This is why liberals are really mad at Scott Pruitt and demand his resignation – he’s demanding accountability and transparency in environmental science, something they didn’t have to do before
Video follows.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t publish the underlying data.
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said in a statement. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process.”
Pruitt first announced his initiative to rid EPA of “secret science” in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation in March. The Obama administration relied on so-called “secret science” to justify billions of dollars worth of regulations.
“Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives,” Pruitt said.
EPA said the proposed rule would move the agency towards open data practices used by scientific journals and professional societies. The policy mirrors the HONEST Act introduced by Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith to end EPA’s use of “secret science.”
Smith and South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who introduced the Senate version of the HONEST Act, spoke at the signing ceremony at EPA headquarters on Tuesday.
“Today’s directive is a significant step toward making sure these decisions are not made behind closed doors with information accessible only to those writing the regulations, but rather in the full view of those who will be affected,” Rounds said. “Administrator Pruitt rightfully is changing business as usual and putting a stop to hidden agendas,” Smith said.
Democrats and environmentalists oppose Pruitt’s data transparency rule, arguing it would restrict the scientific studies EPA could rely on for rulemaking and violate privacy rights of patients participating in health studies.
However, proponents of data transparency said researchers already have ways to share patient health data without violating privacy rights.
This sort of data is already routinely made public for research use,” JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source: The Daily Caller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s hard to control a well informed public. That’s why Democrats fear the light of scientific transparency just as blood sucking vampires fear the light of the sun.
“It’s hard to control a well informed public.”
This is why it is vital that our educational system dumb people down and our mainstream keep them dumbed down.
mainstream = mainstream media
Our (the American if that’s what you mean) educational system seems to be training it’s students to accept government as the ‘good’ and not to be wary of the most powerful entity in our lives. I don’t care if they are benevolent, I still will be wary of government.
The educational system is a special sort of prison where you know you can get out, not be saying “I understand the pain caused by my crime and I won’t do it again and I’m a different person now”, but just by repeating whatever the teachers say.
It is impossible to have a well informed public today. People simply no longer want to know anything. The Democrats probably have nothing to worry about.
It’s impossiblee for all the people to know everything about everything. It’s important that information be transparent so someone who cares can draw it to the public’s attention.
If something is important enough, it is only necessary that one person notices and rings the alarm bell.
The alarm bell has been rung many times against the global warming hoax but our politicians havent listened. They still want to bring in CO2 taxes.
“It’s impossible for all the people to know everything about everything. ”
commieBob,
I think you are basically correct. We are inundated with SO much information today that people are forced to make decisions about which info is most relevant to their daily lives and they pay close attention to that. Esoteric information, like AGW, does not affect their daily lives so they tend to accept the ideas of whichever authority appeals to them. They don’t have the time to delve into the minutiae of the various positions. They tend to accept the position that most appeals to their worldview. It’s the only way they can deal with the flood of info assaulting them today.
Moderator: How can you let Tom in Florida say such an awful thing about blood sucking vampires?
I know Scott P. is busy, but I wish he’d put a staffer or three on finding the various email accounts of Lisa Jackson, Gina Mac, and (I imagine) countless underlings from ’08-’16.
Paul, we go with the concept that, “if it’s true, it can’t be an insult”. Since Vampires (at least according to legend) DO ‘suck blood’ and they are destroyed by sunlight, we are helpless to address your compliant. Both assertions are true (as far as we can know), therefore, they are not insults or ‘ad vamps’. 🙂 – Mod
Indeed, who is Richard Windsor?
We know who has all the data.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/iu51b91bc3.jpg
Mods,
I think Paul was suggesting that comparing vampires with Democrats was an insult to the vampires.
The vampires I have met at least ask politely before sucking your blood.
Democrats, not so much.
Once again it is possible to remark how odd it is that ‘settled science’ requires such a heavy use of ‘smoke and mirrors’ almost as if they afraid that if people do what they should critical review then it will turn out not to be ‘settled ‘ after all.
After-all the three card ticks only works when the ‘sucker’ does not know the ‘trick ‘
Perhaps with this innovative step, the BOM could follow on and show us how homogenisation works in Australian temperature data.
I’d like to see all EPA standards rolled back to at least 1990, if not earlier.
Yes. It’s kinda amazing that it is, what, 2018, yet this is only now being implemented.
The endangerment finding against CO2 was built on these foundations of sand, but was OKed by the highest court in the land when the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants.
As I’ve said before, this allowing of non-elected EPA bureaucrats to regulate CO2 is probably the biggest power grab in America since the Declaration of Independence. And it was done on fake science in the broad light of day.
Who will fix it, and how? Pruitt may wish to, but can he?
There is a reason Pruitt wants secret service with him, considering death threats and the venom spewing from the folks that cannot stand the current president,
Gums comments…
I read an article where he claimed that his house has been vandalized several times recently.
