and Prediction, Testimony of Max Mayfield (Sep. 20, 2005). 

108 House Committee on Science, Testimony of Max Mayfield (Oct. 10, 2005) (This hearing was 

postponed from Sept. 21 until Oct. 10, 2007). 

109 E-mail from Noel Turner to John Sokich (Sep. 21, 2005; 8:57 a.m.). 

110 Id.

111 “Max Mayfield: ‘No One Forced Me to Say Anything,’” ABC News (Dec. 11, 2007). 

112 “Max Mayfield: ‘No One Forced Me to Say Anything,’” ABC News (Dec. 11, 2007). 
16| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

responding to questions in his Senate testimony in September 2005, Mr. Mayfield said: 

“I have a problem with relating the increase in hurricanes to global warming. ... [W]e 

couldn’t even measure this with the tools that we have now.”113 The Committee did not 

question Mr. Mayfield about his prior testimony. 

The talking points for General David Johnson, Director of the National Weather Service, 

stated: “the increased hurricane activity can be explained completely by natural cycles of 

hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean along with the atmosphere above it.”114

3. The Administration’s Censorship of Climate Scientists was 

Widespread 

Political interference with the work of government climate change scientists has not been 

confined to NOAA and NASA. At the January 30, 2007, Oversight Committee hearing, 

Dr. Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new survey 

that revealed that 150 federal climate scientists from eight federal agencies personally 

experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years.115 

UCS received reports of at least 435 specific incidents of political interference with the 

work of government climate scientists.116

Much of this political interference compromised the ability of climate scientists to 

accurately convey their scientific findings to the public. UCS found that 46% of the 

scientists who responded to the survey “perceived or personally experienced pressure to 

eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a 

variety of communications.”117 37% of the scientists “perceived or personally 

experienced statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented scientists’ 

findings.”118 Moreover, 38% of the scientists “perceived or personally experienced the 

disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials 

related to climate.”119

B. The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change 

Reports

The White House systematically minimized the significance of climate change by editing 

government climate change reports. Documents obtained by the Committee show that 

CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 181 edits to the 

 

113 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster 

Prevention and Prediction, Testimony of Max Mayfield (Sep. 20, 2005). 

114 E-mail from Jennifer Sprague to Scott Carter, et al. (Oct. 6, 2005). 

115 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, 110th Cong. (Jan. 30, 2007). See also, Union of 

Concerned Scientists and the Governmental Accountability Project, Atmosphere of Pressure: 

Political Interference in Federal Climate Science (Feb. 2007). 

116 Id. 

117 Id. 

118 Id. 

119 Id. 
17| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or 

emphasize scientific uncertainties. They also made at least 113 additional edits to the 

plan to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming. 

Other Administration documents that were heavily edited by the White House include 

EPA’s Report on the Environment, the annual report to Congress entitled Our Changing 

Planet, and EPA’s Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends. 

Mr. Cooney was a lawyer who worked for more than 15 years at the American Petroleum 

Institute (API), the primary trade association of the oil industry, before joining CEQ in 

2001. His last position at API was as team leader of the climate team where it was his 

job to ensure that any governmental actions taken relating to climate change were 

consistent with the goals of the petroleum industry.120 According to an internal API 

document prepared in 1999, “Climate is at the center of industry’s business interests. 

Policies limiting carbon emissions reduce petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s 

highest priority issue and defined as ‘strategic.’”121 A 1998 API document entitled 

“Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan” stated: 

 Victory will be achieved when ... average citizens “understand” uncertainties in 

climate science; ... recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional 

wisdom”; ... [and] media coverage reflects balance on climate science and 

recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current “conventional 

wisdom.”122

White House edits to climate change documents mirror API’s stated strategy on this 

issue. 

1. The White House Edited the Strategic Plan of the Climate 

Change Science Program 

In July 2003, the Administration released a document entitled Strategic Plan for the 

Climate Change Science Program to guide research into the effects of climate change. 

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program was established in February 2002 to integrate 

the climate change research conducted by a number of federal agencies. The National 

Research Council has noted the important role of the Strategic Plan in the effort to 

address global climate change: 

The issues addressed by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) are 

among the most crucial of those facing humankind in the twenty-first century. ... 

[S]etting new strategic directions for the CCSP is particularly important. This 

new program must complement the research of the last decade, which focused on 

building an understanding of the Earth system, with research to explicitly support 

decision making. To do so, it will be necessary to continue research into the 

 

120 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Deposition of Phillip Cooney, 19 (Mar. 12, 

2007). 

121 American Petroleum Institute, Strategic Issue: Climate Change (undated). 

122 American Petroleum Institute, Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan (Apr. 3, 

1998). 
18| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

physical, chemical, and biological aspects of climate and associated global 

changes, and to add research that will enable decision makers to understand the 

potential impacts ahead and make choices among possible response strategies.123

The Committee obtained numerous drafts of the Strategic Plan. These drafts were 

extensively edited by CEQ, primarily by Mr. Cooney. The edits had the effect of 

exaggerating or emphasizing scientific uncertainties and deemphasizing the human role 

in global warming. The edits also inserted references to the possible benefits of climate 

change, removed language suggesting action to combat global warming, and deleted 

references to the National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change, a comprehensive climate change analysis widely respected in the 

scientific community.

