REUTERS/Adriano Machado
Chris White Tech Reporter
March 04, 2020 2:46 PM ET
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making some critical changes to a rule designed to keep so-called secret science out of regulatory crafting process, sparking anger from Obama-era officials.
The agency walked back an element of the rule Tuesday that sought to restrict the EPA from considering research that is not publicly available. The EPAās changes require the agency to now give preference to studies with public data rather than research that is hidden from view.
Former EPA Chief Scott Pruitt in 2018 proposed reversing the practice of relying on secretive data in crafting rules. Conservatives have-long lambasted such studies, noting that such āsecret scienceā has been used to craft billions of dollars worth of environmental regulations.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told the Daily Caller News Foundation in March 2019 that he intended on moving forward on the proposal after replacing Pruitt, who resigned in 2018 after reports suggested he used the agency to further his own political and private ambitions.
The agency has since shifted course slightly. āOther things being equal, the agency will give greater consideration to studies where the underlying data and models are available in a manner sufficient for independent validation,ā EPA wrote in the new proposal. Wheeler addressed the changes.
āThese additions and clarifications to the proposed rule will ensure that the science supporting the agencyās decisions is transparent and available for independent validation while still maintaining protection of confidential and personally identifiable information,ā he said in a statement Tuesday.
The EPA has not responded to the DCNFās request for comment explaining why the agency is now only give greater consideration to publicly available data. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPAās Use Of āSecret Scienceā To Justify Regulations)
Obama-era officials, meanwhile, say the change is just as bad as the initial proposal.
āNow is not the time to play games with critical medical research that underpins every rule designed to protect us from harmful pollution in our air and in our water,ā Gina McCarthy, a former EPA chief during the Obama administration, said in statement Tuesday responding to the news.
Environmentalists say going to battle against secretive science prevents the EPA from using studies that often rely on private medical information. Researchers often use anonymous data from private citizens to conduct research into topics like chemical exposure.
McCarthy added: āThis move is even more egregious than the last proposal, which the administrationās own hand-picked scientists criticized.ā McCarthy joined the National Resources Defense Council in January.
Past reports showed the NRDC, which has roughly $349.4 million in net assets, worked as a shadow staff for the EPA while the agency worked to implement former President Barack Obamaās climate legacy. Other former Obama acolytes chimed in on the change as well.
āRather than fixing the flaws in EPAās proposed rule, this supplemental notice compounds the damage done,ā Betsy Southerland, a career EPA official who left in 2017, said in a statement. She was director of the Office of Science and Technology at the EPAās Office of Water during the Obama-era.
The swamp is very, very deep…..
,,,and wide and filled with really nasty swamp creatures.
Ratherā¦ the swamp has many layers. A snorkel isn’t enough. SCUBA is needed to see the critters that live off the detritus that gradually filters to their lairs. (sic) ā -=ā” GoatGuy ā ā”=-ā
GoatGuy: I think the swamp is so deep, SCUBA might not be enough. Maybe a bathyscaphe is needed.
The Trieste
the swamp….rules?….what rules?
This went no where………
CEI Files Formal Complaint Regarding NASAās Claim of 97% Climate Scientist Agreement on Global Warming
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) petitioned NASA to remove from its website the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming. The petition, filed under the Information Quality Act (IQA), points out the major flaws in the studies cited by NASA to substantiate its claim. It requests the agency remove the claim from its website and stop circulating it in agency materials.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/13/cei-files-formal-complaint-regarding-nasas-claim-of-97-climate-scientist-agreement-on-global-warming/
Science has a replication crisis. These people are fighting desperately to prevent that from being fixed.
Very true. If it is secret then it can’t be reviewed and replicated so it ceases to be science.
They want the secrecy because they are lying. They are trying to get government control of the people with regulations that are never vetted. The swamp must be eliminated before we can get freedom.
What Gina McCarthy is actually saying is that ā¦ā¦. ācritical medical research associated with the Coronavirus should not be made public because such āsecret scienceā permits the developers to extort billions of dolllars from both the government and the public. ā
How exactly is anyone extorting money over the coronavirus?
Trump asked for $2.5 billion to fight corona virus. Congress passed an $8 billion funding bill. There’s over $5 billion of pork for (primarily lefty) special interests.
You got that right, Secryn, ā¦ā¦. the Democrat controlled House readily gave Trump the $2.5 BILLION he asked for, ā¦ā¦ but they gave themselves $5.5 BILLION for distribution between their family, friends and āpaybackā to political ādonater$ā to their re-election campaigns.