The Supreme Court did NOT rule that greenhouse gases were pollutants. What they ruled is that they made decisions about maters of law NOT facts of science and the appropriate body for making decisions about scientific matters … at least as regards pollutants was the EPA. Of course the EPA had already decided CO2 was a pollutant so many spin doctors claimed the USSC ruled CO2 was a pollutant.
Personally I agree 100% with the USSC on that ruling. They are supposed to adjudicate matters of LAW and NOT science. I disagree 100% with the EPA’s ruling. The “science” used by the EPA was very questionable at best.
The USSC decided (correctly) whether, and at what levels, CO2 was a pollutant was not one for them. They do not make laws or regulations … they interpret them. And as the ultimate legal authority it is very important for them to stick to legal issues. CO2 pollution is a political/science issue … it is only a legal issue when a law or regulation pushes it in that direction. Unfortunately(?) the EPA is the body legally empowered to make to make political/scientific decisions on CO2 pollution in the US. In this matter the EPA answers to Congress NOT the USSC.
But why should the EPA share their information when all you’ll do is try to find something wrong with it?
Hat Tip: <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html"Jones
If policy is open to public scrutiny then the public might not support it.
Jones and Goebbels would be turning in their graves.
Typo:
But why should the EPA share their information when all you’ll do is try to find something wrong with it?
Hat Tip: Jones.
If policy is open to public scrutiny then the public might not support it.
Jones and Goebbels would be turning in their graves.
Phil Jones has not yet assumed room temperature, so his presence in his grave, turning or not, is premature.
And Goebbels doesn’t have a grave.
Now if someone could explain why the House Judiciary Committee had to make a deal with the DOJ….to get paperwork that it’s against the law for the DOJ to not give to them……we’d have a home run
What deal????
Long overdue. About time all scientists stuck to the rules. If it’s not reproduceable, it’s not science.
“Democrats and environmentalists oppose Pruitt’s data transparency rule, arguing it would restrict the scientific studies EPA could rely on…”
Bloke, you are absolutely correct! Studies that don’t publish the underlying data and methods (so others can reproduce their results) are not science, they’re fraud.
“Democrats and environmentalists oppose Pruitt’s data transparency rule, arguing it would restrict the fraudulent studies EPA could rely on…”
Fixed.
Exactly as it should be. If the studies don’t comply with the scientific method (which requires transparency in order fulfill the reproducibility aspect of science) then they should be restricted from being used for policymaking.
DING!!!
“If it’s not reproduceable, it’s not science.”
What’s wrong with accuracy, truth, and transparency. Isn’t this what we were told was essential when we were children? There is NO reason not to have this in the scientific world. We do not want “smoke and mirrors”. We want information that can be analysed and either agreed with or dismissed as being wrong.
Democrats all agree, Transparency is RAYCISS!!! Because FEELS!
Wasn’t it Phil Jones who stated he would not release his data supporting his studies because people wanted to find fault with it? Sorta what science was supposed to be about.
What every high school student learns with the Scientific Method: “If valid data is in conflict with the theory, its the theory that gets changed, not the data”. What every global warming scientist learns: “If any data is in conflict with the theory, its the data that gets changed to protect the grant money”.
That is SO impressive! What a terrific appointment Scott Pruitt has been. Well done President Trump! No doubts elements of the CIA and the NYT are scurrying around trying to find some dirt on Mr Pruitt so they can bring him down. But I think those days may be over. Maybe, just maybe, the swamp IS being drained…
One can hope, but I wouldn’t count the swamp drained just yet. They’re already trying their utmost to get rid of Pruitt, they’re not gonna stop now.
Mr John V Wright ! ( Are YOU the man every woman was told to find !? )
Sorry John….couldn’t resist !
To keep with the “global warming theme” why not EVAPORATE THE SWAMP instead of
draining it………………because if you just drain it ………………it will ‘run-off’ and create a new swamp !
So I say EVAPORATE IT and kill the critters that have accumulated beneath it’s murky , grant-ridden
waters !
You mean the EPA can’t declare the moon is made of green cheese….and then ban cheese because it endangers the moon?…who’d a thunk it
….now if he would just do something about the parks and F&W he’d be on a roll
I’ve heard that shredded cheese will be banned. It’s all part of “Make America Grate Again” 🙂
[The mods now realize we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. .mod]
In other words:-
“Please let us use studies that have little or no science in them and are based on computer models, individual assumptions and opinions, hence, pseudoscience”
“Pruitt did what!?” You mean we can’t just make sh!t up anymore??”
Union of Concerned EPA Employees.
It would be really good if the EPA couldn’t make up new species just to block every development.
