Obama administration hides use of bad science

The only thing that is clear is its motive for opacity.

 Marita Noon

Six years later, we know that President Obama’s pledge to run the most transparent administration in history was merely a campaign promise, a White House talking point, and not a statement of management style. We’ve seen a series of highly publicscandals—Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, and now, the VA—where Oversight Committees have fought to pry information out of the Obama White House only to receive stacks of redacted documents.

Most recently, we’ve seen court-ordered information provided to nonprofit government watchdog groups in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that have made it very clear why the Administration wanted to keep specific contents hidden. Emails that revealed direct White House involvement in the Benghazi scandal are behind the creation of the new Select Committee. IRS documents show the Tea Party targeting wasn’t a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati, as the Obama administration claimed—instead, now we know it was orchestrated out of DC. Briefing materials point out that the Obama administration has known about problems with VA hospital wait times since 2009.

FOIA requests must be the bane of the “most transparent administration in history.”

Upon his signing of the FOIA legislation in 1966, former President Johnson stated: “This legislation springs from one of our most essential principles: A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.”

As shameful as each of these scandals are, they directly impact only a comparative handful of people. We grieve the loss of life, but unless you are a family member or friend of the four brave men killed in Benghazi or of the dozens of veterans who risked their lives for our country only to die unnecessarily due to bad policy at the VA hospitals, your life goes on without consequence.

However, there are other cases that haven’t yet reached “scandal” status (and they may never because it is unlikely that anyone will die) where the Administration doesn’t want the public to know the rationale behind the policy that is universally having a negative impact on all Americans. These stories point to the administrations’ use of bad science to achieve its goal of growing government and controlling people through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Clean Air Act. Together the practices restrict access to public and private lands for farming, ranching, and energy development, and reduce the availability of affordable electricity—making essential food and power costs ever-increasing.

Read the rest at Red State

  • Dave

    If Obama’s lips are moving he is lying. Do not trust anything this man says.

    • Fietser

      You wouldn’t hear him anyway with all of that sand in your ears.

      • Hey, have you looked at any of those peer reviewed papers I gave you the link for? If not, then who has their head in the sand?

        • Fietser

          There’s no mention of peer reviewed papers in this article.

    • scott

      You got that right,…Obama is a complete failure and the most corrupt politician in History. Also Climate Change is a natural weather cycle, the last ice age was about 10K years ago and were no factories or SUV’s around then. Also the EARTH’S TEMP. HAS STAYED STEADY FOR PAST 50 YEARS. MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

      • Fietser

        Corrupt, really? He’s paid by the the oil industry as well?

  • DaName

    If any presidents lips are moving he is lying, try not to just single out Obama!!!

    • He’s the one the story is about because he is the president now. Duh!

  • Adam Jacobs

    For everyone who thinks climate change is a hoax or not being caused by man, please watch last night’s episode of COSMOS with Neil degrasse tyson, and then post on here what is wrong with his facts.

    That episode last night did the BEST job of explaining the threat of climate change that I have ever seen. If someone can refute that show, I will doubt climate change- if not, it’s for real.

    • Ok, I decided to watch it, because I can watch it free on HULU. The first thing is that Venus is not a victim of runaway green house gas. That phrasing is anthropomorphic. It makes you think that the planet is suffering like a human would, is all that means, but it’s a planet. It doesn’t suffer. It isn’t a victim. Now the facts about Venus are not wrong. It has 96% CO2 in the atmosphere, no carbon cycle, and no life to absorb CO2. They also downplay the fact that Venus is 30% closer to the Sun, and the theory that Venus was once possibly habitable is pure speculation.
      The next thing is that they are assuming a doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere would “make us uncomfortably hot, and cause serious problems.” What is not said is that pretty much every computer model ever made predicting the climate has had as a fundamental assumption that a doubling of CO2 would cause a certain amount of warming and those models were all wrong. There have been times in the geologic record where CO2 levels were higher than today but colder, and where CO2 levels were lower and it was warmer. There is no evidence in the geologic record that CO2 drives warming.
      I’m not going to continue because this post is going to end up being very long. I will end with this. What I have noticed is that there are things being presented as facts that are really speculations. And it is a great looking show with great camerawork and great special effects, with the GQ scientist hosting. It gives it all an air of authority. It’s a nice production but it doesn’t have anything new in it. Does it?

