EPA to end "secret science" with new transparency law

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

124 thoughts on “EPA to end "secret science" with new transparency law

  1. 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.

      • 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.

      • People simply no longer want to know anything.

        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.

        You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.

        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. ”
        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

  2. 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 ‘

  3. Perhaps with this innovative step, the BOM could follow on and show us how homogenisation works in Australian temperature data.

    • 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…

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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????

  4. 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…”

      • 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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”.

  8. 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 !

  9. 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]

  10. 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.

    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.

  11. Good job America. good job Trump, good job Pruitt. Damn fine job all round. well done

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. The smartest move the environmental movement made was to tie Global Warming / Climate Change to the one thing governments cannot resist, increased taxation

    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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

  16. I’ve seen that a few alarmist ‘science’ bloggers are absolutely freaking apoplectic about this. Great to see it rolling out.

  17. 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.

    Sounds like they are grasping at straws.

    Democrats and environmentalists oppose Pruitt’s data transparency rule, arguing it would restrict the scientific studies EPA could rely on for rulemaking

    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,

        I seem to recall in his first run Obama promised “the most transparent administration in history”.

        To paraphrase another sleazy president from the past, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘transparent’ is.”

      • 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

    • 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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?

  22. Boy, Pruitt’s been under an unrelenting assault from the press. They seem real upset that he flies first class.
    They didn’t seem to have a problem with the shake-down operation the EPA was running under the last two administrators.
    Go figure.

    • I wouldn’t care if Pruitt flew private jet if he can get the endangerment finding reversed and continue with the great work he has done so far. The return on the tax investment would be immense. Plus he needs massive security because Progressives with billions at their disposal would gladly fit him with a pair of concrete shoes and send him on a deep-sea scuba dive.

    • How about John Beale, assistant to Gina McCarthy and author of many of the EPA regulations who defrauded the government of over $ 900,000 by taking leaves and claiming he was undercover for the CIA.
      Thankfully that crook was caught (with
      out the fanfare of Pruitt’s 1st class travel.)

      • How about him? Did he receive even a tenth of the press outrage and coverage? No? point proven.

      • FISA was intended for the FBI counter-intelligence mission. FISA search warrants are not easily usable in a criminal trial because the defense counsel will not have the clearances necessary to work discovery. And if they were granted clearances, then the intel community would have a hissy fit because most of the good stuff is ORCON, which is also incompatible with the 4th Amendment.

      • Obama and his minions ran our federal government like a Banana Republic. No accountability. Hide everything, while saying the opposite in public.

  23. I would also l like to see a rule that all Grant’s made by the EPA for research include a provision that a) all methodology and results and conclusions are published and 2) no research is permitted to be published behind a paywall. If no publisher can be found, let the EPA publish the information.

  24. NPR is having a hissy fit ( along with the Union of Concerned Scientists).
    Thank you Scott Pruitt. You’ve made my day.

  25. The saddest part of this is that we actually have to pass a ‘rule’ at a science based agency (I’m being generous) to require something that is so basic to science. If you don’t have to provide the data and methods used to derive your findings, you’re saying to the public. “Trust us, we’re big government and we know what’s best for you” Science and scientific inquiry is based in the Missouri motto, ‘show me’.
    I certainly wish my Physics and Math profs had been willing to just accept my answers without having to show them how I arrived at the answer. “Trust me, Sir, it’s right”.

  26. There was a case in Australia where major water allocation changes for the Murray Basin were being ‘decided’ by a select committee of academics and scientists, with no input from farmers or irrigators. The decision was based on several scientific studies during a major drought in the early 2000s, which these studies linked to ‘climate change’. The general drought conditions were expected to worsen over time-the ‘new normal’ etc etc as a result of climate change.
    After a major backlash from farmers, the committee resigned in protest, rather than consult and review with those affected, stating that the Water Act at the time had no such requirement or provision for consulting with people like farmers. The decision was based on science, and the government was required to implement it.
    Needless to say, the farmers were not impressed. A few years later, the drought broke, and the science itself linking it to ‘climate change’ was seen for what it was, and still is, dubious. Even if correct (the Murray Basin is a major water catchment in Australia), there were, and still is, different options available in the way that farmers and policymakers could respond to changes in water availability.
    The main problem was the lack of consultation and discussion, especially with those affected, and also about the science itself.
    Needless to say, the ‘protesting elite’ didn’t get it all ‘their way’.