And Trump didnāt dare āvetoā that funding bill which was three quarters (3/4) āpork barrelā money for the DNC.
āYUPā, donate $5,000 to $10,000 to help get someone elected ā¦ā¦ and most likely you will be awarded a $5 to $25+ MILLION dollar cost-plus government funded contract in return.
Having Obama-Era Officials rage at a decision is a clear indication that the Trump administration has done the right thing yet again. Secrets have no place in Science.
The problem I see is what happens when this president is out of office?
That depends on who replaces him. Politicians, however, are not the only issue.
Conservatives need to develop and support neutral and conservative news media en mass, while abandoning the liberal press completely. I wish I didn’t have to say it, but it is crystal clear that much of the press in the US is simply protecting the Democrats and spreading their propaganda.
Sen. Schumer’s threats against the Supreme’s have been reported as a simple warning by the left wing media, and not the stated threat that Schumer clearly made. Only conservative media is showing the video and playing the sound bite. The liberal press is covering for him by not showing the video or quoting what he actually said, and then proclaiming that conservative media is causing division by actually reporting what Schumer said. Similarly, they have twisted what Trump has said and done to always try and make him look bad.
I am not promoting cancel culture. I am simply saying that ‘we the people’ need to hold our press accountable by ignoring them until and unless they return to delivering the actual news. We would not continue to go to a hamburger joint that puts crap on our burger. Why would we keep watching news outlets who sell us crap in their information?
Even if we vote in all conservatives, they will be hindered from doing the will of the people as long as the media is spreading disinformation designed to thwart them.
I’ve always said that the media has enormous power in that it can craft a narrative as much by what they don’t report as much as what they do. Fox News seems to be the only mainstream news outlet even close to being unbiased and even they aren’t perfect. I’m only speaking of news, not the opinion people who are just as biased toward the right as the rest of the media is biased to the left. So far, the mainstream media outlets seem to only serve as the propaganda arm of the Democratic party. Personally, I want a media outlet that reports the news. That’s it. No analysis. No spin. Just tell me what happened. If possible, tell me by showing me. If the president says something, report what he said either with audio, video, or exact quotes. Let me figure out what to make of what’s said. I’m smart enough to do that. Unfortunately, they tend to think most people aren’t smart enough to analyze news unfiltered by a spin machine. Perhaps they’re right. I don’t know. /end rant
Secret data is the basis for the whole field of Phaque Climate Science.
If the fate of the world was in your hands, wouldn’t you want to use the most open, reliable data sets available to clearly and openly demonstrate your conclusions? Where anyone could use this data to demonstrate you were correct or in error? It almost sounds like real science.
When you know the fate of the world isn’t in your hands, you fudge data, even outright make it up. Anything to get that power over the sheep.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Personally I think the napalm approach is far more effective.
Science will no longer be secret? Won’t that shift us even further away from Dark Ages?
“What do you mean I have to make the study data available to verify the results? How, outrageous! The very idea I might fudge, falsify or, outright, make up data and study results to further my own ambitions and pet causes is preposterous!”
Did I capture the fake moral outrage of your typical, government grant seeking, partisan hack, effectively?
Cheers.
Max
Well put Max !!
This extends to the flawed science used by the alarmists to further their cause of supposed āanthropogenic climate changeā, ignoring the plethora of available, sound geological and geophysical science demonstrating the fallacy of the IPCC temperature projections and sea level rise rate, etc, etc.
As stated in an earlier post, āsunshine IS a great disinfectantā metaphorically speaking !
Or more accurately:
“! The very idea that people might catch me fudging, falsifying or, outright making up data and study results to further my own ambitions and pet causes is appalling”
What about the study showing that it was the ban on single use plastic that cause the coronavirus epedemic?
Just like AIDS only became a problem after the sharing of needles, coronavirus only became a problem after a ban on single use plastic.
Scientists are now rushing to identify fork, knife or spoon zero.
Gina McCarthy had no clue when she was Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and no clue when she Administrator of the EPA. My favorite Gina story remains the Secret Agent Man story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/07/congress-epa-fake-spy-is-tip-of-fraudulent-iceberg/8804437/
That was the first thought I had when I saw dear Ginaās name gurgle up from the swamp.
And does anyone really believe that most DC Agencies and/or Organizations are really different than the Obama era EPA?
If they do, ā¦ā¦. then they are sadly confused, extremely gullible ā¦ā¦. or are a part of the problem and enjoying the benefits.