Good job America. good job Trump, good job Pruitt. Damn fine job all round. well done
Phil Jones of Univ.of East Anglia in response to Steve McIntyre’s request 2005:
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
In other words, my blood, sweat, and tears should count for something, even if its wrong.
In other words: My job is more important than the scientific method.
I thought the Jones email was to Warwick Hughes!
In other words, the cash in my cash drawer is more important than the truth.
Postmodern thinking has redefined truth to be whatever we think it is
Conveniently ignoring the fact that there is a reason why we think that way…and are still alive…
Transparency? What an underhanded scheme, probably originating from the traditional energy crowd. I proposed a joint venture between my uranium company and a federal uranium agency and demanded that the JV include a “Transparency Committee”, in order to guarantee the neighbors that the rules would be followed. The federal agency threw a fit and made it clear that the project would be fenced and gated and no outsiders allowed visits of any kind. Sounds quite like the reaction of the Swamp-Dwellers up north. There’s a common denominator here, wonder what it is?
The smartest move the environmental movement made was to tie Global Warming / Climate Change to the one thing governments cannot resist, increased taxation
DO NOT CELEBRATE…YET !
The change in EPA procedures does not impinge on the rules that
are used by NASA, NWS, USGS, DoD, or any of the entities now
operating under the Interior department.
No doubt some grant applicants will avoid asking the EPA for any
funding just to avoid having to archive their precious data.
One tree ring at a time.
A question: Would this transparency rule apply to past “scientific data”? I hope so.
Very good question. Yes.
Agreed, I also hope this applies to past EPA ‘science’ studies.
They are working on applying it to the health studies on the impact of fine particulate matter that have been termed “proprietary” and hidden from the public. This has been a cause celebre of Steve Milloy.
Why is NASA doing (pure) science anyway?
Studying hypersonic aerodynamics have long been a part of NASAs mandate. Studying the space environment too. Basic science questions.
It is when James Hansen at GISS in the 80’s diverted GISS’s mission from space environment physics to Earth environment physics is when the corruption to rent-seeking began.
“hypersonic aerodynamics” sounds a lot like applied science-technology to me, not “(pure) science”.
In all fairness, there’s a lotta raw data used for DoD studies that does not warrant public disclosure.
Think about radar detection values, Pk of certain weapons, CEP of the smart bombs and missiles, reaction time of defense systems and the beat goes on.
Environmental data? Let the sun shine in.
Gums….
“CEP of the smart bombs and missiles”
If there was regulation applied to private transportation based on those, then they should be “published”, discussed and criticized in some forum where counterpoints can be made.
Video starts around 43 minutes.
I’ve seen that a few alarmist ‘science’ bloggers are absolutely freaking apoplectic about this. Great to see it rolling out.
Sounds like they are grasping at straws.
HORRORS!
Policy based on “science” might end up being based on the scientific method rather than political science!
(Things are heating up. But not quite hot enough. Time to throw another tree ring on the fire!)
“data transparency”
I seem to recall in his first run Obama promised “the most transparent administration in history”.
I’d hazard a guess that the ones opposed to Pruitt’s data transparency rule voted for Obama in his second run.
And the first thing he did was conduct the ObamaCare conferences behind closed doors. Even Republicans were excluded.
Gunga Din,
To paraphrase another sleazy president from the past, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘transparent’ is.”
I believe he meant the most transparently Marxist.
Transparent like the one-way mirrors in interrogation rooms that you see in every police procedural drama. Three guesses where the Taxpaying American Citizen was sitting.
“…Sounds like they are grasping at straws…”
Preying on the ignorance of others is what it is…trying to scare people to get votes.
Since they have pushed bans for straws, they are now just s o l.
Didn’t Kristi assure us that it all scientists believed in this kind of tranparency, thus it was only us skeptics who hid our work.
“Kristi”?
Guess I missed her insights. (Less time to spend online.)
Maybe she’ll share Mann’s UVa emails with the rest of us?
“Maybe she’ll share Mann’s UVa emails with the rest of us?”
Spot on! Please remember to bring that up to her the next time she starts to whine about how we are mistreating / misinterpreting her hero Mikey Mann’s work.
As someone who is currently working in the health care industry, randomizing personal data to satisfy the HIPAA requirements is an old technology.
We all know it is. Thank you. EPA will just have to admit it. Don’t think it will. More excuses will be coming.
Great, now how about that “endangerment finding”? Oh well, baby steps.
The Endangerment Finding took 6 years of careful, behind-the-scenes manipulation by the EPA during the Bush Administration. It will take at least as many years of careful un-winding to legally reverse it.
Maier’s Law:
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
— N.R. Maier, “American Psychologist”, March 1960
Corollary #3
Or hidden.
I smell a turf war looming. I’ll check my popcorn supply.
The howling will ensue over prospective loss of grant funding. Where are those dodos?