The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s controversial report on the Gulf oil spill was not finished when the White House chose to release it, a government scientist told congressional investigators.
The Obama administration hyped the estimates at an Aug. 4 press briefing with White House energy czar Carol Browner and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. The report immediately sparked controversy among scientists for the rosy projection that three-quarters of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico had disappeared.
Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA and an author of the report, told congressional investigators that data supporting the study is still unavailable and the peer review remains unfinished. Lehr also said the decision to release the report was made by the White House, not the government’s lead science agency for oil spills.
A spokesman for NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called it irresponsible for the administration to release the report before it was done.
This is yet another in a long line of examples where the White House’s preoccupation with the public relations of the oil spill has superseded the realities on the ground. It is deeply troubling that White House officials apparently preempted the completion and review of a scientific study on the oil spill by NOAA scientists in order to tout conclusions that many experts believe may be deeply flawed.
The government report instantly made headlines for the astonishing conclusion that approximately 75 percent of the oil had been collected, burned, skimmed or simply disappeared. Given the magnitude of the spill — the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history — some scientists concluded it was premature to draw such conclusions.
Another independent study released this week estimated as much as 79 percent of the oil remains in the Gulf, beneath the water’s surface.
Lehr’s admission that the peer review wasn’t completed in advance of the report’s release undermines the administration’s claim that it was. In fact, his boss at NOAA first made the statement at the White House’s Aug. 4 briefing.
“The report was produced by scientific experts from a number of different agencies, federal agencies, with peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists,” Lubchenco said.
Browner, who would go on NBC’s “Meet the Press” days later to trumpet the report, echoed Lubchenco’s comments.
“This has all been — as Dr. Lubchenco said — been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peer review,” Browner said. “You look at what the inputs are. You look at what the models are. All of this has been made available.”
Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.