What are the prospects for the HONEST Act?

By Peter Campion

We Aussie climate sceptics are watching on in awe as the new US President begins systematically driving a stake a into the vampire heart of the climate-alarm industry.  It can be a challenge for the casual Antipodean observer to follow the nuances of US congressional processes and party politics, however, so it’s not uncommon for us to look to the articles and comments on WUWT for insight.  It is that insight from commenters that is needed on the matter at hand.

A recent National Public Radio program re-broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (or Alinsky Brainwashing Committee, depending on your level of scepticism) discussed the Trump Administrations’ new HONEST Act, or Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.  The climate alarmists interviewed by NPR were railing near-hysterically against this proposed new law, desperately twisting reality to find some illusory moral high ground from which to condemn it.  The torment evident in their voices sent this sceptic straight to the internet to find out why they’re so frightened.

Congress.gov tells us well-known sceptical Republican congressman and Head of the House Science Committee, Lamar Smith, is the sponsor and that the HONEST Act has passed the House of Representatives.  So far, so good.  As at March 30, 2017 it had been received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.  The summary reads as follows;

This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results. A covered action includes a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. Personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be redacted prior to public availability.

The Act itself is surprisingly short by Aussie standards and most of the action is in the second of its two sections.



Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is amended to read as follows:


“(b)(1) 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) the best available science;


“(B) specifically identified; and


“(C) publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results, except that any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.


“(2) The redacted information described in paragraph (1)(C) shall be disclosed to a person only after such person signs a written confidentiality agreement with the Administrator, subject to guidance to be developed by the Administrator.


“(3) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as—


“(A) requiring the Administrator to disseminate scientific and technical information;


“(B) superseding any nondiscretionary statutory requirement; or


“(C) requiring the Administrator to repeal, reissue, or modify a regulation in effect on the date of enactment of the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.


“(4) In this subsection—


“(A) the term ‘covered action’ means a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and


“(B) the term ‘scientific and technical information’ includes—


“(i) materials, data, and associated protocols necessary to understand, assess, and extend conclusions;


“(ii) computer codes and models involved in the creation and analysis of such information;


“(iii) recorded factual materials; and


“(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and use such information.


“(5) The Administrator shall carry out this subsection in a manner that does not exceed $1,000,000 per fiscal year, to be derived from amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated.”.

NPR’s article from July, 20, 2017 can be found here and is headlined, “GOP Effort To Make Environmental Science ‘Transparent’ Worries Scientists”.  A worried Professor Thomas Burke, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said, “To say that every study needs to have the data out there — this is code for ‘We are going challenge it — to raise issues of uncertainty and play the delay game’ that was so successfully played, unfortunately, with things like tobacco.”

Even from 5000 kilometres away we can smell the fear.  Isn’t science all about challenging the ‘known’ and extending the boundaries of knowledge?

Sean Gallagher, a government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science said, “Defining terms, or setting in stone, terms like ‘reproducible’ or ‘independent analysis’ may sound good when you read it and it may look simple, but they have serious unintended consequences that may manifest down the line.”

Gallagher doesn’t seem to want definitions set in stone, yet surely good communication and quality science are both based on clearly defined terms?  How could agreeing on basic terminology be of hindrance to the ‘advancement of science’?  What could the “unintended consequences” be if the alarmist climate science community had to show their homework?

The informed views of WUWT commenters are sought to help those of us from other countries to better understand the prospects for the HONEST Act making it through the legislative process and having a useful impact in this very dodgy political/scientific field.

Author bio

Peter Campion is a retired fire officer and a founder of the ‘Relaxivism’ movement.  Relaxivism is the use of reason and logic to calm a fellow citizen who has become alarmed or agitated by prophecies put forward by special interest groups.  Relaxivism strives to remove hysteria and emotion from debates and to replace it with rationality and scepticism.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 23, 2017 12:06 pm

That would eliminate Mann’s Hockey Stick. That would be wonderful.

Reply to  jim2
July 23, 2017 2:18 pm

Trump has yet to appoint a NOAA Administrator, instead letting NOAA be run by an acting one promoted from within. How is that going to get any swamp draining done there?

Reply to  jim2
July 23, 2017 4:19 pm

err no. Folks have long since moveed beyond his work.

John Mauer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2017 9:25 am

Exactly, poor workmanship propagates more poor workmanship by citation and reference, just as good workmanship does. But it is good to know that congressional hearings can have outdated experts representing science. Thanks for the heads up.

Reply to  jim2
July 24, 2017 5:00 am

“That would eliminate Mann’s Hockey Stick.”
I think the bogus Hockey Stick, and other dishonesty in the temperature records, is exactly what it is aimed at.

