From the “this is going to quash our grant money gravy train” department. I never thought I’d see the day where science argues against open data requirements.
From an AGU press release:
In a letter submitted to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, AGU executive director/CEO Chris McEntee addressed concerns about recent policies mandating that EPA consider only publicly available scientific data and information when crafting rulemaking. In addition, AGU denounced reports that the agency instructed its employees to use scientifically inaccurate information about climate change when talking to the public.
Here is the letter in full:
23 April 2018
The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
On behalf of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its 60,000 scientist members, I am writing to express concerns about planned policy changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding transparency and accuracy of scientific information. We urge you to evaluate the unintended consequences of these policies and reconsider them.
Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act1, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.2
AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public. However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment. In general, to exclude vital scientific information from consideration would put our local communities’ health and well-being at risk.
Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world.5 The reported guidance requires EPA employees to
emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” This is not only inaccurate, but also jeopardizes the ability of communities to respond appropriately to protect people’s health and well-being from challenges related to climate change.
AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA. We as a nation need to ensure that we are addressing the pressing issues facing our communities by using and disseminating accurate, peer-reviewed and up-to-date scientific information.
AGU would welcome the opportunity to work with you on these critical issues and ensure that science can continue to appropriately inform decision-making and benefit the American public.
Respectfully,
 |
Christine McEntee Executive Director/CEO
American Geophysical Union
1 H.R. 1430, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), passed the House on 29 March 2017.
2 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AAAS-Secret-Science-letter-McCarthy-2015.pdf
3 http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/19/epa-scott-pruitt-secret-science/
4 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50025
5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/03/29/the-energy-202-scott- pruitt-s-climate-message-is-now-official-epa-guidance/5abbfd3630fb042a378a2f23/?utm_term=.272c755ae673
6 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
7 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2018/02/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement-Final-2013.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Love the comment that it could cost $250 million to comply. Seems to me that making you data available is pretty cheap. Just post a link. Am I missing something ?
That is hardly $1.- per capita, less than a decent bottle of beer – per year. Or 2 cents per week.
It’s an excellent investment, Else we might get freedom from science instead of freedom of science.
I am not sure how this large cost figure, for online data access, has come about.
Surely a server or two, an internet connection is all you need. Journals could host the data, data originators could host the data, the state could host the data.
As long as the rule ‘only available data ever gets considered’ is not broken then we will remain in a much better place than we are now.
Ms. McEntee has expressed her concern “that the EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world. The reported guidance requires EPA employees to emphasize that clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” And what is wrong with this policy?
Anyone who claims climate science is settled is living in a fantasy world. For the health and well-being of the people, they need to know the whole story, not only the part that advances the social and financial interests of researchers and special interests. The guidance of the EPA is spot on and a significant improvement over the censored version of the truth promoted by previous EPA management.
Over 100 climate models been unable to model long-term climate adequately to guide environmental policy for over 30 years. The models cannot be tested within the lifetimes of the researchers. Laboratory measurements have not been used to understand atmospheric aerosol production, which is thought to significantly affect offset warming attributed to greenhouse-gas emissions.
Current climate models are fundamentally based on classical physics, which is possibly the wrong physics. Some physicists assert that the right physics is quantum physics, which suggests CO2 in not an important factor in climate change. CO2 is only a “pollutant” because the previous EPA management declared it to be a “pollutant.” It sounds like a “means justify the ends policy.”
A correct probability analysis of the earth temperature in 2100 should include a complete probability curve, not just the estimated high value but a high value, a low value and all values in between. The distribution now can only be described by a rectangular distribution, all values within a range are equally likely. Until that range can be reduced sufficiently through more studies to be small enough that climate mitigation efforts for both ends of the distribution are compatible, that is, they are not designed to simultaneously remove CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce temperatures and to add carbon soot to the polar ice caps to increase temperatures. Until researchers develop a better understanding of climate change, the best policy is for policymakers to do nothing about climate change.
These are just three of many examples that illustrate climate change is not settled. The EPA guidelines are a welcome, rational approach that should be embraced regardless of who is in charge. It would be nice to see similar changes in AGU publications.
Ms. McEntee’s objections to an alleged EPA plan to use only public data in rule-making are not clear. What’s the problem? She also mentions a “secret” science policy proposed by the EPA to allegedly cost somewhere between one million dollars per year and 250 million dollars per year. I am completely confused. Is 250 million dollars too low? How would these numbers compare to past years numbers and results? She might be embarrassed to make that comparison.
The truth shall make you free!
Hey Christine the car industry opened up ABS and ESC technology to the world for free!!
Why?
Ah because it was in the best interests of all so don’t pull this secret carp with me.
I assume you have got a reply in the offing to Judith Curry’s et al recent paper???, but I don’t expect you to descend to answering Monckton’s et al although that paper appears to be quite worthy of “peer” review as well. It even has a bit of scientific method thrown in
So, if this stuffed lab coat wants to drive policy, run for office and hit the streets to press the flesh and kiss babies. The last time I read the Declaration of Independance, just last week, the founding fathers rejected taxation without representation. But right in our neighborhood the EPA drives the growth of imposed fees and the head person drives the EPA, which is yet one of many departments that in reality are just another form of taxation without representation on our own soil. And we don’t get to vote in these people. So already we are half way to taxation without representation. To cowtow to scientists in its entirety, gets us to the “we are finished” line.
Use the letter to line a bird cage. Poor bird.
“McEntee graduated from Georgetown University and holds a Masters in Health Administration-Health Policy from George Washington University. She serves on the board of numerous groups, including the MedStar Health Research Institute, where she serves as Chair, the American Board of Ophthalmology and the American Board of Medical Specialists Health Policy Committee, and she has served as a member of the ASAE Awards Committee and Innovation Task Force.”
( I copied it from here https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/christine-w-mcentee/ Read it! It’s amazing how little geo-physical science her bio contains.)
Given the above background, it seems unlikely that this CEO of the AGU is well-versed in any particular science – let alone the ethics and philosophy of science. (She is more ‘CEO’ than ‘scientist’ – how did the AGU let this happen?) And given the screwed-up arguments of her letter, she seems to even more clueless about logic than she is about science.
Christine McEntee, Executive Director
American Geophysical Union
I have read with considerable dismay your letter to the Scott Pruitt dated April 23, 2018. I am particularly concerned with your promoting peer review as a “gold standard”; while defending secret data and methods as if they can somehow be scientific.
I admit, I have seen publications, claiming to be scientific journal articles, in which the data was not available and/or the methods by which is was handled are not apparent. These are by their very nature not reproducible and therefore are not science by any normal definition. The purpose of publication is supposed to be to spread knowledge and advance understanding. Articles that hide methods, data or calculations fail this fundamental test and should not be published.
If a researcher feels that publishing their methods will negatively affect them financially then the answer is obvious. As every private sector researcher knows… You don’t publish that research.
In any event your claim regarding peer review is what is most upsetting. How can a paper that withholds data, observations, or calculations, the only thing a peer reviewer can check, pass peer review? I would put it to you that any reviewer who passes a paper that lacks the information to make it reproducible should be removed permanently from the reviewer list as they have by this action proved themselves incompetent. The only thing they could possibly be approving in this instance is that a paper corresponds to their own prejudices.
I am not one of the “60,000 scientist members” of the AGU. I do know that if I was I would find the obvious misunderstanding of the basics of the scientific method, suggested in your letter, to be very embarrassing.
Sincerely
Paul Nevins
Chippewa Falls, WI.