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

Let's add this into the mix.  This is what the EPA says it needs to do the job right.  So, it's getting about 1/4th of the money they are requesting which has declined/remained relatively flat since 2007.  So, my argument about underfunding and declines hold as near as I can tell.

 

http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget

 

EPA's Budget and Spending

{C}{C}

View EPA expenditures on USA Spending.Gov.

Budget Resource Use
FY 2014 Proposed Budget
Fiscal Year
Enacted Budget
Workforce
FY 2013 $7,901,104,000 15,913 FY 2012 $8,449,385,000 17,106
FY 2011
$8,682,117,000
17,359
FY 2010
$10,297,864,000
17,278
FY 2009
$7,643,674,000
17,049
FY 2008
$7,472,324,000
16,916
FY 2007
$7,725,130,000
17,072
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FY 2009 Budget-in-Brief (PDF) (94pp, 1.8M)

FY 2008 Budget-in-Brief (PDF) (68pp, 1.8M)

FY 2007 Budget-in-Brief (PDF) (94pp, 1.8M)

FY 2006 Budget-in-Brief (PDF) (95pp, 1.7M)

 

So, going from 1.8 billion to 1.8 billion to 1.8 billion is expanding?  By most government definitions it is shrinking because there is no inflation increase.

you didn't hear that inflation is non-existent? ;)

 

increased

http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget

 

but enough chasing squirrels :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you didn't hear that inflation is non-existent? ;)

 

increased

http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget

 

but enough chasing squirrels :P

 

 

From your link and your chart... does this look like increasing?  Does it look like cutting of workforce.  Squirrels indeed. 

 

EPA's Budget and Spending

 

FY 2014 Proposed Budget
Fiscal Year
Enacted Budget
Workforce

FY 2013  $7,901,104,000                   15,913

FY 2012  $8,449,385,000                   17,106

FY 2011  $8,682,117,000                   17,359
FY 2010  $10,297,864,000                 17,278
 
Edit: Actually, it's the same chart I posted above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you feel the same when Obama helped draft transparency rules for the EPA?

 

WV is a good example of piss poor priorities....despite all the money we spend on environmental and clean water issues and yet large quantities of a odorous and colored liquid can make it undetected not just into the waterway,but through a water treatment plant.

 

I'm sure the EPA will write a report and collect fines though :rolleyes:

The GOP has worked for years to underfund and limit the EPA and you have the fricking nerve to blame the EPA?!

Good lord.

Your all too predictable argument is the same we hear about "just enforce the gun laws on the book" that the NRA screams all the time knowing that they've undermined those very laws rendering them ineffective so they can then say that gun laws don't work.

Intellectually repugnant

Oh but I'm sure that pointing this out is just another frickin' squirrel.

I hereby propose that legislation be adopted so that in the future twa shall be barred from abusing his spouse. Not that he ever did but it sure is fun making sure things are transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were those cuts his idea or just another capitulation to the GOP environmental utopia of huge factories lining every horizon, billowing smoke and pollution high into the heavenlies, all while pretending that industry is its own best over-sight.

 

ask him, I'm busy in Utopia ....otherwise known as refinery row

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, seems the bar had to be moved from there were no cuts to what about Obama's role in the cuts. I'll take that as a concession.

 

The bar was spending has increased under Rep control.....odd it was cut when they lost control.

 

The proposed EPA numbers were issued under his name....I'll leave what that means up to ya'll.(I have faith you will blame the Reps :huh:  )

 

http://news.agc.org/2013/04/11/presidents-fy-2014-budget-proposes-cuts-changes-to-water-infrastructure-funding/

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obamas-epa-budget-12percent-cut-would-reduce-aid-to-states-but-chesapeake-bay-would-get-more-funds/2012/02/13/gIQAb4O3AR_blog.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, seems the bar had to be moved from there were no cuts to what about Obama's role in the cuts. I'll take that as a concession.

The proposed EPA numbers were issued under his name....

Two reasonable posts. And Burgold awarding twa a point for accuracy and truth.

How can I not add myself to the chorus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress and the public should get to see exactly what EPA relied on to craft its regulation. If that means public doesn't get to see some of the underlying data to the study because EPA didn't get to see it either (personal health info) then that's fine. If the regulation is a bad one, Congress can overturn with legislative action or the party in executive power can do so. It's US democracy at work.

As for reproducing results, is the bill proposing to require that study results be reproduced or reproducible? If it the former, than do I have to wait another 17 years to wait for clean air act regulation so a study can reproduce the original result? How close muct the replicated result be? Are we going to require the same rigour with respect to FDA approval of drugs or classification of hazardous materials?

If the requirement is reproducibility, what short of reproduction will satisfy that requirement? Are we going to have dueling scientists? Who decides the issue? The agency? How is that different from the agency deciding now whether use a study result in there rule making process?

I think this bill raises a lot of question without really offering solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the solution is good science and accountability.

 

IS reproducible is the standard in the bill, if we have different results from the same parameters ...then you look at why

 

dueling scientists is a good thing if they are both using good science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IS reproducible is the standard in the bill, if we have different results from the same parameters ...then you look at why

 

dueling scientists is a good thing if they are both using good science.