In four rounds of CEQ edits to the Strategic Plan, Mr. Cooney and Brian Hannegan, 

CEQ’s Associate Director for Energy & Transportation, made at least 181 edits that had 

the effect of exaggerating or emphasizing scientific uncertainties related to global 

warming.124 Dozens of these edits were reflected in the final version of the Strategic 

Plan. For example: 

• The October 21, 2002, draft read: “Warming temperatures will also affect 

Arctic land areas.”125 Mr. Cooney replaced the certainty of “will” with the 

uncertainty of “may.” With his edit, the sentence read: “Warming 

temperatures may also affect Arctic land areas.”126 

• The May 28, 2003, draft read: “[R]ecent warming has been linked to longer 

growing seasons ... grass species decline, changes in aquatic diversity, and 

coral bleaching.”127 Mr. Cooney inserted the words “indicated as potentially,” 

so that the sentence read: “[R]ecent warming has been indicated as potentially 

linked to growing seasons ... grass species decline, changes in aquatic 

diversity, and coral bleaching.”128 This edit introduces a sense of uncertainty 

that is not present in the original draft prepared by government scientists. 

• The June 5, 2003, draft read: “Climate modeling capabilities have improved 

dramatically in recent years and can be expected to continue to do so. As a 

result, scientists are now able to model Earth system processes and the 

coupling of those processes on a regional and global scale with increasing 

precision and reliability.”129 CEQ eliminated these sentences from the draft.130

 

123 National Research Council, Implementing Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of 

the Final U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan (2004). 

124 These drafts are dated October 28, 2002, May 30, 2003, June 2, 2003, and June 16, 2003. 

125 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program at 20 (Oct. 21, 2002). 

126 Id. 

127 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, 8-5 (May 28, 2003). 

128 Id. 

129 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, 294 (June 5, 2003). 

130 Id. 
19| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

In the four rounds of CEQ edits to the Strategic Plan, Mr. Cooney and Mr. Hannegan 

made at least 113 additional edits that deemphasized or diminished the importance of the 

human role in global warming. Dozens of these changes were reflected in the final 

version of the Strategic Plan. For example: 

• The October 21, 2002, draft read: “Moreover, model simulations that 

incorporate a full suite of natural and anthropogenic forcings have 

demonstrated that the observed changes over the past century are consistent 

with a significant contribution from human activity.”131 Mr. Cooney replaced 

“demonstrated” with “indicated” and inserted a “likely.” These edits had the 

effect of minimizing the human contribution to global warming. The resulting 

sentence read: “Moreover, model simulations that incorporate a full suite of 

natural and anthropogenic forcings have indicated that the observed changes 

over the past century are likely consistent with a significant contribution from 

human activity.”132 

• The June 2, 2003, draft defined “mitigation” to mean “an intervention to 

reduce the causes or effects of human-induced change in climate.”133 CEQ’s 

edits eliminated the phrase “human-induced” from this definition.134

CEQ also inserted language suggesting possible benefits of climate change. For example, 

the June 2, 2003, draft read: “Identify ecological systems susceptible to abrupt 

environmental changes with potentially severe impacts on goods and services.”135 CEQ 

replaced “severe” with “significant (positive or negative).” As a result, the draft stated: 

“Identify ecological systems susceptible to abrupt environmental changes with potentially 

significant (positive or negative) impacts on goods and services.”136 This revision diluted 

the concerns raised by the original statement regarding the economic effects of global 

warming. 

In addition, CEQ removed language evoking the need for action to combat global 

warming. For instance, the June 16, 2003, edits removed five references to “decisionrelevant” or “policy-relevant” information.137 In a document listing all of the edits that 

CEQ made on that date, CEQ commented: “payoff is improved understanding, not 

enabling of actions.”138

Finally, CEQ removed nine references to the National Assessment of the Potential 

Consequences of Climate Change from various drafts of the Strategic Plan. At the 

January 2007 climate change hearing, Rick Piltz, formerly a Senior Associate at the 

 

131 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, 63 (Oct. 21, 2002). 

132 Id. 

133 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, 3 (June 2, 2003). 

134 Id. 

135 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program, 168 (June 2, 2003). 

136 Id. 

137 Draft of Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program (June 2, 2003 and June 5, 

2003). 

138 Id. 
20| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Climate Change Science Program, testified that the National Assessment, which was 

released in 2000, is “the most comprehensive and authoritative scientifically based 

assessment of the potential consequences of climate change for the United States.”139 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Assessment represents “the 

current standard for comprehensive regional and sectoral analyses of the potential 

impacts of climate change for the United States.”140 

In his Committee deposition, Mr. Cooney was asked about the deletions of the references 

to the National Assessment. He testified that he thought that a legal settlement agreement 

between the Bush Administration and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which 

receives funding from the oil industry, prohibited the Administration from mentioning the 

National Assessment in the Strategic Plan.141 However, he also testified that he did not 

speak with the Department of Justice about the meaning of the settlement agreement and 

did not “really know what it absolutely requires and absolutely doesn’t.”142 Moreover, 

Stanley Sokul of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 

informed Mr. Cooney on March 20, 2003, that “[t]he lawsuit was withdrawn without a 

consent order or any other agreement.”143 

When Rick Piltz testified before the Committee in January 2007 about the White House 

edits to the Strategic Plan, he explained: “Taken in the aggregate, the changes had the 

cumulative effect of shifting the tone and content of an already quite cautiously-worded 

draft to create an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about climate change and its 

implications.”144 

In his deposition, Mr. Cooney stated that CEQ’s edits were merely recommended 

changes that could be accepted or rejected by Dr. James Mahoney, the Director of the 

Climate Change Science Program. According to the CEQ documents, however, Mr. 