Reply to  TA
July 25, 2017 3:40 pm

“(3) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as— … (C) requiring the Administrator to repeal, reissue, or modify a regulation in effect on the date of enactment of the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.”
This is beautiful! By “not requiring” it definitely leaves the door open to “allow” repeal or modification of a regulation. I’m wondering though whether this can be used to get rid of the Endangerment Finding.

July 23, 2017 12:12 pm

this is OT , but if correct it would be a discovery of the year or even of this decade, or may be just another appeal for more research funds.
An experiment proposed by Stanford theorists concludes an 80-year quest and finds evidence for fermions (else known as the ‘Angel Particle’, a particle that’s its own antiparticle.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  vukcevic
July 23, 2017 7:15 pm

Big deal. Long ago, Dennis Miller made an even more astounding discovery. Commenting on his recent gigs in the Deep South, he sardonically observes “Talk about Darwin’s waiting room…there are guys in Alabama who are their own father.”

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
July 23, 2017 11:06 pm

as opposed to people Up North who have no idea who their father is?

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
July 24, 2017 6:37 am

Leo: here’s my version.
As opposed to people up North who’s Mothers have no idea who the Fathers are?

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
July 25, 2017 3:47 pm

Their own father I hadn’t heard of. Now being your own grandfather:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw&w=640&h=360%5D

Martin Mason
July 23, 2017 12:16 pm

This is too beautiful for words.
This law should be forced on all of the warmist nations to make them meet its requirements before taking any action on subjects like climate change legislation that meet none of the requirements. It would be the beginning of the end.

stas peterson BSME MBA MSMa
Reply to  Martin Mason
July 24, 2017 10:55 am

Only socialists dream up Party Line Science. Stalin declared that Party line genetics must be correct. It contradicted Mendeleyev and ed to 70 consecutive years of bad crops and starvation. Now the Socialists have dreamed up CAGW, yet another Socialist wishful Party line Science,

July 23, 2017 12:17 pm

I really like the ‘relaxivism’ part !

Peter Campion
Reply to  flynn
July 23, 2017 3:45 pm

Relaxivism is a very informal movement and membership is automatically bestowed on anyone who follows that basic tenet. The left have been owning the language for too long. The term “relaxivism” was coined to take it back. A relaxivist is the polar opposite to an activist. Relaxivism is the antidote to activism. They tell their scariest story and we laugh it off and tell ’em to chill. Folk on this site are all veteran relaxivists.

David Cage
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 25, 2017 8:32 am

Some of us merely say this is science so prove it to experts from every field that overlaps climate science in any way who does not wish to accept a crony review as evidence. If you can do this to my satisfaction then I will start to panic but till then how dare you rob me to fund this tripe as I have every right to call it until you do prove it. I do not think either of us needs to chill out. Merely to do the job they claim to have done and then prove it as any good science should be proved and certainly not be taken on faith as they are currently demanding as a right as if climate scientists were proven equal to gods.

Reply to  flynn
July 23, 2017 6:46 pm

Relaxivism vs Hystericalism
Hmm. I know I’ve tried to calmly discuss climate with some “Hystericalism” followers but after they get the deer in the headlights look they just repeat themselves.

Peter Campion
Reply to  TRM
July 23, 2017 7:27 pm

TRM, my application of relaxivism is to constantly sound out people on their climate views and if they’re a little open to ideas I begin by pointing out the obvious flaws in the narrative and then subtly red-pill them on each meeting. Once they start asking questions you can have a convert pretty quickly.
I also submit a letter to the editor for each of my region’s papers to match their publication cycle and word limit. Here’s a sample that was printed in my local regional daily today;
The Editor
The Cairns Post
Imagine you have a really important place to be and it is vital you get there on time. If you’re not there on time your world world will end.
The only way to get to your vital event will be by bicycle – regardless of wind, rain, or darkness. Imagine this to be because flying and driving are “bad” and only cycling is “correct”.
Now imagine that no bicycle has yet been invented that will work when its dark or the wind isn’t blowing just right. And the clock is ticking, there’s no time to lose, you have to start pedaling!
Silly, isn’t it? Yet if your “important place” is “reduced emissions” you’re planning on failing to get there by depending on a creaky, intermittent old bicycle like solar and wind.
If greenies were serious about their carbon hysteria they’d get out of the way of hydro dams and nuclear plants.
(150 words)
Peter Campion

Reply to  flynn
July 24, 2017 6:23 am

Me too. Very dry.

July 23, 2017 12:20 pm

This is a very good foundation step. At last.

John Robertson
July 23, 2017 12:30 pm

As to its chances of success, don’t know, but it is short concise and even a RINO (Republican in Name Only) could vote for it.
After 5 decades of Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing, especially the overt excesses of CAGW policy, the public can understand the intent of this legislation and might cause dissenting politicians to fear for their perks.
Our bureaus will resist such law to the bitter end, success of such a rule will cripple the rule and regulation by administrative fiat that is their forte.
Imagine their pain if their usual method of tormenting the taxpayer is broken by the need for them,our unelected overlords, to prove their case.
Fear and outrage are only the beginning, terror at being exposed for the useless ignorant hacks most of them really are…That will come after this act becomes Law.

