Wildlife Deputy Changed Science For Lobbyists

fistfullast33l writes "In another case of a government official creating a 'unique' interpretation of science, TPM Muckraker reports on Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior in Washington. The Department's Inspector General issued a report today documenting evidence that MacDonald not only overrode opinions of department scientists to benefit lobbyists, and political interests, but also that she shared internal documents with said lobbyists and a friend in an unnamed online roleplaying game. My favorite episode: 'At one point, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a nesting range of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a running battle with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.'"

Recommended Reading

[Raul654 (453029)]

Suggested reading for everyone: The Republican War on Science [wikipedia.org] by Chris Mooney [wikipedia.org]. Chapter 11 (documenting the ID movement) is available online, but the site is not responding (quite possibly something to do with this story breaking).

Re:Recommended Reading

[Brandybuck (704397)]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science! As long as some government official, bureaucrat or politician can gain a bit of power by manipulating science, they will. The separation of church and state has proven to be a great success. Let's take it one step further and have a separation of science and state.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Evilest Doer (969227)]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science!

While that is true to an extent, Republicans have been taking their war with science to ridiculous lengths since W was selected. This is only one of many times in which the head of the department/ agency/ whatever turns out to be an English/ Journalism/ Underwater-Basketweaving major who goes on to censor and alter what PhD scientists write about what they have studied and researched.

But you are certainly right, though. Having a bunch of scientifically-uneducated lawyers (which most Congresscritters are) set science policy is, shall we say, not exactly the best of ideas. I think this whole attitude goes back to the ancient stupidity which basically said that the king knows all.

Re:

[c6gunner (950153)]

That's not really true. Republicans are no more "anti-science" than Democrats, they just tend to suppress and pursue different sciences. Republicans pursue applied, practical research, especially when it involves things like weapons, vehicles, power generation and industry. They suppress stem cell research, biological studies in general, and are generally quite opposed to evolutionary theory. Democrats on the other hand tend to be much less supportive of applied sciences, especially nuclear research and

Re:

[jstomel (985001)]

The difference is that when democrats are opposed to research, they just don't fund it. They don't say to scientists "we don't like nuclear weapons, so change epsilon in the equations so that they won't work any more". Whereas republicans seem to tell scientists to change their data to fit the facts that they want to be true, like telling scientists to change the nesting range so that california isn't included in the range of this bird. The former is a funding issue. That's political, it's ledgit. The

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter (624760)]

"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."

That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?

BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).

Re:

[rewinn (647614)]

>His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming

Where has Al Gore, or anyone, asserted that 2nd-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming ... outside of The Onion? [theonion.com]

One suspects you are the victim of a joke. Link please?

Re:Recommended Reading

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

The problem is people who don't believe in objective reality.

Such people are dangerous everywhere but are outright toxic when allowed to tamper with the results of fieldwork.

People who substitute goodfact for realfact and own propaganda machines are inimical to democracy.

Re:

[nugneant (553683)]

Whatever the problems of government may be, at the end of the day, it is the people, through our elected officials, are in charge, and should be in charge.

Bravo to you for putting it so clearly. In a representative democracy, the senators, representatives, and various presidential subordinates, are not leaders. They are not even - in the ideal form of democracy - role models. Whenever I see them referred to as "leaders" (usually in glurge-for-kids, see: The Mini Page), I want to puke. The way I see it, politicians are actors - glorified lawyers, if you will. Their job is to say what you and I say, but say it in such a way that it's clean, precise, to the

Re:

[illegalcortex (1007791)]

I would think the best person to write such a report would be a journalist. They dig into stories like this, interviewing people and getting input from experts in various fields. They look into the background of the people involved and try to find inside information like leaked documents.

If a non-scientist can clearly present to other non-scientists a case of scientists being pressured by administrators with a politcal bent, then that is very compelling. It's much less compelling if it takes a scientist

Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[HornWumpus (783565)]

How many times have we seen perpetual motion reported as straight news?

For a journalist to be able to think critically about scientific subjects they should be reasonably well grounded in the subject (which is asking a lot for a journalist).

Otherwise all they do is pick a side in the argument, dumb it down till they think they understand it, then report it as undisputed fact.

So while you do have a point about presenting information to non-scientists the journalist should be somewhere in the middle. W

Re:

[illegalcortex (1007791)]

I could rebut your argument by saying I've never met a scientist who was ever able to perform investigative journalism worth a damn.