Wasn’t McCarthy also using private email for gov’t business?
Similar tales keep cropping up about the UKās Environment Agency. What is it with the people that work in this field? I hear stories about the French and German equivalents as well but I donāt have hard evidence.
From the article: “Environmentalists say going to battle against secretive science prevents the EPA from using studies that often rely on private medical information. Researchers often use anonymous data from private citizens to conduct research into topics like chemical exposure.”
How is using anonymous medical data a privacy issue? Answer: It’s not a privacy issue if no one can put a name to the data.
Tom,
I don’t know who wrote those sentences but they didn’t proof-read it at all.
“Private medical information” and “anonymous data” are polar opposites.
This is just more whining from liberal idiots who live in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance.
Well, Brian Williams and s fellow moron read some tweet where another moron divided the 500 million Bloomberg spent by 347 million – roughly the us population and said Bloomberg could have given every American 1 million dollars. And they both believed the math. So don’t confuse them with the math. Just tell them 97% of someone believes something and they will believe it. American press = Morons
For centuries, science and reproducibility went hand in hand. Now you have to believe without access to the information to, at least, be able to redo the analysis.
“compounds the damage done” to what?
It compounds the damage done to the leftist narrative…
“Gina McCarthy, a former EPA chief during the Obama administration, said …..”
……. some meaningless gibberish.
Gina is the sister of Charlie – which explains a lot!
There are clarifications, revisions after 600,000 responses. Making information available is obviously not secret, but Orwellian claim. Anti-secrecy denial? Something like that. https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-posts-clarifying-details-to-secret-science-rule
Exactly. This is the APA46 (Administrative Procedures Act of 1946) regulatory process at work. Draft rule proposed. Comment period of at least 90 days. Respond to comments extensively and by finally tweaking rule before finalizing. Makes it legally very sound. Smart legal move, the EPA tweaks.
I am very personally familiar with the infamous FDA 1996 TFM (tentative final monograph) on antisepticsāhospital, hand and surgical, autoapproved without clinical trials IF… (never finalized because of triclosan āantiseptic soapā controversy) ran 900 plus turgid pages.
When is someone going to investigate Obama’s “Pause-buster Paper” which he fraudulently presented to the Paris summit as fact and which every country in the world is now signed onto and paying billions of dollars based on that fraud?
Several whistleblowers went to Congress with this complaint and described how Obama was in contact with the head of NOAA in the weeks preceding the summit…and they cooked up a lie so obvious that NOAA had to recant and then explain why they were not going to be coming forward with the method by which they made these massive “errors”…because the computer broke. Same excuse the Australian BOM made when they were caught by Jennifer Marrohasy lying about the data….”Oh no, we cant show you how we came to be such liars and commit this massive fraud on the Australian people and world in general….because the computer broke.”
My response to this would have been a midnight raid and carry off those computers to see exactly how they “broke.”
The science publication, cant think which one, that printed the great Obama lie has since said they will not publish papers that cannot be replicated now. Obama’s legacy.
So, what happened? This is the greatest fraud in human history and I have not heard a thing about the pausebuster paper since….if you cant win these ones, and put these extreme criminals before the courts….then the world will fall to the communists.
As much as I admire what this site and similar are doing, all you are doing is preaching to the converted. Consider this, Roger Stone is found guilty and they give him years in jail….and Obama, the greatest fraudster in human history doesn’t. WTFH?
“Consider this, Roger Stone is found guilty and they give him years in jailā¦.and Obama, the greatest fraudster in human history doesnāt. WTFH?”
The Democrats have rigged the system in their favor.
Trump is attempting to change this.
Tom Abbott
Oh please….
Obama a fraudster? You may not like his policies, but he is an angel compared to the crook in charge now. So some specifics please. When did Obama commit fraud? Did he start a university then rip all the students off? No wait… that was….
Did he say say he would release his tax returns then not do it? No wait that was…..
Were Obama’s political team a bunch of crooks? No wait that was Trumpy. His previous personal attorney is in prison. His former campaign manager is in prison. His deputy campaign manager pleaded guilty and is headed to prison. His National Security adviser pleaded guilty and is likely headed to prison. The first Congressman who endorsed him pleaded guilty and is headed to prison. And his current personal attorney is under criminal investigation. The fish stinks from the head.
Trump vs Obama?
Not even close. One was an ‘affirmative action’ hire from a community organizer background and ‘propelled’ into high-stakes politics by the Chicago ‘machine’ on account he could speak well, and the other is a self-made real estate and property developer who had to work with unions and suppliers and various governmental agencies and officials the world over.
