Hi-Level Obama Officials MANIPULATED SCIENCE & "SERIOUSLY-LOWBALLED" Amount Of BP Oil Leaked

[kpete]

News Releases

For Immediate Release: January 23, 2012
Contact: Kirsten Stade [phone]

HIGH-LEVEL LOWBALL IN GULF DEEPWATER CRISIS — Scientific Integrity Complaint Details Official Underestimation of BP Spill Rate

Washington, DC — Top Obama officials manipulated scientific analyses of independent experts to seriously lowball the amount of oil leaking from the BP Deepwater Horizon, according to a scientific integrity complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Documents obtained by PEER through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit indicate White House pressure to present low-range estimates as best estimates. In fact, numbers presented to the public were less than half the true flow rate.

On May 19, 2010, one month after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the White House announced creation of a group of experts from academia, industry and government to generate an accurate and independent estimate of the oil leak rate. This group was called the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG).

Using new scientific integrity rules, PEER today filed a complaint charging that the leader of one of the FRTG Teams, Dr. William Lehr of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), manipulated the scientific results of the FRTG experts throughout the entire crisis to significantly understate the spill rate. Lehr is also the author of the now infamous “Oil Budget Calculator” and a report concluding 75% of the oil was gone from the Gulf by August 2010.

MORE:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1546

View the email describing White House pressure
http://peer.org/docs/noaa/1_23_12_Email_WH_pressure.pdf
See new paper admitting errors:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/19/1112139108.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

[MineralMan]

1. 20 Points to Your House for CREATIVE USE of All Caps in a Post Title!

Brava! The emboldened text in the body of the post was a nice touch, too.

Excellence in Obama-Bashing Award for the day to you!

[Angry Dragon]

3. Nice snark on your part

having a bad day??

Do you dispute the article or just attacking the poster??

[MineralMan]

11. I dispute the article.

The amount of oil escaping was simply not known accurately until much later. The figures from the industry were wrong, but the government has no technology capable of making those measurements or estimates. In fact, nobody really did. It was all based on faulty algorithms. There was nothing deliberate on the part of the Obama administration, but it's certainly true that the amount being spilled was estimated way too low.

The guilty parties were the people in the industry who provided bad information. We didn't have the capacity to get accurate information. Believe it or not, the government isn't in the oil drilling business. They just regulate it. They have no equipment that can be used to measure that stuff.

[truebrit71]

4. Now that you've got the snark out of the way, how about dealing with the facts..

...you know, that we were LIED to...or is that okay if it's a Democrat that's feeding us the bull??

[MineralMan]

7. No problem. The actual amount of the flow was not known for

some time. Part of the reason for that is that the government doesn't have the technology needed to properly measure it and we started by relying on industry numbers. This advocacy group is not telling the whole story, either.

[mike_c]

14. yet, as this article points out, the administration did not just "rely on industry numbers...."

It attempted to manipulate those numbers to create a false impression.

Look, I'm a scientist. I know all about working with uncertainty-- when presented with highly variable estimates of things like the Deepwater Horizon well's flow rate, the honest way to present the data is as a range that encompasses the variability, NOT as a single number with no indication of variance, and most especially not as a single number chosen from the low end of the range to create a false impression.

THAT is what the article alleges, not that the Obama administration was uncertain, or had to rely on estimates they had little confidence in. It appears to me that you're trying to shift the focus away from what the administration did, to something else entirely, something much more innocent and understandable-- but not what they actually did.

[sad sally]

21. Which begs to ask, why do governments engage in these tactics at the beginning of

major environmental disasters? Is it because they fear that they are somehow blame and will suffer political fallout from the disaster? Do they hope the disaster will be small or possibly just correct itself or maybe even go away naturally? Do they purposely underestimate the potential harm the disaster is either creating or may create?

What's needed in a natural disaster is candor; if there are unknowns, tell citizens that, but don't dummy up facts to protect people. Governments all over the world somehow just don't get it.

[mike_c]

23. good question....

Personally, I think the answer might have something to do with BP being one of the primary suppliers of fossil fuel products to the U.S. military, i.e., I suspect the Obama administration was trying to provide cover for BP, whom it regards as an essential partner in maintaining global military hegemony.

edited to add-- of course, this is entirely supposition. I think it's consistent with the circumstances-- if I recall correctly, BP is a MAJOR oil supplier to the military-- but naturally, I have no direct evidence that the Obama administration was deliberately covering for them. But I do suspect it.

[sad sally]

24. Makes sense. It's been bugging me to see all the BP commercials on tv lately

telling tourists to "come on down to Flordia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisana" and then the President comes out with an employment plan to increase tourism...connection?

[girl gone mad]

8. It seems like you are trying to derail the discussion.

What do you think about the administration covering up for BP?

[EOTE]

9. And 30 points to you for lambasting someone's formatting rather than addressing the issue of the OP.

I notice how when anyone has a legitimate criticism of the Obama administration here, a number of people will find all sorts of ridiculous nits to pick while completely ignoring the actual issue. Thanks for continuing that proud tradition of the defend-Obama-at-all-costs crew.

[sabrina 1]

10. Under the bus with kpete now!

[jsmirman]

19. I must misunderstand the alert button

somehow a post that had no content, demanded most of the replies in this thread, and attacked the motives of the OP rather than the content of the post is not disruptive?

And someone had a rather elaborate punishment in mind for the temerity to suggest this, as my line of thinking was so radically off-base?

Very confusing.