Cooney signed a “concurrence sheet” before the release of the final document. This 

concurrence sheet stated that Mr. Cooney “approved” the Strategic Plan.145 He also sent 

an e-mail to Dr. Mahoney on July 2, 2003, which indicated his expectation that CEQ’s 

edits would be reflected in the final draft. Mr. Cooney wrote: “Is there any means of 

your assuring me that CEQ’s comments were accepted in this final draft. ... [M]y 

alternative is to re-read the 330+ pages.”146 

 

139 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearings on Political Interference with 

Science: Global Warming, 110th Cong. (Jan. 30, 2007). 

140 National Research Council, Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned (Feb. 

2007). 

141 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney, 97 (Mar. 

12, 2007). 

142 Id. at 103, 101. 

143 E-mail from Stanley Sokul to Philip Cooney (Mar. 20, 2003). 

144 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming (Jan. 30, 2007). 

145 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney, 57, 61, 

73, 74, 82, 132, 146 151-152, 156-157 (Mar. 12, 2007); Concurrence Sheet (Bates # 1484). 

146 E-mail from Philip Cooney to James Mahoney (July 2, 2003). 
21| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

During his March 2007 testimony at a Committee hearing, Mr. Cooney argued that his 

edits to the Strategic Plan and other climate change reports were guided by the June 2001 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on the state of climate science. For 

example, he stated: 

I had the authority and responsibility to make recommendations on the documents 

in question, under an established interagency review process. I did so using my 

best judgment based on the Administration’s stated research priorities, as 

informed by the National Academy of Sciences.147

He also testified: “my comments of a scientific nature were really derivative. ... they 

relied on the major findings of the National Academy of Sciences according to the report 

that it released for the President in June 2001.”148

In his testimony before the Committee, Chairman James Connaughton also claimed that 

CEQ’s edits were based upon the report of the National Academy of Sciences. He stated: 

When you look at the actual comments being proposed by the various offices, not 

just CEQ’s, most of them echoed nearly verbatim or appropriately reflected the 

substance of the 2001 National Academies of Science report on climate science.149

However, the documents obtained by the Committee show that Mr. Cooney’s practice 

was to cherry-pick references to scientific uncertainty in the NAS report while 

simultaneously deleting or watering down direct quotes from the report on the basic 

science of global warming.150

2. The White House Edited EPA’s Report on the Environment

In 2002 and 2003, EPA prepared a document entitled Report on the Environment that was 

supposed to be EPA’s “first-ever national picture of the U.S. environment.”151 The goal 

of the report was to describe “what EPA knows — and doesn’t know — about the current 

state of the environment at the national level, and how the environment is changing.”152 

EPA released this report in draft form in June 2003 for public comment. 

The White House had begun to edit the draft report by early 2003. On January 27, 2003, 

Paul Anastas of the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) sent OSTP’s comments to 

Alan Hecht, an EPA employee detailed to work at CEQ. Mr. Anastas noted that OSTP’s 

comments were “especially strong on the climate change section.”153 OSTP wrote: 

 

147 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II (Mar. 19, 2007). 

148 Id. 

149 Id.

150 Examples of this practice are discussed in Part III.B.2 at text accompanying footnotes 154 - 155. 

151 Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report on the Environment (June 2003). 

152 Id. 

153 E-mail from Paul Anastas to Alan Hecht (Jan. 27, 2003). 
22| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

This section should be thoroughly reviewed for content and the usefulness of that 

content. The section “What are the contributions to climate change[”] is not 

balanced an[d] virtually ignores any mention of natural variability. ... If this 

cannot be balanced, it needs to be removed.154

The next day, Mr. Hecht wrote to CEQ Chairman James Connaughton and Mr. Cooney: 

“There are a few issues that should receive attention at the policy level ... including: 

chapter on climate change — in or out.”155

About a month later, on March 4, 2003, Robert Fairweather of OMB e-mailed Mr. 

Cooney with additional concerns about the draft Report on the Environment. He wrote: 

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 this goes final. Even 

though the information is generally not new, I suspect this will generate negative 

press coverage.156 

Two days later, Mr. Hecht noted that OMB had “also marked up the climate section” of 

the report.157 On March 13, Mr. Hecht informed EPA: “You will also have a lo[n]g list 

of suggested edits from ceq with substantive changes on the climate section.”158 

In April 2003, Mr. Hecht reported to Mr. Cooney: “I sense some grumbling from EPA 

on the climate section, but we’ll see if they push back.”159 Mr. Hecht also discussed the 

dynamics between CEQ and EPA. On April 7, he wrote: 

Global air and climate change is a separate chapter. Phil and Rob worked this 

over and I returned it to EPA for their review. EPA will visit with me on Friday 

to argue any further changes.160

CEQ provided the Committee with copies of Mr. Cooney’s handwritten edits to a draft of 

the EPA report.161 In these edits, Mr. Cooney deleted uncontroversial statements about 

the knowledge of climate change. For example, he deleted the statement, “Climate 

change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” Additionally, 

he deleted the following sentence that quoted from the National Academy of Sciences: 

