Investor’s Business Daily editorializes:
The Environmental Protection Agency declines to have outside experts review its study claiming water contamination from fracking in Wyoming. Why confuse an analysis based on ideology with the facts?
Investor’s Business Daily editorializes:
The Environmental Protection Agency declines to have outside experts review its study claiming water contamination from fracking in Wyoming. Why confuse an analysis based on ideology with the facts?
The only conceivable reason that the EPA would avoid ‘independent’ peer-review of their fracking studies (which would cost them nothing) is that they know in advance that the results of the review would be inconsistent with their official and ideological positions on the issue – regardless of how they may try to stack the deck. If they *could* get peer-reviewed validation of their work it would be extremely valuable to their program in terms of defusing critics in advance.
We must end the federal funding of the EPA and all the law suits from them and the ACLU which we taxpayers pay the expenses – it can be done in this Project for Liberty . . http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v.html
Having spent the better part of my working career in scientific oversight of regulatory programs for State government, I have run across way too many zealots at the State and Federal (EPA) level. These individuals, as there counterparts in the environmental community, are no better then Jhadists. When confronted with the facts, face to face, they usually back down, but if they are allowed to hid in there organizations and institutions, they will do anything they can to promote their ideology, whether the action is ethical or not.