Also, I have a science degree, but I'm at a loss as to how that qualifies me to research a story on the biasing of science in the fields of global warming or environmental protection regulations. And I was one of the SHARPER ones in the bunch.

In reality, some journalists are competent and some aren't, no matter what their major.

Re:

[rasputin465 (1032646)]

Perhaps I shouldn't snub those that are fighting the 'good fight'.

I agree we shouldn't snub the good guys, but at the same time, it wouldn't be the 'good fight' if we didn't subject everyone to criticism equally.

Re:

[thrillseeker (518224)]

it wouldn't be the 'good fight' if we didn't subject everyone to criticism equally. On Slashdot? You haven't seen the continuous over-the-top in-your-face guess-what-makes-the-accepted-submissions agenda here on the "news for nerds" site?

Re:Recommended Reading

[nbauman (624611)]

As much as I appreciate the work Mr. Mooney does, what precisely makes him credible to speak about science related topics? He has a B.A. in English, and I doubt very much that he has a fundamental grasp of the concepts he speaks of... Anyone care to share their thoughts on the subject?

That's a fair question that deserves a reasonable answer.

I read Mooney's book, and I read several of his articles. It was consistent with what I had been reading in Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, and Henry Waxman's documentation (which is where a lot of this comes from).

More convincing than their arguments is the Bush Administration's inability to give a convincing rebuttal. I also read the Wall Street Journal editorial page every day to get the other side, and I don't think they gave a coherent answer. Most significantly, when they got someone to rebut the scientists, they usually got an economist, not a scientist, and their economists seemed to make obvious logical and scientific fallicies. For that matter, the Wall Street Journal news stories pretty much took Mooney's perspective. (Science and New Scientist made a reasonable effort to give the opposing views too, and at least they got scientists.)

There was an editorial in Science signed by science advisors to presidents over 30 years denouncing the Bush Administration -- including many Republicans. Even Republican scientists said that they've never seen political pressure like this (and I saw political pressure on scientists under the Carter and Clinton Administration). The unanimity among scientists really is striking, bipartisan and unprecedented. It's always possible that they could all be wrong, but it's better than the evidence we usually have for other policy decisions (like Star Wars), and given the risks, you can't just say, "Let's put off action for 10 years while we get more evidence," like George W. Bush does.

So as a journalist, much of what Mooney does is merely summing up what highly-credentialed PhD-level scientists are saying, giving the arguments on both sides, coming to conclusions, and giving it a context. The scientists say that he's reporting their views accurately. Furthermore much of what he does is reporting on politics, and it's nice, but not necessary, to be a scientist to do that. (Gerard Piel, the publisher of Scientific American, was a history major.)

Lots of people do that, and still turn out to be wrong. But Mooney got generally good reviews in the scientific journals. He took a lot of stuff I read and made it easier for me to understand the context. In my reading, he does seem to have a good grasp of the subject. He wouldn't be qualified to do the hard science, like look at temperature data in ice cores and make a scientific judgment about it, but he doesn't make hard scientific decisions, he just talks to other people who do.

That's what qualifies him to write a book and report on this. He could be wrong, but he's at least as qualified as any journalist, columnist, or economist. Of course you have a perfect right to be skeptical, and you provide a useful service when you are skeptical. But I think there are good answers to your objections.

I don't suppose anyone would argue that the President of the United States has a fundamental grasp of these concepts.:)

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer (969227)]

Global Warming is the Left's ID

Global warming is based on measured results and well understood scientific principles. The study of global warming has been a careful, ongoing scientific concern for over forty years. ID is just repackaged Young Earth Creationism from people who are stupid enough to believe that the world is only 6000 years old. Even St. Augustine (circa 5th century) advised people not to take the Genesis account as literal history since it was never meant to be that way.

Global Warming is Irrelevant

[by Anonymous Coward]

This topic is a red herring, a debate which is DELIBERATELY furthered by commercial interests so as to avoid the real problem, which is pollution of the air in general.

Look, we all know polluting the air is wrong. The earth is enveloped by the thinnest egg-shell layer of an atmosphere. Whether filling that thin memrane causes warming, cooling, or stasis for thousands of years, it doesn't matter. In the long run, it is objectively, undeniably stupid to fill the balloon with pollutants. So whether some sort of rapid onset of "global warming" is going to happen or not doesn't matter. What really matters is stopping the pollution of the air, which is undeniably a wrongful, stupid act.

Re:

[TubeSteak (669689)]

This topic is a red herring, a debate which is DELIBERATELY furthered by commercial interests so as to avoid the real problem, which is pollution of the air in general.