The NRC [National Research Council] concluded that “Greenhouse gases are 

accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air 

temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” 

 

154 Id.

155 E-mail from Alan Hecht to James Connaughton and Philip Cooney (Jan. 28, 2003). 

156 E-mail from Robert Fairweather to Philip Cooney (Mar. 4, 2003). 

157 E-mail from Alan Hecht to Theodore Heintz, Kameran Onley, and Philip Cooney (Mar. 6, 2003). 

158 E-mail from Alan Hecht to Mike Flynn (Mar. 13, 2003). 

159 E-mail from Alan Hecht to Philip Cooney (Apr. 4, 2003). 

160 E-mail from Alan Hecht to Elizabeth Stolpe (Apr. 7, 2003). 

161 Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Report on the Environment, Global Issues Section (Apr. 

11, 2003). 
23| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Mr. Cooney replaced this sentence with a sentence that leaves uncertain the significance 

of human activities: 

Some activities emit greenhouse gases and other substances that directly or 

indirectly may affect the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation, thereby 

potentially affecting climate on regional and global scales.162

Mr. Cooney also deleted any reference to average surface temperature reconstructions, 

which indicate that temperatures have been rising over the past 1,000 years. Moreover, 

he added a reference to a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute that disputes 

the judgment of the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change.163 

In fact, on April 21, 2003, Mr. Cooney sent a memo about this industry-funded paper to 

Kevin O’Donovan in the Office of the Vice President.164 In the memo, Mr. Cooney 

explained his motivation for inserting a reference to the paper into the EPA report: 

The recent paper of Soon-Baliunas contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in 

the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past 

millennium and signals human induced “global warming.” ... We plan to begin to 

refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global 

climate change; in fact, CEQ just inserted a reference to it in the final draft 

chapter on global climate change contained in EPA’s first “State of the 

Environment” report. ... With both the National Academy and IPCC 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) holding that the 20th Century is the 

warmest of the past thousand years (see below), this recent study begins to 

provide a counterbalance on the point to those two authorities. It represents an 

opening to potentially invigorate debate on the actual climate history of the past 

1000 years and whether that history reinforces or detracts from our level of 

confidence regarding the potential human influence on global climate change.165

 

At the Committee’s January 30, 2007, hearing, Dr. Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at 

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, explained: 

Soon and Baliunas are both astronomers. They are not climate scientists, but that 

is okay, as long as their work stands up. Basically, what that paper was, there is 

no original research. It is instead a survey of other climate scientists’ work where 

they basically took all of the uncertainties and caveats, things that were not 

included in the studies, compiled them and said that then, given that there were so 

many uncertainties and things that were not fully understood, we could not say 

much of anything about climate change. However, that is in complete contrast to 

 

162 Id. 

163 Id. The authors of this report are Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, and the report is sometimes 

identified by referencing the authors.

164 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Kevin O’Donovan (Apr. 21, 2003). 

165 Memorandum from Philip Cooney to Kevin O’Donovan (Apr. 21, 2003). 
24| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

the views of nearly every expert in climate science. So I think that that is not at 

all representative, and I would not say that one alternative paper undermines the 

thousands of papers that go into a document like the IPCC report.166 

The White House instructed EPA to retain the White House edits. CEQ produced to the 

Committee a copy of a cover sheet that accompanied a set of Mr. Cooney’s edits to the 

draft EPA report. On this cover sheet, Mr. Cooney wrote, “These changes must be 

made.”167 In a separate e-mail to Mr. Hecht, Mr. Cooney instructed: “These changes 

must be made, as we have discussed.”168 During his deposition, Mr. Cooney confirmed 

that he wrote this comment and acknowledged that “the language is mandatory.”169 He 

further testified: “If they want to publish, they need to respond, to engage in our 

comments. And so it was my way of getting Alan Hecht something to go back to the 

Agency with and say, you have got to engage their comments.”170 

Moreover, on April 24, 2003, Claudia Abendroth of OMB informed EPA: “please note 

that the comments reflect careful EOP review and clearance, and that no further changes 

may be made.”171 On May 7, 2003, Mr. Hecht reported to Mr. Connaughton and Mr. 

Cooney: “EPA was meeting last night to review climate section and determine if they 

can live with CEQ-OMB changes.”172 Six days later, Mr. Hecht announced: “EPA will 

yank the climate change section.”173 Mr. Cooney forwarded Mr. Hecht’s e-mail to a 

number of CEQ officials and advised: “Please do not discuss by e-mail.”174

The Committee was also provided a copy of a June 2003 EPA memo, in which EPA staff 

described three options for responding to CEQ’s extensive edits to the Report on the 

Environment from which the EPA Administrator could choose. Option 1 was for the 

EPA Administrator to accept the CEQ and OMB edits. While EPA staff noted this was 

the “easiest” course of action, they also cautioned that “EPA will take responsibility and 

severe criticism from the science and environmental community for poorly representing 

the science.”175 According to the EPA staff, the edited report “undercuts” the National 

Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.176 EPA staff 

further warned that the edited report “provides specific text to attack” and creates the 

“potential to extend the period of criticism.”177

 

166 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, 110th Cong. (Jan. 30, 2007). 

