The article from the Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank, criticizes the Biden administration for using "fudged numbers" to justify imposing punitive regulations on certain industries. The article argues that the administration is manipulating data to make it appear as if the regulatory measures are necessary to address environmental and social concerns, when in reality, they are being driven by political agendas and special interest groups.

The article specifically cites the administration's proposed methane emissions rule for the oil and gas industry, which the authors claim is based on flawed data. They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overestimated methane emissions from the industry and that the proposed regulation would impose costly and burdensome restrictions on companies without providing any significant environmental benefits.

The authors also criticize the administration for relying on "climate models" that they claim are unreliable and have been proven wrong in the past. They argue that the use of such models to justify regulatory measures is a form of "climate alarmism" that is driven more by political ideology than by scientific evidence.

The article concludes by suggesting that the Biden administration's use of fudged numbers and unreliable data is a clear example of "statist manipulation" and that it undermines the credibility of government claims about the need for regulatory measures. The authors argue that policymakers should focus on promoting economic growth and individual freedom, rather than imposing punitive regulations on industries based on flawed data and political agendas.