Reply to  John Robertson
July 24, 2017 5:14 am

“As to its chances of success, don’t know, but it is short concise and even a RINO (Republican in Name Only) could vote for it.”
You never know how the RINO’s are going to behave. It all depends on what special interest group has their ear.
Currently we have several RINO’s who, 18 months ago, voted to repeal Obamacare, but now say they will not vote for the very same bill this time around, even though they campaigned and won on a promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.
The U.S. Senate, Trump’s conservative agenda, and the future of the USA are being held hostage by a few RINO’s in the U.S. Senate who are being held hostage by special interests.
I think Trump will go after any obstructionist Republican Senators the next time they come up for election. He’s going to be nice to them until they take action to obstruct, and then the gloves are going to come off. And Trump’s grassroots support is larger now than in the recent past. RINO’s should think about those things.

R.S. Brown
July 23, 2017 12:30 pm

It’s good as long as the “scientists” archive both the data they use AND the
data they ignore or discard.
Having to reveal why certain data series were used and others rejected
brings true replicable transparency to EPA scientific pronouncements.

Reply to  R.S. Brown
July 23, 2017 4:27 pm

I work on land temperature. The data I ignore is massive. I ignore stock prices, I ignore sea temperatures,
I ignore all the private temperature data I have that I cannot re publish. I ignore all the guys who have weather stations in their backyards, ( weather underground). I ignore the data I would have to pay for.
I ignore the diaries of data that people send me (yup they do) I ignore any data that I cannot republish.
Your requirement is unworkable . try again.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 5:12 pm

Steven, that qualifies as the most disingenuous statement of the month!
Of course you disregard sea temps when studying land temps. (And even stock prices!)
How about tree ring samples? Can you dismiss them at will in a tree ring study?
Was that statement really trying to make a point (or you being obtuse?)

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 5:34 pm

No need to try again. Your work is not necessary.

Peter Campion
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 7:17 pm

Steven, are you supportive of the HONEST Act?

Lewis p Buckingham
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 7:50 pm

So what happens if the instrument that measures land temperature is programmed to reject minimum’s beneath 10C as spurious.
Think BOM and Goulburn.
If you were looking for a rise in minimums caused, eg by CO2, would not such a machine effect skew the results, so make that data stream unreliable for such a purpose?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2017 9:14 am

“No need to try again. Your work is not necessary.”
Better to be a doer than someone sitting on the sidelines doing nothing more than carping.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 25, 2017 2:19 am

don’t you mean work “with” land temperatures … because if you really mean work “on” land temperatures then you are changing the raw data which is not science but propaganda …

July 23, 2017 12:30 pm

… substantial reproduction of research results. …

That should stop most of the supposed science in its tracks. Most medical research can’t be replicated. link Why do we think climate research is different?
There is a replication crisis. It affects all research in the hard sciences. Answer to above question: The evidence is that climate science is just as bad as every other branch of science.
The EPA should not be able to rely on crap science and its findings should be subject to vigorous debate.

Reply to  commieBob
July 23, 2017 4:28 pm

Theres a difference between reproducable science and replication.
Entirely different beasts

Peter Campion
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 5:16 pm

Steven, are you supportive of the HONEST Act?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 23, 2017 6:52 pm

Good point.

The replication of scientific findings using independent investigators, methods, data, equipment, and protocols has long been, and will continue to be, the standard by which scientific claims are evaluated. link

Reproducible experiments use the same methods, equipment, and protocols. Sadly, in most cases where it is tried, the original researchers can’t even reproduce their own results. It really is bad.

Nosek decided to explore the work from cancer biology labs after two high-profile studies, from drugmakers Bayer and Amgen, reported dismal results when they tried to reproduce some cancer papers. Only 25 percent of the papers Bayer examined were reproduced. Amgen was able to replicate only six out of the 53 studies it examined. link

The Amgen work is described in the first chapter of Rigor Mortis. The above quote uses the word ‘replicate’ to describe that work. A reading of the book shows that what they were doing was reproduction, often with the help of the original researchers.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2017 5:25 am

“Steven, are you supportive of the HONEST Act?”
No reply. What should we think about that?

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2017 7:36 am

“Theres a difference between reproducable science and replication. Entirely different beasts”
Geez, another classic drive-by Mosher comment that means absolutely nothing.
Scientists can’t reproduce Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick but it can be replicated? Or they can’t replicate it but it can be reproduced?
Steve says works on land temperature. That he does. He splices and dices it, averages and smoothes it, sorts it, parses it, combobulates it, and then discombobulates it. And the more he messes with it less, the accurately it reflects reality. Sadly, he fails to realize that.