And, of course, Simon, you’re all for protecting the weak, the downtrodden and the unborn – right? Unborn little babies have souls too, Simon. The Ancient Greeks called the point at which the soul joined the body “ensoulment”. Which president worked/has worked/is working to protect them?
_Jim
“Unborn little babies have souls too, Simon.”
WTF? How did you get to there…. I happen to be pro life.
Simon, please read for comprehension.
“Which president worked/has worked/is working to protect them?”
There is only one answer here. Drumf. -er- Trump.
_Jim
I’m just waiting for a woman to come forward to say Trump paid for her termination, coz I don’t believe for one second he gives a flying toss about the issue. It’s a vote winner for him… pure and simple.
Simon – March 7, 2020 at 4:31 pm
Simon, iffen you are looking for copies of Trumpās tax returns ā¦ā¦. you will find them in the same desk drawer UNDERNEATH Obamaās original birth certificate and his Harvard grade cards and attendance record.
Samuel C Cogar
Umm but we have seen Obama’s birth certificate so this makes no sense.
re: ” but we have seen Obamaās birth certificate ”
Uh-uh. You didn’t. You didn’t download the pdf, open it up (in your fave pdf editor) and look at the multiple layers that make it look like – some sort of ‘botched’ forgery, an attempt at, one again, pulling a ‘fast one’ on the American public. IF they had simply released a gif or jpg OR a single layer PDF file, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. But they did not release a copy of that ‘document’ in a ‘monolithic’ form.
I just KNOW you didn’t download it like a lot of us did, to see it in its raw, adulterated form.
——————————————
“Analysis of Obama Birth Certificate PDF”
Expert report of: Ivan Zatkovich
http://www.ecompconsultants.com/news/Obama-report.pdf
——————————————
“Long-Form Birth Certificate of Obama is a Forged Document”
https://www.science.co.il/Obama-birth-certificate.htm
Brief condensed excerpt: A note of explanation
Since this is a site of Science and technology, there is a need to explain why … In his position as the President, the policies pursued by Mr. Obama affects the whole world and not just the USA.
Because of the persisting controversy about his eligibility, … the White House released a document that is called “Long-Form Birth Certificate”. The release of this simple document … raised in our minds the possibility that there could be something suspicious about the information available on this document. To check this, we downloaded the document …
The analyses presented below reveal without a doubt that the Long-Form Birth Certificate of Mr. Obama is a fabricated, fake and forged document.
—————————————–
“Obama a fraudster? You may not like his policies, but he is an angel compared to the crook in charge now. So some specifics please.”
Isn’t it strange how two people can see the same situation so differently.
Btw, I didn’t call Obama a fraud, that was our friend Bill, but I wouldn’t argue with that description. I definitely think Obama is a criminal and that he actively tried to undermine the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. election process by tryig to rig the 2016 election for Hillary, and setting up a campaign to undermine the Trump administration using Obama holdovers in the federal government, after Trump was elected and which is ongoing even as we write.
I think we will eventually see some of this criminality made public.
Trump said he would release his tax returns just as soon as his attorneys give him the green light. They haven’t given him the green light yet.
Yes, Obama’s team were and are a bunch of crooks.
Trump associates that are in jail or threatened with jail are victims of the Obama-Biden conspiracy to undermine the Trump administration. Let’s see how long they stay in jail after November 3. The judge in the Carter Page case, an Obama appointee, should be removed from office by the U.S. Senate for allowing her political bias to contaiminate Page’s trial.
The fish stink comes from the Obama-Biden administration.
It’s all going to come out. Stay tuned.
Tom Abbott
“Trump said he would release his tax returns just as soon as his attorneys give him the green light. They havenāt given him the green light yet.”
“Ohhh PLeeease.” If you believe that you believe in fairy tales. There is only one reason Trump wont release is tax returns and we all know what that is.
re: ” There is only one reason Trump wont release is tax returns and we all know what that is.”
Funny this: Drumf’s tax returns ‘passed muster’ at the IRS for ALL those years under Obama, and suddenly, when he runs – wins election, they become an issue?
Rational much? Or is it just pure jealousy (ONE of the Seven Deadly Sins I will add) and “I want to punish my enemies”? This just smells. Should be plain to see by anybody with a RATIONAL mind and mindset, which leaves out the Pavlovian response-trained a segment of our society who now near-instinctively (because they did not emerge from the womb this way!) cry for any sort of punitive measures against ‘the bad orange man’, including HOPING for a catastrophic, biblical-portion ‘plague’ from Covid-19. Sad it comes to this. The admonition “repent” and cast off/out your demon is all the comes to mind as a remedial measure for this expressed ‘TDS’ condition.
