Skip to comments.The White House vs. science
Posted on 11/13/2010 2:14:12 AM PST by Scanian
Congressional Republicans say a whole lot of questions "need to be an swered" about an inspector general's report detailing how the White House altered a scientific paper that it used to justify a controversial drilling moratorium after the BP oil spill last spring.
Almost from the moment the report was first made public, most of the scientists involved said it had been deceitfully edited to make it look like they'd endorsed the ban, which Gulf-state elected officials immediately denounced as a job-killer.
Now the Interior Department's inspector general, Mary Kendall, has determined that those allegations are correct -- and that the White House falsely applied a scientific veneer to justify what was clearly a political decision.
Which is precisely what eight of the 15 scientists involved called it when they publicly protested the editing.
"The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct," they said in a fax earlier this year to Louisiana's governor and two US senators. "But he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."
Ironically, of course, it was candidate Barack Obama who accused the Bush administration of twisting scientific evidence; he promised, if elected, to be guided by "science, not ideology."
And it turns out that this is just one of several instances in which the Obama White House has manipulated the word of scientific experts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Obama’s “yellowcake” moment.
Obama is the worst mix between Carter and Nixon.
What’s their latest schtick that Rush was talking about? Grayouts?
Nutso. When that is proven ridiculous, they’ll just move on to something else. And I’m sure it’s eating them alive to know that trading carbon credits isn’t going to make them all billionaires.
They have never stated such. Please point to where the relevant text would include breathing as a case where it is considered polluting.
Micturation is a natural human bodily function, but you wouldn't want it directed at your beer. Context is everything.
The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.That law was signed by President Bush, and it has nothing to do with breathing. I've read it multiple times--have you?--Wall Street Journal, "How Carbon Dioxide Became a Pollutant," April 18, 2008.
§7521 is called "Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines."
Oh, wait... I guess if your nickname is motor-mouth, you could get confused. ;-)
In summary, let's keep it honest and leave the exaggeration and misrepresentation to the libs, please.
BTW, when the EPA released its SCOTUS-mandated findings, they also included methane. Why did you single out carbon dioxide?
If I breath out carbon dioxide and my car puts out carbon dioxide if I were to compare the molecule from each would there be any difference? The whole notion of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant is worse than bogus. Carbon dioxide is ESSENTIAL to life. Life craves it. It is less than one part per thousand because plants have become so effective at pulling it out from the air!
Carbon is essential for life. Therefore, carbon soot isn’t a pollutant.
Oxygen is essential for life. Therefore, ozone degradation isn’t a problem.
Water is essential for life. Therefore, it’s harmless if it runs through your house.
I love this game.
I breathe out a gram of CO2 every breath. The point of the comment is that there are many more sources of the evil gas than is accounted for in the EPA’s highly idealogical findings. And if you want to go all in with Methane, the Feds funded a study on cow digestion for $700,000. They are getting to that subject if they have the time.
Use your own lying eyes to gauge any destruction of the earth since Paul Erlich predicted our demise in 1974. Myl assertion is that the entire ecological movement is based on lies and adolescent emotionalism. It’s never been seriously challenged and tested by any rational metric. Until now.
Correct ... the interesting thing is now that its been debunked and the CCX is collapsing ... along with all the other "investors" (Al Gore etc) ... it has slowed to almost a stop. Take the money out and watch it fall apart. It was about greed and money, not saving the planet. Such fools to believe man is powerful enough to alter the climate of a planet ... such arrogance. The "little people" that invested in this deserve the fleecing they are getting.
I have strong doubts that they ever believed they could have any impact on the climate.
From the get-go it was all about GREED, with a “G” as in “Gore.”
And the ability to take further control of people’s lives, of course.
The lefties invariably overreach, leave evidence of their misdeeds where it can be found, and get caught.
"...that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "
There are many connections between the Green movement and Communist forces: this outlines these connections, examining changing American values, Green influences, and Communist party lines with an eye to revealing possible Communist connections within the Green party realm. A thought-provoking book. -- Midwest Book Review --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.""Set Up & Sold Out: Find Out What Green Really Means [Paperback]"
It is a socialist war on capitalism via carbon.
It is carbon they are after, in any form. The control of carbon, energy.
Normal people are not fooled by leftist Fabian/stealth efforts.
The House oversight committee needs to get the energy political agenda commissar, Carol "Director of Socialists International" in front of it.
That was never a question.
You did not answer the first question. Can you tell apart a carbon dioxide molecule from a car from that of a person. The rest is a straw man argument. Are you a liberal who has wondered on in here by mistake?
Not with 100% certainty, though probabilistically, the isotope signature would be different. :-)
But I admit that's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. The thing is, your point is incorrect.
You can no more distinguish a molecule of baseflow water from meteoric or one in your bathtub, but it's funny how we can call some "floodwaters"... just like the source and location matter for carbon dioxide.
This is a well established concept; though perhaps you are trying to institute a more liberal approach, I just don't see the legal support for it.
And it's not just federal. Look at state regulations. For example, New Jersey's technical regulations for site remediation (N.J.A.C. 7:26E) very explicitly note that "contamination" in groundwater can be natural, and "contamination" is any amount, even if below groundwater quality criteria or standards. If natural, it is "background contamination." Are they trying to outlaw nature and its realities?
Are you a liberal who has wondered on in here by mistake?
I'm a conservative who is sticking with the law as it has been passed by the legislative branch (and signed by President Bush), interpreted by the judicial branch (SCOTUS), and enacted by the executive branch (USEPA). I am "wondering" why I should change to your liberal, non-Constitutional interpretation for which you have provided no legal basis.
Lawyerly parsing verging on sophistry placemarker.
Just because the Supreme court says it’s constitutional does not mean it is. This is why liberals try very hard , and way too often succeed , in getting collectivists who rule by whim. The carbon dioxide decision is a glaring example of that. Decisions like that ultimately hang on the commerce clause. No honest interruption supports any of the massive intrusions which have been built on that clause. In point of fact it was a threat to pack the court that intimidated the court into making a farmer growing wheat on his own land for himself subject to the commerce clause. In most civilized lands agreements made under coercion are not valid.
That was an AWESOMELY bad movie! One of my all-time favorites.