Scientists or Political Activists

Front page headline in the local newspaper; "Feds pull oil over our eyes." The gist of the article has a college professor of oceanography calling into question a recently released federal report on what has happened to the oil. The professor says "the way it was presented was more of a public relations campaign than trying to estimate the real impact." Another university oceanography professor says; "This is a shaky report. The more I read it, the less satisfied I am with the thoroughness of the presentation...there are sweeping assumptions here."

Here's my question; did these same scientists have the same skepticism toward global warming?

In this article, a University of West Florida biologist says of the report; "Scientifically, it's a very disappointing piece of work. They are putting a good face on this, and it's not BP. It's the federal government." Really Mr. Scientist? You really believe the federal government might be involved in political spin?

I just find it fascinating that these learned individuals would believe that the federal government would not put spin on information released to the public. Furthermore I find it interesting that we've not seen this type of skepticism (by scientists) in mainstream media about global warming, even though there have been many questions raised about the validity of reports and information regarding the same.

Or, could it be that these scientists aren't satisfied with a report, stating that the threats from the spilled oil are not as great as first believed, because it doesn't meet their political agenda? I mean, never mind that the oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico was light crude, much different than that spilled from the Exxon Valdez in Alaska. Just one of the many things that could've played a role in minimizing what we all thought would be a much bigger disaster.

Just some thoughts. Yours?