DD More
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 24, 2017 9:04 am

Louis – “And the more he messes with it less, the accurately it reflects reality. Sadly, he fails to realize that.”
No he realizes it, but you can use any number you want.
Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 12:16 pm | [ Reply to the ” ” prior post ]
“One example of one of the problems can be seen on the BEST site at station 166900–not somempoorly sited USCHN starion, rather the Amundsen research base at the south pole, where 26 lows were ‘corrected up to regional climatology’ ( which could only mean the coastal Antarctic research stations or a model) creating a slight warming trend at the south pole when the actual data shows none-as computed by BEST and posted as part of the station record.”
The lows are not Corrected UP to the regional climatology.
There are two data sets. your are free to use either.
You can use the raw data
You can use the EXPECTED data.

See how easy it is.
If a fully automated, staffed by research scientists has already been adjusted. They are free to use any number they like. Anything for the cause.

Reply to  commieBob
July 23, 2017 4:36 pm

Theoretical physics and similar fields aside, if an experiment is not replicable, is it science at all?
Cold fusion and the like says not.

Reply to  tetris
July 23, 2017 9:42 pm

There is actually a HUGE debate within physics right now over things like string theory in terms of whether it actually constitutes real science.

Reply to  tetris
July 23, 2017 11:09 pm

Of course string theory is, if not science, metaphysics.
And so it is perfectly respectable.

Russ Wood
Reply to  tetris
July 24, 2017 2:07 am

On “cold fusion” – Apparently Fleischman and Ponds were on to something, but they just didn’t handle it right. There really is something there, and research on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is going on slowly all over the place. But the name “cold fusion” is now an absolute no-no!

July 23, 2017 12:33 pm

The law is a direct response to several EPA practices. For example they conducted illegal PM2.5 diesel exhaust experiments on humans, did not publish the results (because illegal) and then attempted to promulgate regulation based on the results. Steve Malloy’s book Scare Pollution has details. The EPA also was in bed with NGO’s outside public scrutiny (private email accounts and such). The Act cleans out the EPA stables, A step toward draining the swamp.

Reply to  ristvan
July 23, 2017 1:30 pm

Yes, very good news, if the CO2 Endangerment Finding cannot be reversed, force them at every turn to justify, in the open, each and every action (of overreach). If the Swamp cannot be fully drained, at least beam sunlight into every corner, the little critters don’t like that.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  ristvan
July 25, 2017 1:21 pm

Perhaps it’s possible to add a “grandfather clause” to the HONEST Act
allowing the old timers currently publishing pronouncements used by the
EPA and the media to extend their practices and procedures.
That way they could continue to not worry about what they archive… as
is the case now.

Janice Moore
July 23, 2017 12:43 pm

(Note: My knowledge of the details about the HONEST act is based on the information found within the 4 corners of the above article.)
1. The prospects are good because:
1) It passed the House of Representatives. The RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) were likely on board, thus, it is likely the Senate RINOS will be, too.
2) The inclusion of the clause:

Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as— …. requiring the Administrator to repeal, reissue, or modify a regulation in effect on the date of enactment of the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017.

Sec. 6(b)(3)(C)
means that while the Administrator (Scott Pruitt, here) MAY “repeal, reissue, etc.,” the CO2 endangerment finding
{by re-opening the fact-finding which was clearly ultra vires by the prior EPA Administrator (Note: that the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled on the result of that EPA CO2 fact finding does not preclude the new Administrator from re-opening that wrongly handled (important evidence was excluded, for one thing) rulemaking proceeding to correct/make a genuinely complete record},
because this bill does not in itself attack the CO2 “endangerment” rulemaking, it gets the bill past the Enviroprofiteer-supported Senators.
2. Impact of HONEST if signed into law by President Trump: very good!
— Essentially, the language says:
1) all science assertions must be supported by data;
2) that data must be publicly available;
3) all work/experiments must be replicable.
{The exception for proprietary information is like an in camera (judge-only) offer of evidence and appears to be limited enough to not be a “loophole” undermining the main goal of the act.}
A covered action includes a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment,etc…. = any act within the Administrator’s power is covered.
Thank you for asking, Mr. Campion. What a JOY it is to have you Australians (and those in other lands) cheering us Americans on in this! Hang in there — your turn down on the playing field is coming!! 🙂
Best wishes to you in helping people find peace through logic and truth,

Peter Campion
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 23, 2017 1:20 pm

Thanks for the thought, Janice.
Sadly Aussie politicians get their information straight from our ABC, who cheerfully admit getting it from CNN, NYT and WaPo. Relief for us may still be a decade away – long enough for the last of our industry to have moved to China.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 23, 2017 2:06 pm

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, Mr. Campion.
Good things are ahead for YOU! Hang in there….
(this is based on U.S. history, but, it could just as easily be Australia’s)
The early Australian immigrants looked across the vast, dusty, reaches of their new home and wondered if they could ever be “something,” if they could ever really make a go of it. They did.
So, too, will their extraordinarily resilient, ingenious, resourceful, descendants.
You’ll make it. Even if all your industry folds and you’re back to square one. Australia will rise once more. How do I know this? Because Australia will never lose her finest treasure: her people.

