Ideology trumped science at Texas agency, two lawmakers say

The dried south fork of Lake Arlington is seen near Bowman Springs Park, where park personnel indicated the water level was nine feet below normal, in Arlington, Texas August 5, 2011. REUTERS/Mike Stone

The dried south fork of Lake Arlington is seen near Bowman Springs Park, where park personnel indicated the water level was nine feet below normal, in Arlington, Texas August 5, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Mike Stone

BEAUMONT, Texas | Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:09am EDT

BEAUMONT, Texas (Reuters) - Two Democratic state senators from Texas accused the state's environmental agency of letting ideology trump science when it deleted information about the implications of global warming from a draft report.

The leaders of the agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, are appointed by Republican Governor Rick Perry, who said in a recent presidential debate that the science of climate change was "unsettled."

At issue is "The State of the Bay 2010" report commissioned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which has come under scrutiny after Rice University Professor John Anderson said that an article regarding sea-level changes he contributed was censored for political reasons.

Democratic state Senators Rodney Ellis of Houston and Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio wrote to Perry appointee Bryan Shaw, chairman of the commission.

In his letter, Ellis said he concluded from the deletions that "the facts simply proved inconvenient to the agency and other state leadership, and thus they were excised."

The commission said on Monday it would remove Anderson's article on sea-level rise in Galveston Bay from the report, ending a standoff with Anderson over the deleted information.

Commission spokesman Andy Saenz said Anderson prematurely revealed the draft report to the media without prior approval, and that the commission did not want to include controversial implications about global warming in the report.

"Why would we include things we don't agree with? That's ridiculous," Saenz said. "We were looking at not including very controversial things that are unsettled science."

Two co-editors of the project, Jim Lester and Lisa Gonzalez, scientists with the Houston Advanced Research Center, a nonprofit research facility contracted for the report, asked the agency to remove their names, fearing their own credibility.

Lester, the center's vice president, called the deletions "scientific censorship." He said Anderson's statements in the article were not political and were reviewed by lower-level staff at the agency before upper management made its own edits.

"As a scientist, my main concern is about the availability of objective science for decision-making in agencies," Lester said.

Saenz denied the claims of scientific censorship.

"Using a word like censorship is very powerful," he said. "It isn't censorship to accurately report in our document what we believe. That's being responsible. That's being accurate."

Saenz said the agency was preparing a response to the senators. The agency, which is embroiled in a lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency over greenhouse gas emissions, has been working on the report for more than two years, the agency said.

(Editing by Corrie MacLaggan and Cynthia Johnston)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (12)
hereiam2005 wrote:
In his own word: “Why would we include things we don’t agree with? That’s ridiculous”. And “It isn’t censorship to accurately report in our document what we believe”. Removing thing you don’t agree with, and doctoring the report to reflect what you believe, in an official report, is not only amount to censorship, it could also be considered intentionally misleading and an act in bad faith. This is a state agency, not a news organization, and definitely not a private opinion blog.

Oct 19, 2011 11:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mjz wrote:
Well, if the truth about Global Warming is accepted by the voters of Texas, Gov. Perry would have to stop “praying” for rain.

Oct 20, 2011 8:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:
“We were looking at not including very controversial things that are unsettled science”

So I guess since cures for cancer and AIDs are thusfar “unsettled” science” reports requesting medical funding should omit any info on these diseases?

When I was growing up on the south shore of Long Island they did a major project upgrading sewers and raising the streets due to all the flooding we got. 20 years later and the neighborhoods are getting flooded again. But the sea levels aren’t really rising.

Oct 20, 2011 9:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.