NOAA said the Aug. 4 report claiming 3/4 of the oil BP spilled in the Gulf was gone had been peer-reviewed. The scientists say it was not.
"In responding to the growing furor over the public release of a scientifically dubious and overly rosy federal report about the fate of the oil that BP spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA director Jane Lubchenco has repeatedly fallen back on one particular line of defense -- that independent scientists had given it their stamp of approval.
Back at the report's unveiling on August 4, Lubchenco spoke of a 'peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists.' On Thursday afternoon, she told reporters on a conference call: 'The report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists.' The scientists, she said, were listed at the end of the report.
But all the scientists on that list contacted by the Huffington Post for comment this week said the exact same thing: That although they provided some input to NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), they in no way reviewed the report, and could not vouch for it.
The skimpy, four-page report dominated an entire news cycle earlier this month, with contented administration officials claiming it meant that three fourths of the oil released from BP's well was essentially gone -- evaporated, dispersed, burned, etc. But independent scientists are increasingly challenging the report's findings and its interpretation -- and they are expressing outrage that the administration released no actual data or algorithms to support its claims."
Dan Froomin reports for Huffington Post August 20, 2010.
Back at the report's unveiling on August 4, Lubchenco spoke of a 'peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists.' On Thursday afternoon, she told reporters on a conference call: 'The report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists.' The scientists, she said, were listed at the end of the report.
But all the scientists on that list contacted by the Huffington Post for comment this week said the exact same thing: That although they provided some input to NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), they in no way reviewed the report, and could not vouch for it.
The skimpy, four-page report dominated an entire news cycle earlier this month, with contented administration officials claiming it meant that three fourths of the oil released from BP's well was essentially gone -- evaporated, dispersed, burned, etc. But independent scientists are increasingly challenging the report's findings and its interpretation -- and they are expressing outrage that the administration released no actual data or algorithms to support its claims."
Dan Froomin reports for Huffington Post August 20, 2010.
Comments