(youtube — ELO “Hold On Tight (to Your Dreams)”)
With warm regards and high hopes for you,
P.S. Here’s another tune I listen to from time to time for encouragement:
…. at the end of the storm is a golden sky and the sweet silver song of a lark. Walk on …. I’m so frightened right now at what is looming in my near future that I can barely keep going sometimes. Songs like this keep our minds focused UP (on the One who can and will help) and FORWARD. Hope it encourages your heart, too.
From America to Australia, with love:
“You’ll Never Walk Alone” (performed by Frank Sinatra)

Good things are ahead for YOU!

Peter Campion
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 23, 2017 3:32 pm

Janice, I’ve been meaning to thank you for noting the passing of Asybot. He is sadly missed.
You have a terrific heart, ma’am.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 23, 2017 3:44 pm

Thank you, Mr. Campion, for taking the time to tell me that (at 3:32pm). I’m glad that my little memorial was helpful. He was a fine person, indeed. And thank you, so very much, for the super-generous compliment!! Smiling, now! 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
July 24, 2017 9:16 am

The phrase Republicans in Name Only is a rubbish designation. The Republican Party has moved so far to the right, and is so against cooperation, that Ronald Reagan, a former hero to the right, would be called a RINO today.

Reply to  Chris
July 24, 2017 10:07 am

And the Marxist/Socialists/Progressives/Anarchists have completed the second phase of their master plan….. divide and conquer.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Chris
July 24, 2017 4:11 pm

I suppose your claim could be more mistaken, but I don’t see how. “Old Guard” RHINO’s abound, see John McCain for one, Olympia Snowe for another. Most of the Republican Speakers of the House since Gingrich. I have been a registered Republican since 1984 and I’m sure I am far more aware of the party’s evolution than you are. The Rockefeller Republicans are well entrenched, and most are removed by shuffling off this mortal coil. Even then, starry-eyed freshmen Republicans frequently move, zombie-like, to some imagined “center” and become part of the problem.

leopoldo Perdomo
July 23, 2017 1:10 pm

It is a welcome prospect. I am an science aficionado and love specially some skepticism. Science is nothing without clear data and clear analysis on the arguments of scientists. They cannot hide the data in a security safe box and do not permit other scientist to check the data and to challenge the theories.

Tom Halla
July 23, 2017 1:19 pm

It is not just “climate science”, with notorious disputes over NASA GISS and its employees and various findings of the EPA regarding climate, but agricultural and medical regulations under the FDA. “Roundup” is a major hobby horse of the greens, as is GMOs in general.

mike back on the west side of the Range of Light.
July 23, 2017 1:25 pm

when did faith replace scepticism as the key to advancement of science ?


“when did faith replace scepticism as the key to advancement of science ?”
Well, I might get booted for saying this, [Just snipped. Did you want to be banned again?~ctm]

Reply to  JohnKnight
July 23, 2017 3:26 pm

Well, I want Anthony to return, frankly, since he never said a word about me expressing the very same reasoning as you just deleted, [snip]
Reply: Anthony is aware of these happenings and agrees with me. Simply because the issue wasn’t prosecuted thoroughly in the past does not give you any easement.
I have emailed you. I have attempted to get you to cooperate. I have defended you. I have given you more than enough rope. And you behave like a spoiled child.
Time out engaged.~ctm

Reply to  JohnKnight
July 23, 2017 3:58 pm

ctm +9001

Robert of Texas
July 23, 2017 1:58 pm

Well, if this Congress doesn’t pervert the nature of this “act” this next congress will. It just isn’t possible for something so entirely reasonable to exist within our government.
Why does ANYONE believe its wrong to publish the data and methods so that they can be challenged? This is how science works. Passing regulations on hidden reasons, data, and analysis is the same as tyranny.
So what if publishing the data and methods means it takes longer? It means you will get a higher quality result before it becomes law (or a regulation in this case).
Now make this retroactive and repeal any regulations that cannot “find” their data, methods, and analysis for publication.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 23, 2017 2:35 pm

“Now make this retroactive and repeal any regulations that cannot “find” their data, methods, and analysis for publication.”
Like that! And can we also fire the responsible people?! President Trump is known for his “You’re Fired!” directives on his old TV show. I’d like for that directive to become a common phrase heard in all gov’t areas in Washington. We have a good start with the VA. Next up EPA, DOE, Education. Drain the swamp, and then fill the void with accountability.
Clay, in Texas too.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 23, 2017 5:37 pm