Look, we all know polluting the air is wrong.

Air pollution is not a question of "is it wrong"
It is "how much is bad for you and me?"

U.S.A. businesses love countries with lax pollution laws, because it's cheaper to operate there & the pollution is Not In My Back Yard.

In the end, the Federal Government will never allow pollution laws to sig

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Mr. Slippery (47854)]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Excuse me, but you've got it completely ass-backwards: the question is, what does it matter if your economy is good, if the air is poisoned?

You can fix the economy a lot easier than you can fix poisoned air and water.

Rule number one for people in a self-contained space habitat, whether a Vostok caspule or a planetary ecosystem, is: Do not fuck with the spaceship's life support system.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[1u3hr (530656)]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Think of it like this: How good will your economy be when people take days off from work for bronchial infections, asthme, and are dropping like flies from cancer? Have a look at the heavy industrial cities of Russia and China, where life expectancy is falling by the year, and the economies are tanking because no one wants to live or invest there?

Worst polluted cites [blacksmithinstitute.org]

DZERZINSK, RUSSIA
In Dzerzhinsk, a significant center of the Russian chemical manufacturing, the average life expectancy is 42 years for men and 47 for women. Despite the heavy toll on the populations health, a quarter of the city's 300,000 residents are still employed in factories that turn out toxic chemicals. According to a 2003 BBC report it is the young who are most vulnerable. In the local cemetery, there are a shocking number of graves of people below the age of 40. In 2003 it was reported that the death rate exceeded the birth rate by 2.6 times and it is easy to see why. The dioxins that get into the water as a by-product of chlorine production are reported to cause cancer even in minute doses.

LINFEN, SHANXI PROVINCE, CHINA
Shanxi Province is considered to be the heart of Chinas enormous and expanding coal industry, providing about two thirds of the nations energy. Within it, Linfen has been identified as one of Shanxis most polluted cities with residents claiming that they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, according to a BBC report. Local clinics are seeing growing cases of bronchitis, pneumonia, and lung cancer. Lead poisoning was also seen at very high rates in Chinese children in the Shanxi Province.

LA OROYA, PERU
Since 1922, adults and children in La Oroya, Peru - a mining town in the Peruvian Andes and the site of a poly-metallic smelter - have been exposed to the toxic emissions from the plant. Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant is largely responsible for the dangerously high blood lead levels found in the children of this community. Ninety-nine percent of children living in and around La Oroya have blood lead levels that exceed acceptable amounts. Sulfur dioxide concentrations also exceed the World Health Organization emissions standards by ten fold. The vegetation in the surrounding area has been destroyed by acid rain due to high sulfur dioxide emissions.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[ResidntGeek (772730)]

Nobody cares what you believe. We're trying to keep coastal areas habitable. You need to shut the fuck up; you don't know what you're talking about, and you're fueling men who will cause major problems in the future. I'm aware that the evidence for global warming isn't as conclusive as some rabid environmentalists would have you believe, but to assume that means everything is peachy and you should keep as many lights as you can on at night is flat-out retarded. Also, the predictions of global cooling was based on a flawed model, one whose errors have been found, explained, and fixed. If you can find the same sort of errors in the current models, great, otherwise learn to judge the maturity of a science before commenting on it.

Re:

[Evilest Doer (969227)]

The idea of global cooling happened during a time of slight general cooling (from 1940 - 1970). It's no accident that the models of the time just so happened to fit expectations (the weather outside).

Actually, the question at the time was one of will the increase in carbon dioxide and other emissions create global warming or global cooling? Since atmospheric science was somewhat young in this regard, a lot of study was needed to determine what the long-term effects would be. It was a bunch of ignorant j

Re:

[Copid (137416)]

In the late 70s they were yelling about global cooling. Sorry, that's LESS THAN forty years ago.

Challenge! References, please. Three papers (other than some overblown sensationalist popular media misinterpretation of actual scientific results) would be a good start, although evidence of anything like a broad consensus would be better.

I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I also don't believe we're significant enough to have that much impact on the planet.

And you're basing this on...?

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Copid (137416)]

Here you go Coped, Try Google, this is only one reference there are plenty more including papers in "peer reviewed journals" of the time for whatever that is worth.

That's not what I was asking for. I know that you claim that there was some sort major "global cooling" movement in the 70's. I was asking you to cite actual evidence that there was. If you had read the article that you linked to, you might have come across the line, "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today" for example.

My point is that the various claims of decades past don't come near the broad consensus and quantities of data we have today. The fact that some scientists have been wrong in the past doesn't mean that most scientists are wrong now.