[mike_c]

12. ad hominum is the lamest form of admiration....

Surely you can say something actually substantive.

[_ed_]

28. Do you even give a shit about the actual substance of the post?

Your snarky, fact-free, and childish response tells me all I need to know.

[LanternWaste]

36. Double points for fixating on an irrelevancy.

Double points for fixating on an irrelevancy.

No awards though... as the petulant implication of scoring points is without merit or device, myself included.

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. Like ants protecting the queen at all costs. Seriously. nt

[Angry Dragon]

2. it was a farce and fraud from the beginning

[tabatha]

5. Was it manipulation or was it error?

If it was error, then it is hysterical to state (with caps) MANIPULATED SCIENCE and SERIOUSLY-LOWBALLED.

Bacteria have done a good job in getting rid of the problem.

"Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently published a study describing how underwater topography and currents affected the disappearance of methane plumes in the Gulf of Mexico following the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill."

"The model explained how physical components of the Gulf contributed to bacterial consumption of methane."

http://www.dailynexus.com/2012-01-17/ucsb-researchers-continue-study-deepwater-oil-spill/

[MineralMan]

13. It was both manipulation and error.

We got bad numbers from BP and the others. We (the government) also have no ability to measure the oil flow, so we're stuck with information from those who do, and those are the same people who were doing the drilling. Bad numbers, manipulated by BP and the others, and an error because we had no way to measure the flow.

It was a cluster-fuck all around.

[jsmirman]

16. Range must always indicate uncertainty

how is this not one of the most basic principles of statistical accuracy???

[tabatha]

17. Well, then the OP is implying that Obama admin manipulated, when it was BP.

Bad OP !!!

[tkmorris]

18. Read the attached material

It's not about BP's estimates at all, it concerns the panel of independent scientists that the White House itself appointed to determine an unbiased (!) estimate of the flow rate.

The White House tried to lowball the estimate, of that I have no doubt. Not our finest hour. I am sympathetic to their reasons for doing so, but I don't think that ultimately it was a good idea.

[tabatha]

22. I wonder if any of the scientist were paid by BP.

It is a good thing that the bacteria did a somewhat decent job. Otherwise, the admin would be in deep doodoo.

There are significant natural methane discharges where I live - amounting to more than pollution from vehicles. At an outlet to the ocean, an oily stream is used by a number of birds. Somewhat mind-boggling. Apparently, without the offshore drilling, there would be a lot more oily muck on the beaches and in the ocean. Very much at odds with my previous notions. (Recent education.)

[Lionessa]

27. Under the circumstances, it still all falls to the administration, imo.

Once the spill began, the administration became responsible for the policing of all aspects of the situation.

Once again some on here want us to forgive the Obama administration their inability to handle situations by blaming others. If Obama can't lead, if Obama can't get to facts, if Obama is unwilling to prosecute the rich and corps who screw us over, if every type and manner of corporate bully can run rough shod over Obama,

Then he should resign.

[whatchamacallit]

29. Fascinating how you love to present conjecture as fact

As always, how the fuck would *you* know?

[MineralMan]

30. Because I followed the incident from its beginning.

Thanks for asking.

[whatchamacallit]

31. Yes, I remember some of your pronouncements right after the disaster

The same unsubstantiated opinion with the same swaggering "Let me tell you what happened" quality.

[MineralMan]

32. I'm honored and humbled that you remember those.

I must apologize for not reciprocating.

[whatchamacallit]

34. That's because I didn't have any

Pontificating is *your* thing.

[gratuitous]

6. But they said so many good and righteous things

That's gotta count for something.

Strike that; that counts for everything. And if you think it doesn't why don't you just go vote for a third party candidate, you dirty fucking hippie?

Do I get my gold star as Defender of the Faith?

[SammyWinstonJack]

41. ...

[aquart]

15. Gosh, I'm so surprised.

[eShirl]

20. like it wasn't obvious to anybody not sleepwalking through life

[Marnie]

25. That they did is important, but we already knew that.

Just another reason Obama needs to be challenged questioned in debates.

He should have to answer for the widespread illness and financial losses suffered by those on the Gulf.

Going to a non affected luxury hotel in Florida and eating imported shrimp was cheap and insulting.

[WillyT]

26. Color Me Shocked... K & R !!!

[_ed_]

33. "Obama biggest recipient of BP cash"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. "

All you need to know. Follow the money.

Occupy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

37. And who says that the trickle-down theory doesn't work?

[_ed_]

40. One of the best jokes I ever heard

was that "trickle down" is just the sound of a rich man pissing on your face.

[JackRiddler]

35. kick & rec & referred in other thread... however...

here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207861

I think the use of caps and trigger words in the thread title is counterproductive. This is too important, and too real, to turn into another debate about whether we're slagging Obama. Of course he's responsible, but it's a whole system, and the headline could be less polarizing without the caps.

This is about the power of the oil corporations and, more than this, the power of oil period as the governing commodity and therefore idea in our society. We cannot speak frankly about the Gulf extinction event because to do so forces us to question a society based on hydrocarbon energy, and it's a quasi religious attitude that we cannot question or replace it. This is also about an authoritarian mentality found in governments and ruling institutions generally that is willing to lie to people "in their best interests" (to keep them ignorant and "happy" rather than outraged and troublesome, even when it's warranted). Better to let them be poisoned than risk them rioting - a bipartisan belief.

[T S Justly]

39. Why, it appears they did. K&R (nt)

[Norrin Radd]

42. kr