Simon -March 8, 2020 at 11:29 am
āThere is only one reason Trump wont release is tax returns and we all know what that is.ā
Simon, if you donāt tell a lie, ā¦ā¦ you will never have to un-lie it.
And your above statement is a lie ā¦ā¦. because I do not know the reason you speak of.
“HA”, ā¦ā¦ you females are always making “emotional” decisions that get ya into trouble.
There should be a full and completely transparent audit of ALL climate data from NOAA/NASA, especially regarding temperature & sea level. Most people don’t know or don’t believe that these data are so heavily adjusted (made up), or how these adjustments all seem to enhance the narrative – if they did, opinions might change. People may not understand science, but they certainly understand ‘cheating’. This would lead for demands that CRU/Met Office/BOM do the same thing, and suspicions about the powers-that-be that are aleady rife may turn to public outcry regarding climate ‘science’. Sadly, only Trump can do this (and restore sanity in the process). Funny old world.
ChrisDinBristol
“Most people donāt know or donāt believe that these data are so heavily adjusted (made up), or how these adjustments all seem to enhance the narrative”
Yawn!!! If you think it is made up then find holes in it? There have been numerous attempts to and all have failed. Take the Climate Change Coalition in NZ. They took NIWA to court saying the adjustments were phoney. Guess what happened… they lost and were ordered to pay 80k in court costs. Being the upstanding people they were, they ran for the hills and didn’t pay it.
Then there was the investigation stated by Global Warming Policy Foundation. Well they started it then it fell over only to disappear in a puff of smoke .
And let’s not forget the Berkeley Earth Project that was going to sort out once and for all how the data was fraudulent and corrupt. Hell even Mr Watts said “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” Well guess what, when they concluded there was no fraud and the earth was indeed warming at the rate the scientists were concluding…. he didn’t accept the result.
So Chris… if you think these naughty scientists are cooking the books then prove it, you will be a very famous man, coz no one else has been able to.
Well, Simon, since the adjustments have lowered the 1930s & 1940s temps, virtually erased the 1950s-1970s cooling and got rid of the early 21st century ‘pause’, those 3 periods’ data being somewhat awkward for the CO2/temp correlation (and the models), I remain suspicious. Add to that the hokey stick doing exactly the same thing to medievial warmth & the little ice age and the climategate exchanges revealing that some data is deemed ‘inconvenient’, a pattern emerges. Thus, I remain suspicious, and I suspect that if it were more widely known then many others would be too.
“Thus, I remain suspicious, and I suspect that if it were more widely known then many others would be too.”
The way to show the fraudulent Hockey Stick is actually a fraud is to show people the unmodified regional surface temperature charts (from which the Hockey Stick chart is derived) which all show it was just as warm in the recent past (1930’s) as it is today. None of the unmodified regional surface tempeature charts resemble a Hockey Stick chart. Instead, the regional temperature charts all resemble the unmodified US surface temperature chart.
The unmodified charts of the world show that the Earth is not experiencing unprecedented warmth as the alarmists and the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart say. And therefore, CO2 is not a significant factor in the Earth’s weather. CAGW is a dead proposition if we go by the unmodified regional surface temperature charts.
All the unmodified surface temperatue charts look like the US surface temperature chart where the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than today, and the 1970 cooling is very prominent.
The link below shows the U.S. surface temperature chart on the left and a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart on the right. All the unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world resemble the temperature profile of the unmodified US surface temperature chart. NONE of the unmodified surface temperature charts resemble the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. The Hockey Stck chart is a fraud being perpetrated on the people of the world for political/personal reasons.
Notice how the bogus Hockey Stick chart erases the warmth of the 1930’s and the cold of the 1970’s in their efforts to make it appear that temperatures have been getting hotter for decades and are now at the hottest temperatures in human history. It’s all a Big Lie! A Big, Successful Lie. So far.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
“The way to show the fraudulent Hockey Stick is actually a fraud is to show people the unmodified regional surface temperature charts (from which the Hockey Stick chart is derived) which all show it was just as warm in the recent past (1930ās) as it is today. ”
The fraud of the hockey stick has nothing to do with modern temps, and everything to do with manipulating data from paleo studies.