 

But, in order to assess reproducibility of a long term study, do you have to wait for another long term study see if the study is reproducible?  If the Harvard study showed detrimental effect of air quality below a certain level on health and EPA wants to promulgate regulation based on that, what must the EPA satisfy in order to pass muster under the new law?  How does the EPA assess reproducibility of a study?  

 

Option 1) Conduct another study to reproduce the result.  This would be a really bad idea for long term studies.

 

Option 2) Assess reproducibility based on expert and agency opinion.  Is this really different from what happens now?  Agencies decide based on whether a study is based on reliable scientific methods, etc.  What would be the standard for challenge?  What burden of proof would apply to a plaintiff challenging agency regulation in court?  Arbitrary and capricious like most agency decisions?  Clear and convincing?  Preponderance of the evidence?  

 

I would say agency rules, like statutes, are part of a highly political process.  If Congress doesn't like a particular rule, change it, regardless of what the underlying reasoning is.  If it doesn't have enough votes to change, than that's why people fight tooth and nail to have their person sit in the White House.  Lot of policies and rules gets made and implemented along the margins.  In some ways, it's a necessity because of the scope of government in modern society (which is an entirely different debate).  "All agencies regulations must be based on open and reproducible science" may sound good, but devils in the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

option 2 of course, but if with open science another cannot reproduce similar results you THEN examine why.

 

reproducible science is no high barrier....unless it is cold fusion ect :)  

the same holds true for models BUT you must know the inputs and adjustments/controls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

option 2 of course, but if with open science another cannot reproduce similar results you THEN examine why.

 

reproducible science is no high barrier....unless it is cold fusion ect :)  

the same holds true for models BUT you must know the inputs and adjustments/controls

 

I think saying that failure of reproduction is something the agency must consider is a perfectly reasonable position and I think that's what you are saying.  If a particular study the agency relied is called into question at any point (and reproducibility is certain a potential issue, although not the only one) the agency should examine the credibility of the study.  

 

I think adding certain requirements in the rulemaking process such as sharing and identifying all studies and underlying data the agency examined (subject to privacy, security, or other concerns) is a perfectly sound requirement.  Even requiring agencies to identify or discuss conflicting studies it disregarded may be sound policy, but I think it could be grounds for abuse, especially by heavily funded special interest groups, who may inundate the agency with conflicting, group-funded studies, and just bog down the rulemaking process as a whole (I'm sure there are some who would be perfectly happy to throw money at Clean Air Act rulemaking process to slow down the EPA from deciding on a regulation).  

 

In short, open disclosure by the agency regarding the study itself is good and I believe that is already the rule.  Requiring that agency only use studies that is based on a completely open public data is going too far and I think subject to abuse.  Limiting agency's ability to rely on studies based on some one-size fits all definition of what is a credible study and what is not is a bad idea.  Last part is where we depend on the political process to sort things out.  If agencies under liberal executive branch keeps churning out bad regulation based on bad science, people will get sick of liberal executive branch and put in an executive branch who won't do that anymore.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In short, open disclosure by the agency regarding the study itself is good and I believe that is already the rule.  Requiring that agency only use studies that is based on a completely open public data is going too far and I think subject to abuse.  Limiting agency's ability to rely on studies based on some one-size fits all definition of what is a credible study and what is not is a bad idea.  Last part is where we depend on the political process to sort things out.  If agencies under liberal executive branch keeps churning out bad regulation based on bad science, people will get sick of liberal executive branch and put in an executive branch who won't do that anymore.  

 A rule that it is alleged is being circumvented and is limited.

 

I agree you don't want to slow down the process in the manner permitting is at times (Keystone ect),nor should consideration of other studies be required w/o just cause....nor should they be ignored if demonstratively relevant and sound.

 

we do need to trust our bureaucrats and appointees and allow them to sink or swim politically, but a part of that is verification(subject to privacy and secrecy exclusions) and oversight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts?

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

 

We are reminded of the dangers of consensus science in the past. For example, in the 18th century, more British sailors died of scurvy than died in battle. In this disease, brought on by a lack of vitamin C, the body loses its ability to manufacture collagen, and gums and other tissues bleed and disintegrate. These deaths were especially tragic because many sea captains and some ships' doctors knew, based on observations early in the century, that fresh vegetables and citrus cured scurvy.

Nonetheless, the British Admiralty's onshore Sick and Health Board of scientists and physicians (somewhat akin to the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) dismissed this evidence for more than 50 years because it did not fit their consensus theory that putrefaction (or internal decay) caused scurvy, which they felt could be cured by fresh air, exercise and laxatives.

"Consensus" science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

We should not have a climate-science research program that searches only for ways to confirm prevailing theories, and we should not honor government leaders, such as Secretary Kerry, who attack others for their inconvenient, fact-based views.

Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, look!

It's twa, trying to tell us that, since there have been times when science is wrong, therefore we should ignore them when scientists tell us that air pollution is bad for people. (And listen to politicians and corporations, instead).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling you to look at all available evidence and quit ignoring reality in favor of perception of bias.

 

I'm not telling you to forget the scientific method or ignore(hide) information.....nor yelling squirrel

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...