Bush Admin's Top Environmental Advisor Takes Job at Exxon.

[esskreemr]

Part of his "advice" apparently was to "delete dire climate change warnings in US government reports." Prior to his position as a Bush lackey, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzy.html

"And the president is the one who drives policy and makes the decisions. And look at our record and look at the facts, because it's a strong record when it comes to addressing climate change," McClellan said.

Strong, maybe, but was it good or bad? I'm sure it was good for the oil companies. Perhaps they should paint the White House black in honor of its true bosses.

[Maeve_Mari]

As I recall there are some pretty strict restrictions on the hiring of ex-government officials. Doesn't Exxon already have enough trouble, or do they want the watchdoggers checking up on this rather curious hire???

[latenight]

As I recall there are some pretty strict restrictions on the hiring of ex-government officials. Doesn't Exxon already have enough trouble, or do they want the watchdoggers checking up on this rather curious hire???

but your not thinking about it enough, what if they want watchdoggers watching him so they are too busy chasing the obvious to see the evil master plan of global domination......that's what I'd do

[Maeve_Mari]

but your not thinking about it enough, what if they want watchdoggers watching him so they are too busy chasing the obvious to see the evil master plan of global domination......that's what I'd do

Ahhh, a sly plan to be sure... but far too complex for our Bush in the Hand... there must be more. Someone else, controlling the helm. An evil master behind the babbling head. But who... what... whooooo could pilot this evil plot??

[latenight]

Ahhh, a sly plan to be sure... but far too complex for our Bush in the Hand... there must be more. Someone else, controlling the helm. An evil master behind the babbling head. But who... what... whooooo could pilot this evil plot??

Oh I'd love to, but not guilty.

[Larrison]

As I recall there are some pretty strict restrictions on the hiring of ex-government officials. Doesn't Exxon already have enough trouble, or do they want the watchdoggers checking up on this rather curious hire???

Oh yeah.. major and strict restrictions. But.. there's no limitation on hiring him is you are not going to use him in anything he was involved with while in the government for a period of years. Does anyone know exactly what job this guy is getting?

I mean, Exxon Mobile is *huge*. They could put this guy in charge of running the company pension plan and that wouldn't be a problem, for example.

[jeff]

Nope, can't possibly be that he's hired to exploit his government connections. Nope. What a cynical thought that would be... "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Mr Epee]

Your winnings, sir!

[Maeve_Mari]

Oh yeah.. major and strict restrictions. But.. there's no limitation on hiring him is you are not going to use him in anything he was involved with while in the government for a period of years. Does anyone know exactly what job this guy is getting?

I mean, Exxon Mobile is *huge*. They could put this guy in charge of running the company pension plan and that wouldn't be a problem, for example.

It don't pass the newspaper test, and it ain't gonna fly.

[Inquartata]

Part of his "advice" apparently was to "delete dire climate change warnings in US government reports." Prior to his position as a Bush lackey, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute.

.

Tsk. Fallacy of ad hominem ( circumstantial ). The nature of his previous employment does not make his judgements any more likely to be wrong.

Now, the fact that he is a non-scientist presuming to speak for scientists would have made a stronger case...

[esskreemr]

Tsk. Fallacy of ad hominem ( circumstantial ). The nature of his previous employment does not make his judgements any more likely to be wrong.

Now, the fact that he is a non-scientist presuming to speak for scientists would have made a stronger case...

Hey don't blame me, I just report 'em as I reads 'em without interjecting my own biases and/or opinions. You know, "Fair and Balanced".

[jeff]

Tsk. Fallacy of ad hominem ( circumstantial ). The nature of his previous employment does not make his judgements any more likely to be wrong.

Now, the fact that he is a non-scientist presuming to speak for scientists would have made a stronger case...

I dunno about that: it doesn't meet the criteria for "formal logic one can use for inference in a debate or theorem" (that is, we should not use formal logic out of the context in which it is properly used), but past employment record or other past behavior certainly provides a record of an individual's preferences, beliefs and habits. Else, why not hire burglars into the police force, embezzlers into stock brokerages, polluters into environmental enforcement agencies. Oh, wait, we do one of those...

[jBirch]

Tsk. Fallacy of ad hominem ( circumstantial ). The nature of his previous employment does not make his judgements any more likely to be wrong.

Hey now, that's patently false. Look up Bayes' Theorem. Past outcomes (judgements, in this case) often have real and provable statistical bearing on future outcomes.

Unless, of course, you're arguing that Mr. Cooney makes totally statistically random judgements independent of previous judgements.