      • peter osborne

        In addition, in every case of the cyclical global warming that has occurred, CO2 increases AFTER the planet earth warmed, not before. So it cannot be he driver of climate change. PLUS Water Vapor is the primary “greenhouse ” gas, CO2 a very very distant second place. The tail does not wag the dog, even in climate matters, or especially in climate changes.

        • These are very inconvenient facts. They would rather rely upon computer models than historical records because records do not show that the theory is right, where computer models tell them exactly what they want to hear! They’re just like professional wrestling fans who think professional wrestling is real. In fact, that is a really good analogy, if I do say so myself. It’s all so phony but they just don’t see it because they have an emotional investment in it.

        • Fietser

          Increase in CO2 exacerbates warming. If there’s no warming to start with it will still exacerbate warming because of it’s properties. Simple science really. There’s multiple examples of this in the past.

          • Ok, when were these multiple examples of CO2 increasing the severity of warming? Just saying it does not make it so. Just believing it does not make it so. I want to know specifics.

    • Look, I have to say more (about the Cosmos episode). Over and over again they say that CO2 is warming the atmosphere but see… the thing is…. it hasn’t in the last 17+ years. And another thing that is complete BS is after the second commercial break they say “Once upon a time there was a world that was not too hot, and not too cold, it was just right.” They can’t be talking about the Earth, but they are! I mean that is just not the history of the planet. The true history is one of extremes, both hot and cold. I’m sorry but you are being fed a lot of misinformation, disinformation, speculation, hyperbole, and a few facts. All put together in a very slick presentation.

  • Pasquale Argenio

    The fallacy here is one of absolute standards by which any leader will fail. A mature and pragmatic populace understands that politics is like sausage making. Therefore, any evaluation need to take place within that rubric. How does he stack up to previous administrations. If you go back one president, you have a pretty stark contrast. Lying about WMD to go to war? Now THAT is a scandal.
    Even if we go back to Reagan, we find a record number of people indicted and convicted. Among the crooks: Edwin Meese, James Watt, Oliver North, the list goes on. And lets not forget the S&L scandal.
    These guys are boy scouts by comparison.

    • That was a scandal you say? It is amazing how selective the memory of the people on the Left. I agree that Bush was not a perfect person. He did some things that I totally disagree with like the light bulb ban. But, I think the claim that Bush lied about WMD’s to go to war is in itself a lie. A lie that would be obvious if the Left did not have such selective memory.

      http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/if-the-bush-administration-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-people-version-3-0/

      “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

      “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

      “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

      There are more, lots more, just click that link to see. I heard that there were WMD’s found in Iraq, just not in the quantities that the intel suggested so it was a non-story to the press, and there were reports that a lot of those weapons ended up in Syria. And where have chemical weapons been used recently? Um…um… it’s on the tip of my tongue, Um.. was it Liberia? No, Nigeria? No. Oh! That’s right… Syria!!!!
      Bush wasn’t saying anything different than those prominent Democrats at the time, so you can take that mantra and shove it up your a**. Please.
      And I wonder how you can justify current scandals by saying other presidents have had scandals? So that makes it ok?

      • Rob N. Hood

        Oh and Neil- those other politicians DIDN’T invade Iraq, Bush did. So shove that where you can, please. And saying Obama is somehow (in reality) is involved in a scandal re: climate change, etc. is hilarious. I love you guys for the humor you provide. Although the lack of logic and reasoning behind it is very disturbing.

