The White House vs. science

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.

Can you tell apart a carbon dioxide molecule from a car from that of a person.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.