Accusations of Collusion with White House over Junk Science Lawsuit Absurd
Contact for Interviews:
Jody Clarke, 202.331.2252
Richard Morrison, 202.331.2273
Washington, D.C., September 25, 2003—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today rejected charges of collusion with the White House Council on Environmental Quality in a legal challenge to a Bush administration global warming report.
“This started as a suit against a Clinton administration global warming report,” said CEI President Fred L. Smith, Jr. “The accusations of collusion are absurd and just an attempt to divert attention from the real issue—that junk science is being used as the basis for climate change reports, which could lead to policies that cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars with little, if any, benefit.”
The following is a timeline showing the history of CEI’s disagreement with both the Clinton and Bush administrations over two major global warming reports. All documents are available at www.cei.org.
· October 2000: CEI, along with three members of Congress and other public interest groups, filed suit in federal court against the Clinton administration’s publication of the National Assessment on Climate Change because it was produced improperly.
· September 2001: The Bush administration settled the lawsuit, agreeing that the National Assessment and related documents “are not policy positions or official statements of the U.S. government.”
· June 2002: CEI filed a petition with the administration to stop distribution of Climate Action Report 2002, which used data from the discredited National Assessment.
· February 2003: CEI petitioned the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to cease dissemination of Climate Action Report 2002 because it does not meet minimal standards required by the Federal Data Quality Act.
· August 6, 2003: After the Office of Science Technology and Policy denied the February 20 petition and appeal of denial, CEI filed suit against OSTP over failure to implement the Data Quality Act, which is supposed to ensure the use of sound science in the publication and dissemination of science-based reports, such as those dealing with climate change.
“We welcome a hearing at any time that would address the scientific basis of these reports,” said Smith. “They are based on junk science and should be stopped.”