Stubborn and Deceitful?

Surprisingly, it looks as though NOAA should answer "yes" to both sides of the question if we are to believe the latest reports from the scientific community as relayed through ProPublica.

The issue is not that NOAA's estimate of the oil left in the gulf was wrong by a fair margin. Here's what the head of NOAA said on August 4:

"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."

And her boss, the Energy Secretary backed her up:

"Can I just add another point? This has all been -- as Dr. Lubchenco said -- been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peer review."

But there was no peer review. Here is testimony to a Congressional panel from a NOAA official last week:

“Our priority was to get an answer as quickly as possible to incident command,” Lehr explained to the panel; the peer review had been delayed. “We’re hoping to get it out in two months.” 

And then there is a reluctance on NOAA's part to say very much about the data on which their report is based. This does not fill one with confidence.