AAASofA: “Pentagon fires a warning shot against EPA’s ‘secret science’ rule”… Riiiight.

Guest ridicule of the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America by David Middleton

See update at end of post.

This little gem was in my morning email from the AAASofA:

As is often the case, this really dumb article in Science (as in She Blinded Me With) was originally published by Energy & Environment Greenwire (a publication that has almost nothing to do with energy), kind of like The Grauniad citing SkepSci…

Pentagon fires a warning shot against EPA’s ‘secret science’ rule

By Sean Reilly, E&E NewsAug. 28, 2018 , 2:00 PM

Originally published by E&E News

Add the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to the ranks of those expressing concern about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) plans to restrict the use of scientific research in writing new regulations.

“While we agree that public access to information is very important, we do not believe that failure of the agency to obtain a publication’s underlying data from an author external to the agency should negate its use,” Patricia Underwood, a senior Pentagon official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, wrote in recent comments on the EPA proposal.

Because it’s “improbable” EPA would always be able to obtain such underlying data, Underwood added, “this should not impede the use of otherwise high-quality studies.”

[…]

Science (as in She Blinded Me With)

We’ll pause here for a moment… Does anyone need explanations for the following?

American Association for the Advancement of Science of America
Science (as in She Blinded Me With)

No? OK, we’ll move on.

“While we agree that public access to information is very important, we do not believe that failure of the agency to obtain a publication’s underlying data from an author external to the agency should negate its use,” Patricia Underwood, a senior Pentagon official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, wrote in recent comments on the EPA proposal.

Because it’s “improbable” EPA would always be able to obtain such underlying data, Underwood added, “this should not impede the use of otherwise high-quality studies.”

If “it’s ‘improbable’ EPA would always be able to obtain such underlying data,” it should be a criminal offense for the EPA to destroy our economy solely on the basis of what some EPA bureaucrat read in a magazine.

However, believe it or not, that’s not the most moronic thing about this article.

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment

Who the Hell is “Patricia Underwood, a senior Pentagon official in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment” and when was she authorized to speak on behalf of the Pentagon? The fact that a low-level bureaucrat in the Department of Defense has Trump Derangement Syndrome, does not constitute the Pentagon firing “a warning shot against EPA’s ‘secret science’ rule.” It is nothing more than an example of one bureaucrat being upset at the stifling of other bureaucrats.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment isn’t on the Pentagon’s 2013 org chart.

It either didn’t exist as recently as 2013, or it isn’t very significant. It’s fourth from the bottom of this list:

MAJOR ELEMENTS OF OSD

Ms. Underwood doesn’t even appear among the leadership of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment…

Yet, she speaks for the Pentagon…

Fires a warning shot against…

Why hasn’t the AAASofA been accused of fomenting violence. If a conservative publication said that (fill in the blank) fired a warning shot at anyone in the Obama maladministration, there would be protests in the streets. Sara Palin was all but accused of being an accomplice in the assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) because of this campaign ad…

Palin at Fault

What Palin Did Wrong

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan clarifies, “No one is saying Sarah Palin should be viewed as an accomplice to murder. Many are merely saying that her recklessly violent and inflammatory rhetoric has poisoned the discourse and has long run the risk of empowering the deranged. We are saying it’s about time someone took responsibility for this kind of rhetorical extremism, because it can and has led to violence and murder.” He points out that Giffords herself had expressed concern about Palin’s map.

‘Imagery of Armed Revolution’ The New York Times’ Matt Bai writes, “it’s hard not to think [Loughner] was at least partly influenced by a debate that often seems to conflate philosophical disagreement with some kind of political Armageddon.” Bai explains, “The problem would seem to rest with the political leaders who pander to the margins of the margins, employing whatever words seem likely to win them contributions or TV time, with little regard for the consequences.” He says Palin and other used “imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like ‘tyranny’ and ‘socialism’ when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms. “

The Psychology of Incited Violence At Psychology Today, neurologist David Weisman writes, “The question is not ‘did Sarah Palin’s violent rhetoric cause this shooting?’ The question is ‘does inciting violence factor in a multi-factorial process?'” Weisman explores the decision-making process and role of unconscious biases, concluding, “Although there is little clear evidence in this case, the data highlights the importance of butterfly events on human actions. Jared Loughner is clearly deranged. He drank deeply from internal insanity and external stimuli. His actions did not take place in a vacuum.”

The Atlantic

In the witheringly idiotic world of journalism, it’s not just OK for a low level bureaucrat to fire a warning shot at another Federal agency… But that bureaucrat is characterized as if she was speaking on behalf the Secretary of Defense. While, a high level Republican politician was calling for the assassination of Democrat congress-critters by targeting their districts in an election.

Update 0710 August 30, 2018

Ms. Underwood’s actual comment…

It is appropriate to limit application of the rule to only “major” regulatory actions as defined in the Congressional Review Act. For regulations with lower cost thresholds EPA may wish to consider issuing similar policy.

While we agree that public access to information is very important, we do not believe that failure of the Agency to obtain a publication’s underlying data from an author external
to the Agency should negate its use. As we note below, it is improbable that EPA will be able to obtain underlying data from all authors, this should not impede the use of otherwise high-quality studies.

Click to access document_daily_01.pdf

Her comment was one of many submitted by OASD (EI&E), ESOH Directorate, CMRM Program (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Energy, Installations & Environment, Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Directorate, Chemical and Material Risk Management Program) AKA Sustainability & Green Schist.

https://www.denix.osd.mil/spc/outreach/presentations/unassigned/dod-strategic-sustainability-performance-plan/

As far as I can tell, her comment was the only one that could be construed as a “warning shot.” Although, it was only a “warning shot” directed at regulations that fell below the level of “major” regulatory actions. This really dumb article in Science (as in She Blinded Me With), originally published by Energy & Environment Greenwire, is 100% Fake News.

0 0 votes

Article Rating