Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's pretty clear to me that "secret science" and "hidden data" is going to be the next GOP buzzword for a while. I'm guessing it tested pretty well in Frank Luntz's focus groups. No. It's a pattern they've been following for years. Demand more. Demand more. Demand more. Keep at it until something happens. Then yell "cover up!!" really loudly. Heck, seems like we did that dance over Benghazi for like four years. And then, after all that, tried to hide their own committee's report, because even their report didn't say what they wanted people to think it said. Doesn't guarantee that there's nothing, in this case. But I'm not gonna run out and stock up on canned goods and ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 talking about anything but the fact they will not release the information is going to be a trend eh? look ....squirrel I need more information to tell me if this is a real issue or a made-up issue. Given the recent track history of the Congressional GOP (and the way they phrased their press release) I have a sneaking suspicion that this is more of the same partisan crap like we used to get when Jim Inhofe controlled the Senate Environmental committee. So I'll wait and see. You haven't done much to convince me so far, with your "have you stopped beating your wife" poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 I need more information to tell me if this is a real issue or a made-up issue. You need more information to decide whether the science studies and source data used by the EPA to set policy should be available? Can you tell me why it should not be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGoonie55 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I have so much to learn about politics. I didn't even catch that this was a party fueled discussion, until now. Craziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 You need more information to decide whether the science studies and source data used by the EPA to set policy should be available? Can you tell me why it should not be? I can't even tell you that it hasn't been. I don't know what exactly they asked for, what they got, any of the underlying context, or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 If the Republicans want all the EPAs research to be reproducible, presumably they will introduce a bill to fund the creation of another planet Earth, so that experiments can be carried out to the degree of rigor that they seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 If the Republicans want all the EPAs research to be reproducible, presumably they will introduce a bill to fund the creation of another planet Earth, so that experiments can be carried out to the degree of rigor that they seek. Do you think disclosing source material and data is too rigorous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Typical Republican BS red meat that they can feed their voters back home and say, "I put forth a bill that would keep the EPA from using secret science...because we all know they have, am-I-right, and those dern Dems in the Senate wouldn't pass it!" Voters: "Raawwrrrr Dems bad!!!" GOP Aide: "Ummm Congressman, the EPA doesn't use secret science...." Congressman: "Oh don't tell them that, we just got 3 percentage points!" Reminds me of the scene in Waterworld, "Don't worry about it, they'll row for a month before they realize I'm faking it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Do you think disclosing source material and data is too rigorous? Sure, publish data. There is existing legislation and Executive Orders that make this bill unnecessary. But here's what the bill says. "The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is (A) specifically identified; and (B ) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” Outside of building a new Earth where you can experiment and reproduce results, how do you think this can be accomplished? And if you think that's too much of stretch, how about "we can't implement this legislation because studies by [insert Industry lobbyist here] couldn't reproduce the results that the EPA are relying on." The EPA is not staffed by environmental nutjobs, however much the GoP might like to claim that it is. If anything they should be a lot tougher on the big polluters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 BTW twa your poll question is no different than the old line, "Hey, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Pointing out that, while I strongly suspect that this is a made up publicity stunt, I don;t see enough evidence to jump to that conclusion, either. (Frankly, IMO, it's impossible to say, for sure, either way, until somebody is willing to specify exactly what it is that they claim they don't have.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Pointing out that, while I strongly suspect that this is a made up publicity stunt, I don;t see enough evidence to jump to that conclusion, either. (Frankly, IMO, it's impossible to say, for sure, either way, until somebody is willing to specify exactly what it is that they claim they don't have.) Hey we're just asking questions, what's wrong with asking questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/08/a_little_context_for_us_rep_ed.php The data in question comes from the seminal Harvard Six Cities study. Researchers sited air-monitoring stations in six American towns and strapped mobile ambient air-quality sampling packs to many of the thousands of study participants, whom they followed for 17 years. From 1974 to 1991, they checked in with these folks annually to ascertain their vital status. After controlling for smoking and other risk factors, they found that air pollution shortened their participants' lives. In 1993, the researchers published their work in the New England Journal of Medicine, proving that pollution meant more to humans than smog and foul-smelling air. It kills us slowly. They added to the data eight additional years of follow-up in another peer-reviewed journal in 2006. During that time, air pollution levels decreased in the cities. So too did the associated risk of death from heart and lung disease. Citizens for a Sound Economy, a deregulation advocacy group founded by the Koch brothers, understood the implications better than anyone. They knew that the data would almost certainly be used by the EPA to regulate air pollution, like particulate matter. Luckily, they had friends in Congress who demanded that the study authors release their raw data. Because much of that data consisted of personal health information, and because the authors had promised the participants that they wouldn't drag their private lives into the public realm, they declined. The EPA, as Koch Industries suspected, wanted to rely on the data for new air pollution limits. Under stiff pressure from anti-regulatory lawmakers, the agency struck on a compromise. They let an independent group of scientists attempt to poke holes in the conclusions and methods of the Harvard study. The group came away impressed, affirming the findings. In fact, it's now a model for air quality studies around the world. Now a powerful House committee is calling once again for the Six Cities "secret data," as Smith characterizes it. He claims Congress has been stonewalled by the EPA and he has been left with no choice but to subpoena it. As Johnson has noted time and again, EPA supplied the committee with data that had been "de-identified" to protect the privacy of the study participants. Apparently, that wasn't good enough for Smith. When asked to whom he would give this raw data to, he said "It wouldn't be fair to identify individuals or organizations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, isn't that interesting. I do like context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, isn't that interesting. I do like context. Your position is going to be the only requested data missing was personal identifiers? look squirrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Your position is going to be the only requested data missing was personal identifiers? Your position is going to be that they demanded something else, but neither they nor you can say what it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Perhaps the Congressmen could find the information here:http://www2.epa.gov/openOr they could read the literature. Or they could hold hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Your position is going to be that they demanded something else, but neither they nor you can say what it is? Well when they won't answer your demands then you win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Watching people 'interact' with TWA on here is hilarious. He's linking to things like junkscience.com which is ran by that whack-job Steve Milloy. Don't post ridiculous things like that if you're going to try and bring up science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hey we're just asking questions, what's wrong with asking questions? nothing if ya like science Watching people 'interact' with TWA on here is hilarious. He's linking to things like junkscience.com which is ran by that whack-job Steve Milloy. Don't post ridiculous things like that if you're going to try and bring up science. my links there simply showed the letter and the subpoena....are you saying they are falsified or missreprented? look squirrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, I'm willing to actually allow him, and said politicians, to make a case. Mostly because I hate arguments based simply on dismissing the people presenting them, and because I'm pretty confident that if they actually reveal what they want, we'll discover that the whole thing was a sham from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Watching people 'interact' with TWA on here is hilarious. For me it isn't so much an interaction as it is just a matter of poking him with a stick. I figure if he isn't going to take the opposition seriously then he forfeits that courtesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Your position is going to be that they demanded something else, but neither they nor you can say what it is? my position is all studies and data used by the EPA to make rules should (after personal identity is protected) be released. it ends the questions....ya know....transparency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 my position is all studies and data used by the EPA to make rules should (after personal identity is protected) be released. Gee. Wonder why that's not what the law said. Just picking the example that Switchgear posted, as an example of a "typical study". (Let's just assume that this wasn't the specific data they were demanding, but will not say so.) Would you consider this study to fit the law's "reproducibility" requirement? Or should we trim that part of the law out, when we're adding the protection for person-specific medical information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 11, 2014 Author Share Posted February 11, 2014 why wouldn't the results be reproducible? they are rather insistent on the harm caused and high particulates still exist in places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.