  27. And Trump just got Jim Bridenstein, another skeptic, appointed as NASA Administrator. Two Oklahoma boys making good. Bringing order to the chaos.

    • Defunding GISS should be a top NASA priority and redirecting those funds to Maryland’s Goddard Space Flight Institute. After all, that would comply with Congressional funding intent to fund “Goddard”.

  28. Scott Pruitt should make sunshine the most prevalent aspect at the EPA that the employees there have to wear sunglasses at their desks.
    Everyone should see what they are doing at the EPA, from the environmental NGOs to the mineral extraction companies and refiners and water treatment operators. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for swamp-dwelling, hide-in-the-darknes-of-secrecy critters.

  29. If it’s secret, it’s not science.
    Although Cavendish did keep many of his discoveries to himself, to include at first what Lavoisier later called hydrogen.

    • “If it’s secret, it’s not science.”
      Why not? Didn’t the Nazis and Soviets conduct a LOT of science in secret? The key is reproduceability, not secrecy or publicity.
      In this case, though, I agree that studies used to deal with the “greatest threat to humanity” should be as transparent and honest as possible.

      • If it’s secret, how are you supposed to know if you replicated it? If it matters and it’s secret, how do you know to try to replicate it?

      • “The key is reproduceability, not secrecy or publicity.”
        And how do you reproduce something that is secret? you can’t, you have to trust the secret keepers that they were able to reproduce it. That’s not how science works.

  30. “…would restrict the scientific studies EPA could rely on for rulemaking…”
    That’s the point. Restrict them to real science. Ones where the data can be tested.

  31. Teaching 6th grade today as a substitute teacher I encountered a magazine subscribed to by our school published by scholastic, inc that quoted from the book “Silent Spring” which was instrumental in the establishment of the EPA. This is pure propaganda being fed to our kids under the guise of “save the birds” and paid for with our tax dollars. I run across this kind of material frequently and even in the supposedly conservative bastion where we live people are so indoctrinated in being “green” and lacking in science or math background that tHis type of hogwash is accepted. Scholastic, inc is a very left leaning publisher assisting the greenpeace types in indoctrinating our kids. DDT was the target of this piece along with chemicals in general and big moneygrubbing corporations and their executives. Malaria, what malaria?

    • The ‘Spring’ if anything has been getting louder every year since Carson’s book. More forest cover, better management, reduced pollution etc etc.

      • at least until more resent years, ie since they’ve put up all those bird choppers and bird incinerators.

  32. Many may think I’m splitting hairs, but it’s this kind of thing that has largely contributed to the fix we’re in now… Your headline says, “EPA to end “secret science” with new transparency law” and then you go on to say Scott Pruitt signed it. But the Constitution of the U.S. specifically reserves passing laws to Congress, and once they are passed they become law only after signing by the President of the United States. So Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, signing a “law” would be unconstitutional, so obviously so that there would be no point in him doing it, he would be laughed out of D.C. I do like that his rule kick-off press conference (I can’t think of anything more accurate to call it, and no better title was provided by the text) showcased the lawmakers attempting to introduce (or has the law already been introduced, i.e., submitted in either house of Congress, and now they’re working on moving the law through its committees and hearings and etc.?) such a law, and I hope such a thing does become law eventually, though I have some questions and concerns with regard to enforcement.
    @DeLoss McKnight April 24, 2018 at 5:23 pm I hope you intended the qualifier, “…government funded…” for the research. Though to be fair, I believe any tax-payer funded research should be available free of charge to anyone who can prove they paid taxes.

  33. “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.”
    Of course they do. A pathetically feeble argument clearly laying bare for all to see the sheer desperation of the mountebanks to maintain their soopa-secwet skulduggery. Pruitt is the Eliot Ness of environmentalism.

  34. In the UK the ruling class have a big problem with education. They need well educated technical people to provide them with the high standard of living that they see as their birth-right. The problem is that these educated techies won’t just be bossed about; the techies think that they know best.

