Scientists Accuse Obama Administration of Continuing Political Manipulation of Science

Scientists have gone public with allegations that the Obama Administration has continued the practice of the Bush administration in blocking scientists and ignoring scientific conclusions for political reasons.

While, upon taking office, President Obama ordered his advisers to develop rules to “guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch,” scientists claim that his administration has continued controversial projects where politics trumped science and has continued the practice of ignoring scientific reviews.

For example, in Florida, water-quality experts have complained that the White House is continuing to block efforts to assess damage to the Everglades stemming from development projects. Other scientists complained of being pressured to minimize the damage of dams on salmon populations and overgrazing on federal land.

Source: LA Times

65 thoughts on “Scientists Accuse Obama Administration of Continuing Political Manipulation of Science”

  1. Tootie,

    “….. Frankly, that is juvenile.”


    Don’t you mean sophomoric?

    I didn’t know Margaret Thatcher was a Republican …

  2. Blouise:

    Perhaps it is true that one could NEVER accuse democrats of reading books by scholars like Hayek who are interested in liberty.

    I’m not fan of Dick Armey. And I’m not a republican either. You don’t need to convince me that republicans are evil idiots. George Bush wouldn’t read Hayek and admire him anymore than Obama or Biden would. Bush is merely the republican version of Obama and you and they all reject Hayek. You just like them.

    If a group of people is unenlightened (like the GOPers), and they begin to receive new ideas and start moving in the right direction, isn’t that group of people more reasonable than the group of people who completely eschew moving in the right direction and don’t read such books?

    What you seem to be complaining about is that people you don’t like, and who are reading wise things, are worse than people who do you like and who never read these wise things (let alone benefit from them).

    Frankly, that is juvenile.

  3. Buddha:

    You will not be able to convince educated people that you know much about the topic of socialism or fascism. Perhaps a little more thorough and balanced reading on your part will help? Though I doubt it since ideologues are immune to reason and wisdom.

    But, I’m an optimist. Hope springs eternal, as the saying goes.

    Both fascism and socialism are forms of collectivism. One of the main difference between fascism and socialism is, accordingly, nationalism verses globalism.

    Fascism is nationalistic, socialism is universalist. The Ruskies swallowed up nations to become Soviets (not to be come Russians). The Germans and the Italians swallowed up others to become greater Germany or Italy (or merely to vanquish them, so-to-speak).

    Democrats currently have both collectivist variants operating. They are moving forward on both fronts, naturally. They are fascists and socialists at the same time BECAUSE both ideologies are collectivist. They are nationalist when it puts money directly into the pockets of the people who vote to keep them in power; and they are socialist when it serves their globalist schemes for world government which they want a powerful role in.

    Personally, I consider Obama to be a type of Jacobin. You can look that up and try to say something intelligent about it if you wish. Actually, I have an assignment for you should you like some extra credit this semester. Please explain to the class how destabilizing (whether intentional or not) economies often leads to dictatorships (despotism) and discuss it in the light of the evidence that Obama is well read on the writings of Edmund Burke and that Obama is destabilizing the economy.

    Your assignment, should you agree to accept, is due whenever you are done cramming for it.

    Fascism, in particular, also has a racial element to it. In our case, it is blacks against whites. Blacks intend to plunder whites to pay for everyone’s health care including the Hispanics (and according to Van Jones to give all the wealth to the Indians). Other peoples money belongs to democrats, according to Democrats. Bank robbers think in a similar fashion.

    All forms of collectivism are, thus, forms of theft. Which is why collectivism is so appealing to leftists and Democrats.

    Buddha, Hayek ran for his life and fled to America ahead of Hitler’s fascist war machine.

    So I understand why you belittle and mock him.

    Group Tootie Inc., signing off.

  4. I’ve considered that the pronunciation similarities between “Hayek” and “hack” are not coincidental.

  5. I wonder which member of the study band dug up Group Tootie’s latest contribution …

    Friedrich Hayek was a favorite of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Dick Armey (one of the chief authors of the Republican Contract with America and chairman of FreedomWorks which was linked to demonstrations at town hall forums where health care reform was being discussed and a really big hypocrite where the ol’ family values thing is concerned) … Hayek attracts these kinds of people.

Comments are closed.