You raise the issue of “teeth” in the legislation. What exactly ARE the penalties for violating the HONEST act? Indeed, what procedures must be followed over what time frame to determine whether some rule making bureaucratic semi-official has violated the act?
While I would love HONEST violators to be subject to losing their job, Civil Service rules and regs will keep the water level in the swamp at record levels.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
July 24, 2017 1:53 am

“You raise the issue of “teeth” in the legislation. ”
The EPA can’t enforce their rules, if not following the law of Congress.
Though ultimate teeth is defunding the EPA- but instead what happens is EPA rules would be challenged in court, and should quite easy for judge that if EPA isn’t following this law, it rule against EPA.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 23, 2017 5:52 pm

Hopefully once this new HONEST criteria is in place it will be possible to call for a review of existing EPA regulations which would have to follow the new criteria. With most of the heavy lifting already complete in environmental protection, this simple rule sets the stage for a long overdue rationalization of the department. This should also depoliticise it. Keeping it that way is another matter.

M Montgomery
July 23, 2017 2:10 pm

We should be skeptical about science AND regulation. HONEST looks great to me, but there is almost always an unintended consequence. However, the overreach is “in our face” while no solution is perfect for everyone, in every situation, all of the time. HONEST appears to be a great step in the right direction.

July 23, 2017 2:20 pm

Hear hear!!

July 23, 2017 2:35 pm

The voting record is illuminating
Yea: 225 Nay: 3
Yea: 7 Nay: 187
No Vote:
Republican: 4 Democrat: 3
The Democrats are forever going on about “Common Sense Regulation”, yet turn out to be hugely opposed to this. Environmental groups and other special interests are threatened, and are lobbying against.

Reply to  TonyL
July 23, 2017 2:59 pm

Thanks for that information. Makes the Washington political swamp problem pretty obvious. Most House Republicans vote for transparency. Most House Democrats don’t. And there are a few of both partiesthat are paid by taxpayers to vote but don’t. Fire them first.

Reply to  TonyL
July 23, 2017 11:12 pm

The left in general is always going on about stuff it would never ever dream of implementing.

July 23, 2017 3:14 pm

““To say that every study needs to have the data out there — this is code for ‘We are going challenge it — to raise issues of uncertainty…””
Did anyone else notice the echos of Phil Jones refusal to release the UEA CRU data sets under FOIA in this response? The old “Why should we give them the data when all they want to do is prove it’s wrong?” defense? I almost broke out laughing when I read it.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bartleby
July 23, 2017 5:56 pm

It should be called “The Phil Jones Rule”!

July 23, 2017 3:16 pm

If the Senate received the bill on March 30, what’s taking so long to pass it and send it to Trump?

Reply to  Gil
July 23, 2017 3:47 pm

The majority of members of both House and Senate were voted into office on promises to repeal Obamacare and they ain’t did that, either. Time to light a fire under their a$$es.

Peter Campion
Reply to  Gil
July 23, 2017 3:49 pm

Yes, this is what I was wondering. Is that a typical timeframe or is it being dragged out? What might the behind-scenes play be?

Reply to  Peter Campion
July 23, 2017 4:00 pm

Actually for a lot of items that is the norm. Hell, things pass from the House to the Senate and they table them whilst playing power games and adding pork. Oft times the item from House is unrecognizable by the time Senate actually acts on it. True story, brah.

Peter Campion
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 23, 2017 4:12 pm

This is the worry. If it passes as it is its a potent tool and I can start hammering our pollies with it. It will be hugely disappointing if they get weird with it in the Senate.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Peter Campion
July 24, 2017 4:18 pm

If I had to guess, the donnybrook over Obamacare has sucked a lot of the oxygen out of the room for other legislation. Four months on the beach seems a little long for something like this.

I Came I Saw I Left
July 23, 2017 3:22 pm

The informed views of WUWT commenters are sought to help those of us from other countries to better understand the prospects for the HONEST Act making it through the legislative process and having a useful impact in this very dodgy political/scientific field.
If it passed the House, IMO there is a very good chance that it will pass the Senate, if they do away with the filibuster (which I think they eventually will). And, of course, Trump would sign it. The usual Republican suspects in the Senate will probably hem and haw, but I think they will have a hard time justifying opposition to such reasonable legislation.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
July 23, 2017 3:24 pm

Sorry, quote didn’t work. I used ‘quote’ instead of ‘blockquote’. The first paragraph should be quoted.

July 23, 2017 3:45 pm

This will be a good first step, next all the regulations from EPA which are being enforced as laws need to be run through Congress, since only Congress can pass laws. If EPA dictats can not meet that legal threshold then out they go.