167 Cover Sheet (undated) (WH 6, EPA Draft Report on the Environment). 

168 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Alan Hecht (Apr. 16, 2003). 

169 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney, 159-160 

(Mar. 12, 2007). 

170 Id. at 160. 

171 E-mail from Claudia Abendroth to Mike Flynn (Apr. 24, 2003). 

172 E-mail from Alan Hecht to James Connaughton and Philip Cooney (May 7, 2003). 

173 E-mail from Alan Hecht to Claudia Abendroth (May 13, 2003). 

174 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Dana Perino, et al. (May 13, 2003). 

175 Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Issues Surrounding Presentation of Climate Change: 

EPA’s Draft Report on the Environment (undated) (WH 22, EPA Draft Report on the Environment). 

176 Id. 

177 Id. 
25| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

The second option that EPA staff outlined for the EPA Administrator was to remove the 

climate change section entirely from the Report on the Environment. The benefits of this 

approach, according to EPA staff, were that it would provide “little content for attacks on 

EPA’s science” and it “may be the only way to meet both WH and EPA needs.”178 EPA 

staff expressed concern that “EPA will take criticism for omitting climate change” from 

the report.179

The third option for the EPA Administrator was to refuse to accept the White House’s 

“no further changes” direction and try to reach compromise.180 EPA staff seemed to 

prefer this approach, stating that it was the “only approach that could produce a credible 

climate change section” in the Report on the Environment.181 However, they warned, this 

course of action could “antagonize the White House” and “it is likely not feasible to 

negotiate agreeable text.”182

In the end, EPA Administrator Whitman took the second option and deleted the 

discussion of climate change when the Report on the Environment was released in draft 

form for public comment. During his deposition, Mr. Cooney testified that he believed 

that CEQ Chairman Connaughton personally spoke with then-EPA Administrator 

Whitman to resolve the disagreements between CEQ and EPA regarding the edits. At the 

March 19, 2007, hearing, Mr. Connaughton confirmed that this conversation took place. 

He testified: 

When the process was not leading to a reconciliation by the various offices in the 

White House and from other agencies, I did get on the phone — actually, 

Governor Whitman called me, EPA Administrator Whitman called me. We were 

talking about a range of things, but this is one of the issues that we talked about.183

According to Mr. Cooney, “Governor Whitman made the decision to remove the 5-page 

summary on climate change science.”184 In his hearing testimony, Mr. Connaughton 

confirmed that Administrator Whitman made the decision.185 

EPA never issued a final version of the Report on the Environment. 

 

178 Id. 

179 Id. 

180 Id.

181 Id.

182 Id.

183 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II, 110th Cong. (Mar. 19, 2007). 

184 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Deposition of Philip Cooney, 140 

(Mar. 12, 2007). 

185 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Hearing on Allegations of Political 

Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II, 110th Cong. (Mar. 19, 2007). 
26| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

 3. The White House Edited Our Changing Planet

Mr. Cooney and CEQ also edited Our Changing Planet, an annual report to Congress 

from the Climate Change Science Program. The Our Changing Planet reports are the 

Administration’s primary communication to Congress about the status of the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program. These documents provide the basis for congressional 

oversight and budget planning.

The Committee obtained a November 4, 2002, memorandum from Dr. Mahoney and Dr. 

Richard Moss of the Climate Change Science Program to Mr. Cooney. The subject line 

of this memorandum reads: “Response to CEQ Review Comments on FY 2003 ‘Our 

Changing Planet.’”186 In the memorandum, Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Ross explained: 

We have accepted and included in the final text about 80 percent of the 

approximately 110 revisions proposed by CEQ to “Our Changing Planet.” ... 

These revisions have been incorporated verbatim except for a few minor instances 

of editing for syntax and stylistic consistency. However, we have concerns about 

some of the proposed revisions.187

The memorandum then discussed a number of problematic edits. For example, the initial 

draft read: “Reducing the scientific uncertainty in global climate models could ... 

provide information essential to projecting the impacts of climate change on 

ecosystems.”188 Mr. Cooney changed the statement to: “Reducing the scientific 

uncertainty in global climate models could ... in the long run provide information on the 

potential impacts of climate change on ecosystems.”189 This edit made climate models 

seem less useful than they are and climate change less certain than it is. It also implied 

that global climate models would not provide useful information for a long period of 

time. Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Ross responded to this edit by stating: “Not just ‘in the long 

run.’ Research is already providing meaningful information on potential impacts of 

climate change on ecosystems.”190 The phrase “in the long run” appeared in the final text 

of the report. 

In another case, Mr. Cooney proposed deleting a paragraph about specific areas of 

science that needed further study. Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Ross pointed out that the 

paragraph at issue “tracks closely” the National Research Council’s report.191 They also 

wrote: “The proposed deletion would produce a less accurate and less balanced summary 

of the key research issues as identified by the NRC.”192 Yet the paragraph at issue does 

not appear in the final version of Our Changing Planet. In several other cases, Mr. 

 

186 Memorandum from Jim Mahoney and Richard Moss, Climate Change Science Program, to 

Philip Cooney, Council on Environmental Quality (Nov. 4, 2002) (Bates # 799). 

187 Id.

188 Id.

189 Id. (underlining added). 

190 Id.

191 Id. 

192 Id.
27| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Cooney wrote “no” in the margin next to the alternative wording provided by Dr. 