        • I don’t know if you remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but after we liberated Kuwait that war ended with a cease-fire that had conditions. So as far as I am concerned the only justification that we needed to go back to Iraq was the fact that the conditions of the cease-fire were being violated. Now, you Libs like to forget that the use of force was authorized by a majority vote from the congress, and many, many Democrats voted yes on that. In fact, I think it was unanimous, I can’t remember, I’ll have to check on that. As far as going back to Iraq, Clinton should have done it long before 9/11 because Iraq was violating the cease-fire practically from the end of the first Gulf War. I think it was one of the reasons that 9/11 happened, because Clinton’s inaction made us look weak. So yes, those other politicians didn’t invade Iraq….but they should have. Oh, and your thinking is not guided by logic and reason. It is guided by your political ideology.

    • Rob N. Hood

      More people working in Reagan’s administration than ever before or since. Fact. Don’t bother, as you see below Neil will carry the Right’s water even though the bucket is empty.

      • Rob N. Hood

        forgot/typo- more people (government related employees, etc.) went to jail… typo…

        • I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with Reagan. I think you’re just bringing it up as a deflection. A red herring. We’re not talking about Reagan here. This is already pretty far afield of the topic but I get sick of hearing the Left lie about Bush as though he just came up with the WMD thing on his own, and it is all placed on him. And the fact that there were some WMD’s found in Iraq, just not enough of what was believed to be there, was completely ignored by the main stream media. You saw the quotes from prominent Liberals about it. It was widely believed that Iraq had WMD’s by the Left, and the Right. But it’s BUSH lied and people died. That is a nice slogan to chant, but it is false.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Neil- your cherry-picked history revisionism and selective memory is sad. Predictable, yes, but very very lame.

    • Nothing cherry picked about it. All of the revisionism is from your side.

  • Fietser

    This story is not very clear as it does not mention what the bad science is. Bad story!

    • Well, you have to read more than the headline to know what they’re talking about. I can tell by your comment that you have not read the whole thing.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Of course Neil, of course. How silly of me. And Fiester- bad science is whatever you don’t like, and good science is whatever you agree with. The Right got very tired of trying to deny certain results of the scientific method (i.e. reality) and someone somewhere got the brilliant idea to start talking about bad science like it was a real thing. Well of course like any good propaganda technique it took hold with those pre-disposed to this kind of nonsense, and here we are. It doesn’t hurt to add into the mix a bit of paranoia especially regarding “big” government and the old stand by ccccommunism.

    • You have that all wrong. Good science is what can be verified by other people who take your data, notes, and whatever other information they can get access to and repeating the experiment and confirming your findings. That is science.
      Bad science is accepting findings on faith and considering it verified because it agrees with what you believe. That is junk science.

  • luther

    “‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” – William F. Buckley

    Liberals use junk science as the “duct tape” to prop up their global warming hoax. This way they can over regulate the fossil fuel industry. This is because the fossil fuel industry typically donates to conservative political action committees. These donations are a threat to liberal control and power.

    Other multi-billion dollar industries that typically donate to liberal PAC’s, such as the Pharmaceutical Industry, get away with absolute atrocities, without even a whisper.

    I have come to a personal acceptance that neither major political party even slightly cares for the betterment of our society. They care about power derived through money, received in exchange for corporate interests.

    America has a “…Separation of Church and State… ,” What we really need is a separation of Corporation and State.

    But on the bright side, if you seriously want to reduce your carbon footprint, just send me $19.99. I’ll go buy a fern or cactus from the .99¢ store, plant it, then feed my PAC the rest. Sound rediculous? That is pretty much what you are doing with the current political action committees.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Actually it’s the Right that came up with, and uses, “junk science” as a tactic to undermine actual science. Liberals yes use it back at the “science” spouted by the Right via their think tanks and other highly paid organizations because in many instances that is exactly what it is. And as far as corporate love and dependence goes, the Right was and is in the lead, but the Left has unfortunately picked up the same bad habit. Separation of corporation and State is exactly what we need, in addition of course to church and State separation.

    • “Actually it’s the Right that came up with, and uses, “junk science”’-RNH
      Can you give an example of that?
      I do agree with you on one thing, the cronyism between government and corporations must end.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.