July 23, 2017 8:26 pm

Reproduction does not necessarily mean building the same experiment because some events are difficult to reproduce such as evolution. The study of evolution is primarily based on a number of parallel observations of fossils from different species over long period of time. This makes evolution up today a very controversial topic. Philip Kitcher essay “believing where we cannot prove” gives a good analysis on this aspect of science especially natural science.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  eo
July 25, 2017 2:29 pm

To my knowledge, the EPA does not regulat evolution…

July 23, 2017 8:35 pm

“GOP Effort To Make Environmental Science ‘Transparent’ Worries Scientists”.
Really? Isn’t that a major part of the scientific method? How could any scientist be concerned in the least by a law that requires them to do what scientists do?

Robin Willows
July 23, 2017 8:46 pm

Thank you for this article Peter. I always enjoy your letters to the Cairns Post . Best wishes from a fellow Cairns sceptic and watsupwithat daily reader.

Terrence Dowd
July 23, 2017 9:29 pm


Snarling Dolphin
July 23, 2017 9:37 pm

Beautiful. I will definitely be contacting my representatives about this one.

Bill Schutz
July 23, 2017 9:45 pm

Great work Peter Campion. I’ll buy you a beer next time I see you.
Not only are you breath of fresh air (CO2 included), to the Swamp, but also to WUWT readers.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if NPR would do an honest story on the HONEST Act?

July 24, 2017 2:36 am

I think this is fabulous news! I think honest but ‘mainstream’ scientists will really struggle to find compelling reasons to oppose it. There are people who post here who are not even trying…

July 24, 2017 2:55 am

“Peter Campion July 23, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Steven, are you supportive of the HONEST Act?”

Honestly, Peter, did you expect an answer? Rhetorical, I know.

He is not here in support of the act.

Replication of temperature is not his strong suit.

July 24, 2017 4:06 am

“Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009
Phil,Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough”
Mosher explaining why sea surface temps are adjusted opposite to land temps, if you cool the past in one you have to balance the books by warming the other (passim).

Reply to  angech
July 24, 2017 5:42 am

angech, thanks for that Climategate reminder of why we need something like the HONEST act.
I would suggest we also vote on an HONEST RICO act, too.

July 24, 2017 4:19 am


July 24, 2017 6:19 am

Relaxivism seems a very compelling idea and one urgently needed.
On that subject, today the death was reported of a French philosopher, Ann Dufourmantelle. She drowned trying to rescue a couple of kids. I hadn’t heard of her before but it turns out she advocated ideas that are highly relevant to environmental alarmism and its link to political repression, and may be connected to the philosophy of Relaxivism.
French philosopher Anne Dufourmantelle, 53, said that “life begins with risk”
She drowned after attempting to save two children. Anne Dufourmantelle entered the water after the children got into difficulty in strong winds at Pampelonne beach, near St Tropez, on Friday. The two children were later rescued by lifeguards and were unharmed.
The French culture minister, Françoise Nyssen, said Dufourmantelle was a “great philosopher who helped us live”.
Witnesses said Dufourmantelle, 53, was bathing 50m (164 ft) from the two children when an orange warning flag at the beach was changed to red, indicating that bathing was prohibited due to dangerous conditions.
She immediately tried to reach them but was carried away in a strong current. Attempts to resuscitate her after she was recovered failed, France 3 reported (in French).
It was unclear if she knew the children involved in the incident. Her funeral is due to be held in Ramatuelle, southern France, on Tuesday.
Dufourmantelle wrote numerous essays on the importance of taking risks and the need to accept that exposure to any number of possible threats is a part of everyday life, including the book Praise of Risk, published in 2011.
“A great philosopher, a psychoanalyst, she helped us to live and think about the world today,” Ms Nyssen wrote on Twitter.
Fellow French philosopher Raphaël Enthoven tweeted that he was “sad to learn of the death” of Dufourmantelle, adding that she “spoke so well of dreams”.
Dufourmantelle said that the idea of ​​”absolute security – like ‘zero risk’ – is a fantasy”.
“When there really is a danger that must be faced in order to survive, as for example during the Blitz in London, there is a strong incentive for action, dedication, and surpassing oneself,” she said.
‘Life begins with risk’
“It is said: ‘to risk one’s life’, but perhaps one should say ‘to risk life’, [because] being alive is a risk,” Dufourmantelle added.
“Life is metamorphosis,” she said, adding: “It begins with this risk.”
Dufourmantelle had argued that fear can be – and is – used “as a political weapon for the control of freedoms”. She said that any offer to the public of increased protection and security can act to reinforce control and diminish life’s freedoms.
Security in any visual sense, such as armed officers on streets during heightened terror alerts or threats, she said, can also generate or increase fear.
“To imagine an enemy ready to attack from time to time induces a state of paralysis, a feeling of helplessness which calls for a maternal response – supposedly all protective. Today, we desire this overprotection,” she told Liberation.
Dufourmantelle earned a doctoral degree in philosophy from Paris-Sorbonne in 1994, but later went on to practise psychoanalysis. She was awarded the Raymond de Boyer Prize of Sainte-Suzanne for philosophy in 1998.
Map shows the location of Pampelonne beach near St Tropez, southern France.”

