The War on Science Continues
May 7th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The headline is a bit of irony, of course, as there never has been a “war on science,” just politics as usual, sometimes played more hardball than others, especially by the previous Administration.
On Tuesday Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) sent a letter to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar complaining that the Department has been playing fast and loose with scientific information in order to shutdown a coastal oyster farm in an inconvenient location, based on the release of a new report from the National Academy of Sciences:
For several years, I have been concerned about the National Park Service’s apparent efforts to shut down a family-owned oyster operation in Drakes Estero by casting it as harmful to the environment. Drakes Estero has been home to a family-owned oystering business since 1934 – long before the Park was established. It employs 30-40 people, and is part of the sustainable agricultural movement in West Marin. I have tried to work with NPS to mitigate concerns and allow the Lunny family to run its oyster company, and I appreciated former Park Service Director Mary Bomar’s efforts to seriously consider the concerns of the oyster operation’s owners regarding this issue.
The National Park Service has to make a decision soon on whether to renew the Lunny’s permit to continue their mariculture operations in the Drakes Bay. Because of concerns about the scientific information being relied upon, and disseminated by, the Park Service, the National Academy of Science was asked to conduct a study about the impact of the oyster operations in the Estero. It released its report today, finding that the National Park Service “selectively presented, over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information on potential impacts of the oyster mariculture operation” (p. 53).
I find it troubling and unacceptable that the National Park Service exaggerated the effects of the oyster population on the Estero’s ecosystem. . . .
A group of environmental organizations has been trying for some time to close the oyster farm (groups including The Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth and others) based on assertions of environmental damage from the farm. Here is an excerpt from a letter that they wrote lto Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) last year (PDF):
Now we find we must raise our voices again to oppose yet another ill-advised proposal – this one by the oyster company that wants to continue commercial oyster production past 2012 in what is slated to be a fully designated wilderness area in PRNS. This proposal, to be successful, would require congressional language overriding and going against previous legislation created with significant public input and support from numerous environmental organizations and the Marin County Board of Supervisors. If the oyster company and its lobbyists succeed, it would be the first time Congress took an area of “potential wilderness” in a national park and downgraded its protective status simply to perpetuate a commercial enterprise. Such a step would set a dangerous precedent.
What does Senator Feinstein have to say about that in her letter this week?
The National Academy of Sciences report does not present any compelling ecological reason for refusing to renew the Drakes Bay Oyster Company lease in 2012.
So a federal agency is said to have “selectively presented, over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information” in support of decisions desired by interest groups closely aligned with that agency. One wonders, where are the “war on science” folks these days?
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Roger,
“there never has been a “war on science,” just politics as usual, sometimes played more hardball than others, especially by the previous Administration.”
It’s ridiculous to try to say that the GOP played more hardball than Democrats. As a Democratic voter, you need to take that log out of your eye before pointing at the speck in the GOP’s. It was the Left which forced the CDC to abandon science and scare the hell out of people about AIDS. It was the Left which forced the FDA to abandon science and declare 2d hand smoke a threat. It’s the Left which constantly promotes false studies and propaganda as fact for political gain.
Earlier this week loyal Obama propagandist, Chris Matthews, accused the GOP of being anti-science and against the scientific method because of doubts over the global warming religion. Yet, climate scientists preaching AGW are the ones who have abandoned the scientific method. They are the ones who refuse transparency and replication. They are the ones who obstruct and obfuscate out of fear that others “would only try to find something wrong with their work”.
Roger, you’ve noted that a number of government groups have failed to include relevant scientific studies in their one-sided assessments. They only cite work which supports their politics. Which side of the political fence were these scientists playing on? Uh huh. They’re AGW proponents swinging from the left. Talk about hardball.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“abandon science and declare 2d hand smoke a threat” and “abandon science and scare the hell out of people about AIDS” !!! Sheesh Roger, your blog really can attract ‘em.
In fact, science usually plays second to politics when personal interests are involved. That isn’t unique to Republicans, as you show. Partisanship – a true scourge on our government – may well prevent Democrats from pointing it out when Democratic politicians ignore the science, but Sen. Feinstein’s actions are a far cry from what the Bush administration did to Hansen and climate science in general.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I agree 100% with Stan. It is certainly no coincidence that all the environmental-extremist organizations, large and small, endorse any Democrat, even the far-out types, like Feinstein.
Dean: Gawd, please tell us what Bush did to Hansen! He should have had him fired, numerous times, for violating Federal policies. Sheesh!
May 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am
More:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_polar_bear_climate_7
May 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The larger environmental organizations are very tied to Democrats, but many smaller ones are not. I’m an environmentalist and not a Democrat. I don’t like the two party system and think both of them are a pox on the country. Didn’t vote for Obama.
Feinstein is a very centrist Democrat on most issues, and the more lefty Dems get upset with her a lot.
The Bush administration censored Hansen, and political appointees edited his work based on political considerations. I’m not surprised that you support censoring scientists whose opinions you don’t agree with.
Roger – the polar bears are an interesting case. We don’t know now if they will adapt to live on land once the sea ice gets to far away. Even if they don’t, they probably won’t go extinct for decades, though there is some research showing physical impacts now. Otoh, they are the kind of “charismatic megafauna” that got the Endangered Species Act passed, unlike the many small animals and plants it often gets applied to today. Also, protecting polar bears with the Act doesn’t impinge on private property issues, given where they live, like protecting other species. I personally think that the focus that some environmental organizations have on polar bears undermines climate change action since it simply is too abstract an issue for most people. Saving eagles and bears didn’t require changing most people’s lifestyles.
May 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Dean,
Logic obviously isn’t one of your strong suits. I doubt many of the folks who read this blog are going to be impressed with your pathetic effort to construct a straw man –
“The Bush administration censored Hansen, and political appointees edited his work based on political considerations. I’m not surprised that you support censoring scientists whose opinions you don’t agree with.”
Surely you can’t possibly think that type of argumentation is effective.
Grow up.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Nice to see another person who detests partisan politics. The trouble is that partisanship makes people see things only from their own narrow, prejudiced perspective. The left seem to be dominated by over-the-top political correctness and the right seem to be dominated by the twin ideologies that all government is bad and anything that makes money is good. Hence the right see the the left as Orwellian control freaks and the left see the right as heartless money-grubbers.
Science needs to be non-partisan to lose those ideological blinkers. That means we need to listen to other peoples point of view and deal with the actual facts regardless of whether they turn out to be politically incorrect or industry-unfriendly. And often an objective look at the facts show our theories, whether economic or scientific, to be far too simplistic. We always like to reduce everything to a straight line 2 variable graph but nature is a lot more complex than that.
Most environmentalists are genuinely concerned that industry are poisoning our environment and they naturally want to stop that. And on most occasions they are shown to be correct while sometimes they are just too conservative and fearful. But too many of the right just see an anti-industry bias when it’s really only an anti-pollution bias based on the belief that nature probably knows best.