Mahoney and Dr. Ross. 

On October 18, 2005, Ahsha Tribble, the Technical Chief of Staff of the Office of 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, e-mailed Bryan Hannegan 

at CEQ about the fiscal year 2006 edition of Our Changing Planet. The e-mail shows 

how tightly CEQ controlled edits to the report. The subject line of the e-mail read: 

“OCP — removing one sentence — OKAY?”193 Ms. Tribble wrote: 

[I]t has been suggested by our policy shop that we remove the first sentence in the 

“Projected changes in hurricane intensity and rainfall” section. The sentence to 

be removed reads, “Recent research indicates that greenhouse warming may lead 

to increases in hurricane intensity and rainfall in future decades.” Do you 

concur?194 

Mr. Hannegan responded: “Yes, I concur.”195

4. The White House Eliminated the Climate Change Section of 

EPA’s Air Trends Report 

Mr. Cooney and CEQ also reviewed EPA’s Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 

2002 Status and Trends. Issued in August 2003, the report was supposed to be “a 

summary report highlighting our nation’s air quality status and trends.”196 EPA had 

previously included a discussion of climate change in this annual report. EPA’s Latest 

Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends contained a section entitled 

“Global Warming & Climate Change.”197 

 

With respect to this report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire 

climate change section. On August 19, 2002, EPA sent the draft report to Mr. Cooney.198 

In response, he sent EPA two quotes from the National Academy of Sciences report that 

discussed scientific uncertainties.199 Mr. Cooney then informed two other CEQ officials: 

“I will advise EPA to use new quotes below and changes in attached text. I will also ask 

why climate change is mentioned at all in this report on air quality trends, whether it is 

required by law to be covered.”200 

 

193 E-mail from Ahsha Tribble to Bryan Hannegan (Oct. 18, 2005). 

194 Id.

195 E-mail from Bryan Hannegan to Ahsha Tribble (Oct. 18, 2005). 

196 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and 

Trends (Aug. 2003). 

197 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and 

Trends (Sept. 2001). 

198 E-mail from Jackie Krieger to Philip Cooney (Aug. 19, 2002; 12:58 p.m.). 

199 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Jackie Krieger (Aug. 19, 2002; 3:54 p.m.). 

200 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Kenneth Peel and Kameran Bailey (Aug. 19, 2002; 4:37 p.m.). 
28| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

The next day, Mr. Cooney reported: 

EPA will not include in this year’s report on air quality trends a section on 

greenhouse gas emissions, agreeing that this topic has already been covered 

extensively in other USG reports. ... EPA also agreed that including a discussion 

on greenhouse gas emissions in a report focused on criteria air pollutants under 

the Clean Air Act — and their related health impacts — could be inappropriate 

and confusing.201 

Mr. Cooney added: “EPA (Jackie Krieger) will put together some ‘IF ASKED’ talking 

points to respond to any criticism for deleting any discussion of greenhouse gases from 

this report.”202

C. Other Findings 

CEQ documents demonstrate that the White House was heavily involved in editing 

EPA’s legal opinion that the agency did not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Internal Administration documents also 

show that the White House edited an op-ed by former EPA Administrator Christine Todd 

Whitman to insert an unsupported claim regarding the economic impact of the Kyoto 

Protocol. 

 1. The White House was Involved in Editing EPA’s Legal 

Opinions 

On April 10, 1998, EPA General Counsel Jonathan Z. Cannon issued a legal opinion 

regarding “EPA’s Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation 

Sources.”203 Mr. Cannon concluded that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were 

“air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and therefore subject to regulation by EPA. A 

year and a half later, a number of environmental organizations petitioned EPA to regulate 

emissions of certain greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air 

Act.204 On August 28, 2003, EPA denied this petition on the grounds that (1) EPA did 

not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean 

Air Act and (2) EPA determined that setting greenhouse gas emissions standards for 

motor vehicles was not appropriate at that time.205 The same day, Robert E. Fabricant, 

EPA’s then General Counsel, issued a new legal opinion overturning the Cannon memo 

and concluding that EPA did not have authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act because they are not “air pollutants.”206 EPA’s 

action was subsequently challenged by states and environmental groups. 

 

201 E-mail from Philip Cooney to Kathie Olsen, et al. (Aug. 20, 2002). 

202 Id.

203 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum from Jonathon Z. Cannon, General 

Counsel, to Carole M. Browner, Administrator (Apr. 10, 1998). 

204 International Center for Technology Assessment Petition (Oct. 20, 1999). 

205 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Response to the Petition (Aug. 28, 2003). 

206 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum from Robert E. Fabricant, General 

Counsel, to Marianne L. Horinko, Acting Administrator (Aug. 28, 2003). 
29| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in the case of 

Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court rejected the arguments put forth in the Fabricant 

memo and ruled that EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse 

gas emissions from motor vehicles. 

Documents obtained from CEQ reveal that CEQ Chairman James Connaughton was 

heavily involved in the decision that EPA would deny the petition to regulate greenhouse 

gas emissions from motor vehicles and personally edited the draft legal opinion of EPA’s 

General Counsel. The documents also show that CEQ ignored climate science when it 

edited these EPA decision documents, despite claims of CEQ officials that the National 

Academy of Sciences report on climate change was CEQ’s touchstone. 