Re:

[Copid (137416)]

...relatively speaking as the "consensus" today. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but I am, and it was in the news quite a bit.

Yes, I'm well aware that you claim that there was a large scientific consensus. I just don't believe you because I haven't been able to find evidence of it myself, and because it appears that you got that impression by remembering 30 year old accounts from the popular media. I'm saying that if you really dig into that claim to see the research that the media was referenc

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Ptraci (584179)]

From the second page of that article:

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now--vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models--render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.

Re:

[VON-MAN (621853)]

'I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age'
Yes, since then the scientific ideas on these topics have changed (why do people think that's strange?). However, there is still a LOT of uncertainty on how ice ages happen.

"we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?"
The holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with the climate, and everything with CFK's and harmful ultraviolet

MMOG?

[by Anonymous Coward]

After reading and re-reading all 3 linked articles, I see no specific or generic reference to an MMOG. Am I blind (if so, I blame it on MMOG-induced sleep deprivation)? Is the article summary just making that part up? Or is there another article that wasn't linked? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:MMOG?

[sunwukong (412560)]

There's mention of it here [tpmmuckraker.com].

Obviously crafting related

[Headw1nd (829599)]

"Ms. MacDonald, if you read the report you will see that the white-tailed prairie dog is clearly in need of protec-"

"NO!! I NEED TEN MORE HIDES TO COMPLETE MY CLOAK!!"

Save the dinosaur

[Coolhand2120 (1001761)]

Like all endangered species, their [the yellow whatever] extension can be directly attributed to the rise of mankind. Even the brontosaurus was driven away because of small ground dwelling mammals. Let's just say from this point forward it's our fault. Darwin would never say "Survival of the fittest"

Re:

[Dunbal (464142)]

We're not going to get very far once corn crops start withering. If our meat stock dies off, we're getting into even deeper shit.

      Nahh, once you've tasted human you never go back, they say. The only ones in deep shit are the ones not prepared to take that little step, close their eyes, and add lots of onions.

Re:

[Creepy Crawler (680178)]

Do you realize that humans taste like pigs? Well, it is rather close.

Why do you think some American native tribes said that humans were "long pigs"?

Food for thought.

Isn't it about time....

[edwardpickman (965122)]

We need to legalize the culling of lobbyist. If they can cull baby seals and alligators the culling of lobbyist is long overdue. Their explosive breeding is threatening the Washington political ecosystem. Tag and release is no longer a viable option. The overpopulation is similar to the Australian rabbit plagues only far more destructive.

Re:

[Dunbal (464142)]

We need to legalize the culling of lobbyist. If they can cull baby seals and alligators the culling of lobbyist is long overdue.

      I guess we could always lobby for it. Oh wait - uh, you first!

Re:

[sunwukong (412560)]

References?

Or are you arguing that Ms MacDonald is performing an essential public service by correcting the exaggerations of her scientific staff and is just coincidentally benefitting herself and her allies?

If you're going to troll, you should probably stick to AC.

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road

Come on now. Utah isn't real, it's just somewhere you set your tall stories to fool credulous foreigners.

Re:

[gweihir (88907)]

Your are correct in that environmentsalists also fake things. People that do not understand how science works are everywhere. Science does not start out with a result. Science produces results and it is completely mercyless when done right, insofar as the results will be nothing that can be changed and still be science.

As a side-note: Global warming is not something environmentalists discoverd. It was discoverd by mererologists that are scientists, meaning they did their best to get accurate results, no mat

Re:

[NeutronCowboy (896098)]

Ok, I know that environmentalists are nutty as well, but how the hell does a completely unsupported accusation like the first and second story get modded informative? It's like saying the jews are behind 9/11 is an informative statement. The only people it informs is those who want to believe it.

Re:All too common

[ScottForbes (528679)]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road, and the environmentalists would cry foul. After they did an autopsy on one, they found frozen lettuce in its stomach. The environmentalists had caught them live, fed them for a while, then froze them until "needed".

...and even worse, Al Gore is using his internet to keep this story from being reported! [google.com]

So Pat Robertson and other TV Preachers...

[FatSean (18753)]

...being corrupt lying and hateful retards means that all religious people are fucking assholes who deserve a bullet to the face.

I like the cut of you jib!

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

A few scientists who do something unscientific means that all of research you don't like is automatically refuted?

Re:

[GaryPatterson (852699)]

No, science does not require repeatability with controls.