  35. Well done Mr Scott Pruitt,
    Hopefully they’ll throw out all references to and about that model by J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, about energy balance. On this planet solar energy in does not equal radiant energy out!
    It is grossly wrong as evidenced by the simple observation that the world population is (and has been ) expanding. If you believe the Kiehl and Trenberth model then this expanding population takes no energy, just as the growth of all the trees (or any living plant), or peats bogs, do not sequester solar energy away on this planet.
    In other words Kiehl and Trenberth model assumes a system where growth in nature fails, where the oceanic sludge at the deep oceanic abysses do not build-up but are static. Sorry to tell these scientist but nature continues to transform solar energy via chemical processes into new structures, structures that lock solar energy away to chemical bonds, preventing it leaving this planet for hours, days, years, or thousands of years.
    J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth model is a fiction, a fantasy! This planet uses more energy than is radiated away — life on this planet sequester solar energy in the very structures life builds. Life is, for all the time that it exists here, acting against entropy! Ultimately the balance will be, but ultimately is a very long time away, and nobody will be there to see it. For now nature’s life-force is winning the battle against entropy, life however has no care for entropy right now, it neither knows nor cares that ultimately entropy will win the war.
    All you sciency types want entropy winning with a simple equation. Nature and life unfortunately doesn’t always work with simple equations.

    • You have to read way down in the comments to see someone that actually studied the article, mostly usual nasty attacks. “Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said Pruitt’s changes could keep the agency from revising public health regulations as problems arise or new data comes to light.”
      Even if this statement is perfectly correct, which it might partially be if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, it shows the political direction of AAAS. Sigma Xi, who joined with AAAS for the March for Science said—-
      “Our dependence on fossil fuel has created an environmental crisis and once again science will be called upon to find a solution. North Carolina, I say to you that the individuals who will develop the clean energy source that will help us break our addiction to fossil fuels could be in one of our classrooms, could be here today. So do not let the messages you’ve heard here today fade away. Contact your representatives and tell them to stand up for science. And if they do not listen, come November, vote for science!” March for Science talk by Sigma Xi President. Maybe Sigma Xi president never got his hands dirty.
      There is pushback, but it is hard to stop top-down management. Actually the marchers seem to be mostly confusing technology with science. How the ‘March’ develops might be important.

      • As John Endicott says below, I was particularly disgusted by the statement about the “best” available science. Of course THEY will make the determination, in secret usually, about what is the “best” science. As usual, they think they know what is “best” for everyone.

    • from the politico link:
      Pruitt’s predecessor Gina McCarthy, and her air chief Janet McCabe, in an op-ed in The New York Times in March said concerns about studies are dealt with through the existing peer-review process, which ensures scientific integrity.
      “[Pruitt] and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the E.P.A. from using the best available science,” they said.
      it can only be the “best available science” if others can independently verify and replicate it, so by definition it can’t be the “best available science” (heck it can’t even be called science) if you are afraid to release the data and methods so that others can independently verify and replicate it!

  36. Sometimes the wording differences in heads are most insightful. The WUWT headline is far more informative and insightful than the carefully biased MSM spin that says restrict. The public does not get the hint that they were hoodwinked on crap science while also not getting a hint that this is corrective action against an organized policy wrong. So those in the Obama years get another pass.

  37. Its not the the underlying data that need to be published but rather is the underlying statistical population that needs to be identified. Under the scientific method, a model is tested by drawing a representative sample from the statistical population underlying the model and comparing the predicted to the observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of events in this sample. For a global warming model, the underlying statistical population is not described hence the claims that are made by the model are insusceptible to being falsified. Falsifiability is required under the motto of the Royal Society. In Latin, the motto is Nullius in Verba. Translated to English the motto is “take nobody’s word.”.

  38. For studies done on public funds, a more rigorous review than the current “peer” (too often pals) review. The papers should be challenged by the in house experts or seconded to outside experts by the funding body to assure quality standards are met.

  39. Imagine you commissioned a building from an architect and they delivered a completely unusable catastrophe. Would you just accept it?

  40. The “Ends justifies the Means” crowd will be the downfall of the USA over time. They know what’s “right” for America and the world, and thus are justified in doing things that violate proper science and ethics because they are in the moral right (in their head). America used to be a nation of laws and science, but now people are circumventing them in the name of their world view and the media is complicit in letting them get away with it…….because they are running the same playbook to achieve their goals.

  41. How is the regulation by administrative fiat based on hidden secret data in any way compatible with the 14th amendment?

Comments are closed.