James.

[KD5MDK]

Hey now, that's patently false. Look up Bayes' Theorem. Past outcomes (judgements, in this case) often have real and provable statistical bearing on future outcomes.

Unless, of course, you're arguing that Mr. Cooney makes totally statistically random judgements independent of previous judgements.

James.

Regardless of whether or not his previous employment has a bearing on his judgements, you would also have to show it was a negative influence for the connection to have any important significance.

[Inquartata]

past employment record or other past behavior certainly provides a record of an individual's preferences, beliefs and habits. Else, why not hire burglars into the police force, embezzlers into stock brokerages, polluters into environmental enforcement agencies.

How did hiring get into this? The point of the fallacy is that one cannot assess the truth or falsity of a statement by the circumstances of the person who makes it. Moreover the assumption that a person is forevermore the captive of the imperatives of some former occupation is patently ridiculous. Am I an agent of the oil industry because I worked summers at a gas station when I was in high school? Ludicrous.

And what about whistleblowers? Should their reports be dismissed as deceptive? After all, they too are "tainted" by their employment, no?

What about this guy? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6870868

Do his statements really discredit the global warming hypothesis, because of where he works?

What about the eponymous author of the Hubbert peak prediction for oil supplies? Should his work, which has long been cited by environmentalists and alternative-fuels advocates as support for their concerns, be rejected? He did work for Shell, after all...

[esskreemr]

Phil Cooney Timeline:

• Works as Oil Industry lobbyist.
• Hired by Bush (Oil man) Admin (full of oil men) to be the chief environmental advisor.
• Edits the scientific content of many official reports on climate change to downplay the effects of global warming even though he has no scientific training.
• Resigns from Bush Admin.
• Rehired by the Oil Industry the day after he resigns.

At what point can we start establishing where his loyalties lay?

In June 2005, Cooney was criticised for radically changing a number of 2002 and 2003 official reports on climate change, despite his lack of scientific expertise.

The New York Times reported that "In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was 'straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.'"

[Inquartata]

Loyalties are not the issue. The truth or falsity of a given statement cannot be determined by those, either.

[esskreemr]

Tsk. Fallacy of ad hominem ( circumstantial ). The nature of his previous employment does not make his judgements any more likely to be wrong.

We're not talking about rather or not his judgements were wrong. We're talking about rather or not his prior (and now present but at the time future) connections with the oil industry tainted his judgement in such a fashion that he categorically refuted evidence and then changed the reports based purely on the his opinions and beliefs.

Now, the fact that he is a non-scientist presuming to speak for scientists would have made a stronger case...

OK.

[jBirch]

How did hiring get into this? The point of the fallacy is that one cannot assess the truth or falsity of a statement by the circumstances of the person who makes it.

Right, but we're not talking one isolated logical assertion, but rather whether a pattern of previous assertions has predictive influence over future assertions.

Moreover the assumption that a person is forevermore the captive of the imperatives of some former occupation is patently ridiculous. Am I an agent of the oil industry because I worked summers at a gas station when I was in high school? Ludicrous.

Hmmm, from Ad Hominem to slippery slope. Again, we are arguing statistical predictive powers and not isolated logical assertions. The trend is that yes, indeed, previous occupation does influence future proclivities. Yes, it is limited by the temporal relation between previous occupation and current occupation. Basically, the longer ago it happened, the less predicitive bearing it has on future happenings.

Or are you arguing that no-one should indicate prior employment trends when seeking future employment? You did graduate from a school somewhere didn't you? And that's not important because why?

Statistics, my dear boy, not syllogisms.

And what about whistleblowers? Should their reports be dismissed as deceptive? After all, they too are "tainted" by their employment, no?

I set your straw man on fire! Wooosh!

What about this guy? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6870868

Do his statements really discredit the global warming hypothesis, because of where he works?

And another Woosh!

What about the eponymous author of the Hubbert peak prediction for oil supplies? Should his work, which has long been cited by environmentalists and alternative-fuels advocates as support for their concerns, be rejected? He did work for Shell, after all...

Hmmmm, I know you want us to eat crow, but with all these straw men, you're scaring them away!

*grin*

James.

[jBirch]

Regardless of whether or not his previous employment has a bearing on his judgements, you would also have to show it was a negative influence for the connection to have any important significance.

"Important NEGATIVE significance" absolutely. The argument is equally valid if Exxon had hired Dr. Suzuki who would, one would presume, assert more positive environmental policies while in the post.

James.