Andrew Cooke
July 24, 2017 6:29 am

Peter Campion, it stands a very good chance of getting passed by the Senate. The real issue is timing. They won’t take it up before dealing with healthcare, and I doubt they take it up before dealing with a revision of the tax code, which is dependent on what they do with healthcare. Since these two issues appear to be insurmountable thanks to the esteemed Senators from Alaska and Maine the real question here is whether or not the Senate will get serious about other bills even if they are in utter deadlock over the two issues that matter the most.
If they are willing to pass the bill while in the midst of dealing with the two issues, we might see it pass before the end of the year. On the other hand, if they don’t want to distract from the healthcare debate and the revision of the tax code in this session, it may not be till next year.
In short, once taken up it has a good chance of passing. There’s just no telling as to exact timing.

Pamela Gray
July 24, 2017 7:14 am

The most disturbing part of this is that we have to craft a law that mandates the use of research critique acumen to the extent that only gold standard research is allowed to help craft policy. This is akin to mandating the washing of hands before handling food. I used to tell my children, “Do I have to state that frying basketballs on the stove is forbidden?” whenever they did something that was obviously done without brain involvment. That we have to tell adults this will forever shock me!
We the sheeple let the EPA sink to low hanging fruit standards that have led to this now needed law. Bottom line, in all things research combined with policy making, buyer beware because the status quo in policy making governing bodies is to fry basketballs.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 24, 2017 7:42 am

This is why we need a “like” button.
Absolutely right Pamela. It does make you wonder if it makes get just be better to tear everything down and start again. Actually, and his is beyond frying basketballs. It’s more akin to having to tell people that they have to open their eyes if they want to stop walking into things.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 25, 2017 2:34 pm

Common sense is not common.

Steve Oregon
July 24, 2017 7:53 am

Jane Lubcheno, who may still be biggest liar in modern science, created the “Scientific Integrity Policy that among other things forbids distortion, manipulation, suppression or cherry-picking of science, and allows scientists to speak freely to the media about their findings. The Policy has been labeled ‘the platinum standard’ for agency scientific policies”
At the same time under her leadership NOAA “budgets rose substantially……
…. to save taxpayers time and money”?
During her tenure, NOAA employed around 12,800 federal employees and had a budget that went from $3.9B (the year before Lubchenco became Administrator) to $5.3B (the last budget she led, enacted for FY2014).
under Lubchenco’s leadership NOAA’s budgets rose substantially,
….Management: Under Lubchenco’s leadership, NOAA streamlined regulations to save taxpayers time and money and improve efficiency; increased effectiveness and decreased costs of corporate services …..”such as acquisitions and IT, for example by migrating communications systems to the cloud to enhance functionality, strengthen security and reduce costs.

July 24, 2017 8:12 am

The reasons that many science organizations are worried by the HONEST Act are clear to those familiar with the work of John P. A. Ioannidis, Dan Sarewitz, and Science on the Verge.

July 24, 2017 10:26 am

This act will do very little. When people are committed to a belief system they selectively report and interpret the data anyway. What needs to be done is a further psychological exposure of the religious nature of climate doomsayers…exposing their apocalyptic cult behavior automatically undermines their scientific credibility. The “science” needed here is psychology not law or physics.

Reply to  mark
July 24, 2017 5:49 pm

No, the “science” needed here is ridicule and derision. Laugh in their faces.[snip] They are enemies of the human race, time to treat them as what they are.
Reply: Swearing bad, no makum curse writing~ctm

July 25, 2017 7:55 am

Reproducible Science … Whatever will they think of next?

David Cage
July 25, 2017 8:44 am

Science once used for a practical purpose is engineering so quality control should be handed over to only engineers once climate science is used for any practical purpose. Apologies to Poundland if they do not wish to be used as an example but when climate data acquisition is subjected to the same tests used to assess a product supplied to them they come out in the worst category of what unofficially is “never bother with this supplier EVER”. This when they claim that climate change is life or death so they should be passing with flying colours the tests for life critical applications which are far more demanding.
Changes to refrigerator coolants to a more flammable one to preserve the ozone layer and use of more flammable insulations because they perform better as insulators are both effect that have caused many deaths and can reasonably be attributed dominantly to climate scientist’s errors. Neither would have happened without the ozone hole doom mongering or the “we have a hundred month’s to end climate change” prediction causing a knee jerk adoption of excessive panic measures.

%d bloggers like this: