The drilling question
Having bought the unsubstantiated arguments of global-warming alarmists, the Obama administration is all too likely to be swayed by politicized science regarding offshore oil and gas drilling.
Ocean scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration want the Interior Department to ban offshore drilling in the Arctic and much of the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico.
Though informal and nonbinding, NOAA's recommendations are sharply critical of a Bush-era offshore leasing plan that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is considering altering.
So where does science end and politics begin?
NOAA's concerns are drilling's effects on marine life, plus potential damage from and ability to clean up spills. But how deeply are those concerns genuinely rooted in hard, objective science, not science bent to support a political agenda• And who can be trusted to make that distinction?
Climate scientists' willingness to twist data to fit preordained conclusions -- and this administration's willingness to take such "experts" at their word -- should put Interior, and Congress, on guard about NOAA's recommendations.
The proper balance between energy and environment won't be struck with extremists' thumbs weighting the scales against authentic science.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.