Consider Astronomy. That's definitely a science, but it's fairly hard to repeat the Big Bang, star formation or even planetary formation with controls.

Theory and observation, that's what science is about.

You observe a phenomenon, then construct theories about it. If the theories hold true for another round of observartions, you're doing Science! If the theories don't hold, you either change them (still doing Science) or refute the observations (steppi

Modded "Informative"?

[uhlume (597871)]

Do you have any references for your claims besides an unsourced article published in a right-wing conservative (sorry, "Libertarian") think-tank's [heartland.org] unabashedly anti-environmentalist publication? You really think the Heartland Institute constitutes a neutral, unbiased source on anything? You don't suppose maybe they have an axe or two to grind?

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[funwithBSD (245349)]

yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!

Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric.

Heck, the story right after this one, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/3 1/0218245 [slashdot.org], reports a testable theory about violations of Newton's second law! The debate is NEVER over, it can always be opened if you have good science to prove your case. This guy doesn't have proof of his theory yet, and may never have it. But if he does get the proof people will have to re-open our understanding of that "Law".

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[uhlume (597871)]

yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!

Yes, it's telling, isn't it, that the current president and administration make Nixon look a "left-wing loony" by contrast? Of course, Nixon didn't act alone in forming the EPA, nor did he do so in a political vaccuum. The EPA was formed in response to massive public pressure in the wake of a number of highly visible environmental disasters — the kind of popular political force the current Whitehouse may be doggedly determined to ignore, but which even the Nixon administration occasionally bowed to.

Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric (sic).

There is a near-universal consensus amongst climate scientists that global warming is occurring, and almost agree that the anthropogenic climate change is a significant factor. For most intents and purposes, the scientific debate on that topic is over, though the political debate may rage on unabated by fact or reason. No one, including I think Al Gore, would claim that major questions don't remain to be answered, but whether or not global warming is happening isn't one of them. You may feel free to 'disagree' all you like; until you've invested the years of time and effort to earn a PhD in climatology and the respect of your academic peers, nobody is really obliged to care.

Re:

[funwithBSD (245349)]

I did realize in my statement I misquoted Gore, he is claiming anthropomorphic warming, which is quite a bit different than natural warming due to leaving a normal ice age/warming age. That may change what I am about to say in response to you, as you do use the qualifier "almost agree" for human based. It still applies to those who think anthropomorphic warming is not disputable.

I disagree on the basis of accepted scientific method, not my PhD in any subject. That requires less than a Slashidiot level of ed

Sure you understand Popper?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY (17678)]

The demarcation is only for which statements are scientific and which are not. As I think you were trying to point out, falsifiable statements are scientific statements, so stating that the evidence cannot be questioned is removing the theory from criticism. Technically, this is a correct statement, but it is completely missing the point of the parent. Using demarcation against Gore like that, to try and trap him on a technical question to hide from the larger criticisms he argues is quite disingenuous and

Re:Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[x_man (63452)]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior.

Are you saying you would rather put your "stock" in a political appointee that's been caught numerous times altering government reports, in one case because she didn't want the habitat to intrude on her husbands's ranch!? The nice thing about science is you must publish your results and data for peer review. If you try to fabricate your results, somebody will eventually catch you and your career is over. But every time a Bush appointee is caught altering data, they quit and go to work for Exxon. What we need are some real criminal consequences for altering government reports. It's a criminal offense for a company to alter its books or for me to lie on my taxes. People like this lady should be going to jail.

2002 called...

[MillionthMonkey (240664)]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Although it provides no evidence and cites no sources other than Republican politicians, Republican political operatives, anonymous Bush appointees, a "third generation logger", and a taxidermist, your 5 year old story [heartland.org] about some low level government employees planting lynx hairs in national forests is quite compelling. This Republican investigation of environmental malfeasance in the Bush-era EPA has had years to get rolling and has surely netted some troublesome environmentalists. But the Republicans should watch their step here- the public has "scandal fatigue". I personally just want these investigations of corruption on the part of public officials to stop so I can concentrate on paying my bills again.

If it weren't for lavishly funded free-market think tanks [exxonsecrets.org] the truth might have never come out and anti-endangered species activists [google.com] in the 109th Congress such as Richard Pombo [hcn.org] would have been put in the awkward position of having to make up politically convenient but dubious anecdotes [washingtonpost.com] on their own. It's a relief they didn't have to do that.

Clearly this all fits into the larger pattern of career EPA employees purging all political operatives from sensitive policy positions and having them replaced with more nonpolitical people.