On April 17, 2003, Bill Wehrum, a senior political appointee in EPA’s Office of Air and 

Radiation who later became Acting Assistant Administrator, sent a fax to Mr. 

Connaughton. The cover sheet read: “Jim — As discussed earlier this week, attached is 

a one-pager that summarizes possible grounds for denying the petition to regulate GHG 

emissions from motor vehicles.”207 The attached one-pager presents four possible 

grounds for denying the petition: (1) “EPA is not authorized to regulate CO2 emissions 

from motor vehicles because CO2 is not an ‘air pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA)”; (2) “EPA is not authorized to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles 

because the CAA limits EPA’s authority with regard to CO2 to research and other nonregulatory activities”; (3) “It is not appropriate for EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from 

motor vehicles because the science related to climate change and the role of CO2 in 

climate change is not sufficiently conclusive”; and (4) “It is not appropriate for EPA to 

regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles because the only plausible action EPA could 

take would be to require improved fuel efficiency from motor vehicles. EPA cannot take 

such action because Congress granted DOT exclusive authority to regulate motor vehicle 

fuel efficiency.”208

On April 21, 2003, the Justice Department faxed Mr. Connaughton a memorandum 

regarding “CO2 Issues.”209 The memorandum was specifically prepared for Mr. 

Connaughton by Thomas Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for Environment and 

Natural Resources, and his deputy, Jeffrey Bossert Clark. The memorandum begins: 

“EPA and the Department of Justice have recommended, for reasons of law, science, 

policy, and litigation strategy that EPA should administratively deny the pending petition 

to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.”210 The Sansonetti memorandum then 

presents Mr. Connaughton with four options for resolving the petition to regulate CO2

and the pending court cases regarding such regulations. 

In addition, CEQ Chairman James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion 

of EPA’s general counsel and the draft denial of the petition to regulate CO2. On May 

 

207 Fax from Bill Wehrum to Jim Connaughton (Apr. 17, 2003). 

208 Id. 

209 Memorandum from Thomas L. Sansonetti and Jeffrey Bossert Clark to James Connaughton (Apr. 

21, 2003). 

210 Id. 
30| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

19, 2003, Lisa Jaeger of EPA’s Office of the General Counsel faxed Mr. Connaughton a 

draft of the Fabricant memo.211 Mr. Connaughton appears to have made handwritten 

edits to this document. Then, on June 20, 2003, Ken Peel of CEQ sent Mr. Connaughton 

the latest version of the “Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking.”212 Mr. Peel’s 

handwritten note on the document read: “Jim, This is the latest draft of the petition 

denial. I suggest we send in the indicated edits. Do you have more to add? Or change? 

— Ken P.”213 That day, Mr. Peel also sent Mr. Connaughton the latest draft of the 

Fabricant memo. Mr. Peel wrote on the draft: “Jim — This is EPA’s latest draft of the 

‘Fabricant Memo.’ I have added back in your original edits that they did not take, plus 

my own proposed edits. Please review and add any further edits you think are needed. — 

Ken P. P.S. Attached are your original edits.”214 

Other documents confirm that CEQ made further edits to the EPA documents and that 

these edits were mandatory. On July 3, 2003, Ken Peel e-mailed a number of White 

House officials, including Mr. Connaughton, and EPA officials, including Jeff 

Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.215 The e-mail 

forwarded the latest draft of the Fabricant memo and stated: “I assume that the task of 

careful editing of the underlying text still lies before us. ... I remember several past 

proposed fixes.”216 On August 26, 2003, Mr. Peel e-mailed Lisa Jaeger in EPA’s General 

Counsel’s office about the latest version of the legal opinion.217 He stated: “it fails to 

contain a number of the edits agreed to on Friday. I will send the group the correct edited 

version shortly.”218 In a subsequent e-mail, Mr. Peel told the Justice Department: “I’m 

fine with whatever the right legal argument happens to be, as long as it doesn’t seem to 

be arguing against our main argument.”219 

The documents also indicate that the White House viewed climate change science as an 

obstacle rather than a guiding principle. Mr. Peel’s June 20, 2003, edits to the draft 

denial of the petition to regulate CO2 include two separate instructions to “revise all 

science text in collaboration with DOJ.”220 Much of the “science text” to be revised was 

direct quotes from the National Academy of Science’s report on climate change. 

Moreover, his June 20, 2003, edits to the Fabricant memo had the effect of exaggerating 

or emphasizing scientific uncertainties related to global warming. For example, Mr. Peel 

inserted the word “potential” before a reference to the role of greenhouse gases in climate 

change.221 On several occasions, he inserted the phrase “emissions that might contribute 

to” before “climate change.”222 The repeated use of this phrase suggested that the link 

 

211 Fax from Lisa Jaeger to Jim Connaughton (May 19, 2003). 

212 Draft of Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (June 20, 2003). 

213 Id. 

214 Draft of Fabricant Memorandum (June 20, 2003). 

215 E-mail from Kenneth Peel to Jennifer Gibbs, et al. (July 3, 2003). 

216 Id. 

217 E-mail from Kenneth Peel to Lisa Jaeger (Aug. 26, 2003; 8:19 a.m.). 

218 Id.

219 E-mail from Kenneth Peel to Andrew Emrich (Aug. 26, 2003). 

220 Draft of Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (June 20, 2003). 

221 Draft of Fabricant Memorandum (June 20, 2003).

222 Id. 
31| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was uncertain at a time when the 

link was clearly established. 

