Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Science.house/ Bill Prohibits EPA from Using Secret Science


twa

should all regs be based only on transparent and reproducible science?  

8 members have voted

  1. 1. all regs should be based only on transparent and reproducible science?

    • No, I like mystery
      1
    • Yes, I prefer transparency and reproducible science
      7


Recommended Posts

What say ye science lovers?

http://science.house.gov/press-release/bill-prohibits-epa-using-secret-science

Members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology today introduced the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 4012), a bill to prohibit the EPA from proposing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or not reproducible. The bill was introduced by Environment Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) and cosponsored by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Chairman Smith: “Virtually every regulation proposed by the Obama administration has been justified by nontransparent data and unverifiable claims. The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based on publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims. The Secret Science Reform Act of 2014, which I sponsored, prohibits EPA from using secret science to justify new regulations.”

Chairman Schweikert: “The Secret Science Reform Act ends costly EPA rulemaking from happening behind closed doors and out of public view. Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups. For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions. This common-sense legislation forces the EPA to be transparent and accountable with their findings.”

A 2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research found that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make federal government decisions should be made public. Provisions in the bill are consistent with the White House’s scientific integrity policy, the President’s Executive Order 13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, the Bipartisan Policy Center and the recommendations of the Obama administration’s top science advisors.

On Tuesday February 11 at 10:00am the Environment Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Ensuring Open Science at EPA” to receive testimony on the legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the public funds it, it should be public knowledge.  However, If it is some secret squirrel propietary cutting edge science, and it is a private contractor that is responsible, then there needs to be provisions to keep it confidential. 

 

Otherwise, I'm all about those who are responsible for our well-being having to be required to prove why they make regulations.

 

Good article.  Thanks twa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I want an example of what they mean by "Secret Science," I'm guessing that this is code word for any and all climate change studies which republicans love to call inconclusive.

 

Secret science and the EPA sounds like bad code.  For example, with the West Virginia water contamination issue.  Scientists don't know yet all the ramifications or health effects from the spill.  Do you think there shouldn't be regulations trying to prevent such accidents from occuring again until we totally understand it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I want an example of what they mean by "Secret Science,"

 

frankly so do they :D ,more specifically the data and studies used to issue a finding/rule.....but you could start with the CO2  Endangerment finding.

 

those that love science love source data and reproducible results 

 

 

your WV spill is a rather poor example, it is not about what we don't know....but rather what we do know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm all for data.  The more the better.  I also am a huge fan of replication.  Whether we're talking medical R&D or environmental studies.  I do think that there is sometimes a danger in waiting to act before all the data is in and agreed upon.  I guess I just didn't quite get the bill.

 

If it's a call for simple transparency then I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the call for data and studies?

Somehow, my ASSUMPTION is that this is a publicity stunt bill, about as factual as the Birther bills that were popular a while back.

"All I'm doing is asking questions."

But, I'm perfectly willing to wait for some support. I'm pretty confident that, if there really is "something there, there", there will be some facts being produced, by both sides, rather quickly.

As to the demand of reproducibility?

I will point out that there are lots of areas where it's impossible to conduct reproducible experiments. I think one of the things they have in common is that they study the real world.

It's impossible to conduct reproducible experiments in economics, for example.

But I don't think we should have rules forbidding the government from paying attention to the economic impact of their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about it, it's really very ironic. :P

 

Recall a science fiction book, in which one of the characters made the statement that "God is an iron". 

 

 

The hero responded with "And I'm a pair of pants with a hole burnt in the ***?"

 

 

The character then explained that, if a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose we have any examples of data that they claim they can't have, yet? 

 

I'm assuming that, if there's data they've been told they can't have, then they've also been given a reason why they supposedly can't have it. 

 

But I confess, that's an assumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose we have any examples of data that they claim they can't have, yet? 

 

I'm assuming that, if there's data they've been told they can't have, then they've also been given a reason why they supposedly can't have it. 

 

But I confess, that's an assumption. 

 

there are examples and even active suits, the EPA has refused so far to comply with requests

 

 

is asking for clarification making things up Larry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are examples and even active suits, the EPA has refused so far to comply with requests

 

 

is asking for clarification making things up Larry?

 

There are lawsuits demanding Obama's Birth Certificate, too. 

 

If there's things being concealed, here, then I'm right there with you demanding full access. 

 

But I've heard the cries of "Wolf!" way too often, when they're complete fabrication. 

 

It's a little bit like when whatshisname, in the Boston Marathon thread, posted a YouTube video, with the comment "I'm just asking questions".  Soon as I saw that line, I knew that it was a whackjob video, and that no, he wasn't just asking questions. 

 

Sorry, but this material, coming from these people,just screams that it's a completely falsified claim. 

 

I'm aware that it's possible that the 30th time somebody cries "Wolf!", that there's a chance that it's real.  But I'm going to have to see more than somebody making claims and sound bites, before I'm going to fall for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that you don't already know if things are being concealed answers much.

 

the truth is there if ya look....if you would rather just insult it is your choice

 

add

 

Something else needs to be clear....this is a demand for science and technical data that is actually USED to reach policy decisions by the EPA...NOT a demand for science that doesn't exist or proof 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you support hidden science for public policy?

the law will be the same no matter the party in power

 

there are examples and even active suits, the EPA has refused so far to comply with requests

 

 

is asking for clarification making things up Larry?

By all means, share some of these law suits with us so we can discuss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means, share some of these law suits with us so we can discuss them.

 

we can start with Congressional requests

 

http://junkscience.com/2013/08/01/house-science-committee-subpoenas-epa-secret-science/

Washington, D.C. – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today issued a subpoena to the EPA, forcing the agency to release the secret science it uses as the basis for costly air regulations.

Over the past two years, the Committee has repeatedly requested the data the agency uses to justify virtually every Clean Air Act regulation proposed and finalized by the Obama administration. This was the first congressional subpoena the Science Committee has issued in 21 years.

Chairman Smith: “In September 2011, the EPA’s then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data sets available to the Committee. Even though Ms. McCarthy now leads the agency, she has yet to provide the promised data to the Committee.

“This subpoena could have been avoided. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. After two years of failing to respond, it’s clear that the EPA is not going to give the American people what they deserve—the truth about regulations.

“The EPA should not base its regulations on secret data. By denying the Committee’s request, the agency prevents Congress from fulfilling its oversight responsibilities and denies the American people the ability to verify EPA’s claims. The EPA’s lack of cooperation contributes to the suspicion that the data sets do not support the agency’s actions. 

subpeoana

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/epa-subpoena.pdf

 

once we get past why requests from oversight committees are not complied with we can move on to the suits over the cross state rules and the co2 finding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...