What appear to be White House edits to the August 19, 2003, draft of the petition denial 

follow this pattern. After several direct quotes from the National Academy of Sciences 

report on the basic science of global warming, a comment was inserted: 

I did not read this paragraph as persuasively supporting EPA’s position, especially 

the first two sentences of the [NAS] report. You might want to quote from the 

body of the report itself, which is more balanced than the Executive Summary, or 

just move on quickly to your point that key uncertainties prevent EPA from 

fashioning an effective regulatory strategy.223 

The following sentence was in the original text of the draft: “At present, the best 

scientific information indicates that if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations 

continue to increase, changes are likely to occur.”224 A comment was inserted after this 

sentence: “this strong statement does not support EPA’s position.”225 

A week later, CEQ and others inserted a comment after the conclusions of the National 

Academy of Sciences on global warming were included in the draft of the petition denial. 

In response to National Academy quotes like “the changes observed over the last several 

decades are likely mostly due to human activities,” the comment read: “the above quotes 

are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made in this document. 

This is not a survey of the science, but a legal argument.”226

An undated CEQ document amplifies this point. The first line of the document listing 

CEQ edits to the draft denial of the petition to regulate CO2 states simply: “Vulnerability: 

science.”227 Later in the document, CEQ notes: “Lead sentence is trouble, as it leans too 

much on science.”228 Far from being the touchstone for CEQ edits, CEQ apparently saw 

the science of global warming as an obstacle standing in the way of its desired result: the 

refusal to regulate motor vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. 

2. The White House Edited the EPA Administrator’s Op-ed on 

Climate Change 

In 2002, the White House also edited an op-ed written by former EPA Administrator 

Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate 

change. 

In July 2002, when there was an ongoing debate about whether the United States should 

ratify the Kyoto Protocol, EPA Administrator Whitman wrote a piece for Time Magazine

 

223 Draft of Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Aug. 19, 2003). 

224 Id. 

225 Id. 

226 Draft of Notice of denial of petition for rulemaking (Aug. 26, 2003). 

227 CEQ document (Undated) (Bates # 2535). 

228 Id. 
32| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

about the Bush Administration’s record on global warming. Internal e-mails demonstrate 

that CEQ played an active role in reviewing and editing Administrator Whitman’s op-ed. 

On July 15, 2002, Sam Thernstrom of CEQ distributed a revised version of the 

Administrator’s piece that contained several significant edits. He sent the e-mail to CEQ 

Chairman James Connaughton, CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney, and other senior White 

House and Administration officials.229 Tom Gibson, an Associate Administrator at EPA, 

responded to Mr. Thernstrom: 

I can’t use the five million out of work figure for Kyoto. It is based on an EIA 

[Energy Information Agency] report that assumed that no trading would be 

allowed to implement the KP [Kyoto Protocol]. It also is the high end of the 

numbers that were expressed as a range.230

Mr. Thernstrom immediately e-mailed Mr. Cooney and Mr. Connaughton. He wrote: 

“opinion on this point? It’s a rather key figure.”231 

Five minutes later, Mr. Thernstrom replied to Mr. Gibson: 

This figure is taken directly from the president’s 2-14 speech, and Jim 

Connaughton’s Senate testimony last week. Using merely an abstract dollar 

figure may not be as compelling.232

That afternoon, Mr. Gibson reported that Administrator Whitman made her own edits to 

the draft op-ed and struck the reference to five million lost jobs.233 However, 

Administrator Whitman’s change was apparently rejected. Later that day, Mr. 

Thernstrom sent Mr. Cooney the latest draft of the op-ed.234 The five million lost jobs 

figure remained in the draft despite Administrator Whitman’s objections. Time ran the 

final op-ed on August 26, 2002. It included an assertion that “Kyoto would put millions 

of Americans out of work.”235

Over two years later, CEQ was still citing the unsupported figure. On February 9, 2005, 

William Holbrook of CEQ sent the EIA report to a Washington Post reporter, noting 

“Added all up, we would have been looking at a loss of nearly 5 million American 

jobs.”236 

 

229 E-mail from Samuel Thernstrom to Tom Gibson, et al. (July 15, 2002; 9:18 a.m.). 

230 E-mail from Tom Gibson to Samuel Thernstrom (July 15, 2002; 9:32 a.m.). 

231 E-mail from Samuel Thernstrom to Philip Cooney and James Connaughton (July 15, 2002; 9:35 

a.m.). 

232 E-mail from Samuel Thernstrom to Tom Gibson, et al. (July 15, 2002; 9:40 a.m.). 

233 E-mail from Tom Gibson to Samuel Thernstrom, et al. (July 15, 2002; 12:36 p.m.). 

234 E-mail from Samuel Thernstrom to Philip Cooney (July 15, 2002; 3:11 p.m.). 

235 A Strong Climate Plan, Time (Aug. 26, 2002). 

236 E-mail from William Holbrook to Shankar Vedantam (Feb. 9, 2005). 
33| POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

CONCLUSION 

The Committee’s 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to 

censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to 

Congress. The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link 

between increased hurricane intensity and global warming. The White House also sought 

to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing 

government climate change reports. Other actions taken by the White House involved 

editing EPA legal opinions and op-eds on climate change.