Tom Abbott
“Itās all a Big Lie! A Big, Successful Lie. So far.”
And getting “successfuller” as the world keeps warming. There is not a single metric now that shows anything but warming. Even UAH is setting records almost monthly. So I will say it again…. write a paper that convinces the scientific community that there has been fraud and you will be very famous. Many have tried all have failed. Her is a hint though. All adjustments are well documented and justified (as were the NIWA ones in NZ).
“The fraud of the hockey stick has nothing to do with modern temps, and everything to do with manipulating data from paleo studies.”
I forgot to include “Modern-era” in there, didn’t I Jeff.
That would be the Modern-era Hockey Stick chart that I was talking about. The one that covers the period of interest from 1850 or so to today.
I doubt anyone who reads what I write for any length of time would confuse the Hockey Stick chart I’m talking about with the Hockey Stick Michael Mann invented, but I suppose there might be a few that don’t understand the difference so I will try to be more specific in the future.
How.s that? I don’t mind being redundant. I think that is a good thing.
So says: Simon – March 7, 2020 at 5:37 pm
Simon, ā¦.. quit talking trash, ā¦.. 98% of all claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) climate change are literally ājunk scienceā ā¦ā¦ simply because said āclaimsā were determined by a āconsensus of opinionsā, ā¦. outright lies and falsified data.
A āconsensus of opinionsā is what determines the result of a Jury trial, Supreme Court ruling, election results or a Judgeās decision, ā¦ā¦. but a āconsensus of opinionsā cannot determine what next weekās weather will be, who will win next yearās Super Bowl or when the next Lunar eclipse will occur, ā¦ā¦. even though you are apparently foolish enough to believe otherwise.
Current consensus science assumes there is āanthropogenic climate changeā ā¦. based solely on lies, untruths and āfuzzy mathā calculated global average near-surface air temperature increases which they attribute to human activities beginning with the Industrial Revolution.
The major problem with the above nonsense is the fact that the proponents of AGW had to āhighjackā the post-1880 ongoing Interglacial climate change near-surface air temperature increases ā¦.. and then claim those āhighjackedā temperature increases were in fact human caused increases.
Is there anyone really so ignorant as to believe that the āwarmingā of the current Interglacial climate change SUDDENLY STOPPED ā¦ā¦ just because humans started recording near-surface air temperatures in the early 19th Century?
āYESā there is such a person, ā¦ā¦ isnāt there Simon?
Samuel C Cogar
“Is there anyone really so ignorant as to believe that the āwarmingā of the current Interglacial climate change SUDDENLY STOPPED”
See here’s the thing Sam… saying something is happening just because it has “been” happening is simpleton thinking. Yes we came out of an ice age, but the forcings responsible are not relevant/happening now. We know why we have warmed in the past and those factors are just not in play. It’s not the sun, it’s not the clouds, and it sure as hell ain’t father Christmas. So what is it Sam? Why are we warming? Natural variation doesn’t explain it either. we are outside those boundaries.
I’ll not waste my time on the rest of the garbage you have written except to say again…. if you think the science is wrong, then you need to prove it with detail and specifics. Like I have said (and detailed) many have tried, all have failed.
Simon – March 8, 2020 at 1:13 pm
“DUH”, who tolt ya that those “forces” are not happening now, ā¦ā¦ the Flying Spaghetti Monster ā¦.. or Al Gore?
Simon, me thinks you are talking out of your aboral end ā¦.. because your head should surely know better.
But Simon, ā¦.. apparently your head doesnāt know any better because you are still ātalkingā trash, to wit:
Simon, the Sun is providing the heat energy ā¦ā¦. but no one knows for sure why the earth IS CURRENTLY WARMING or why it āwarmed in the pastā, ā¦ā¦ in the past Interglacial Periods within the Ice Ages. Simon, apparently you are not knowledgeable of the fact that the Earth is CURRENTLY in a Glacial Period ā¦ā¦.. but is currently experiencing an Interglacial Periods within said Glacial Period which commenced some 22,000 YBP. Proxy graph here that you should study, Simon.
Simon, I can prove that many, many AGW science claims are wrong, ā¦ā¦ but I am also fairly sure that you DISCREDIT everything that I post simply because of your misnurtured and/or miseducated mind-set ā¦.. and/or learned trait of āclosing your eyes and your mindā to any and all things that are contrary to what your chosen mentors instructed you to believe.
Simon, ā¦.. here is a hyperlink to a scientifically accurate Proxy Graph which thereon is included the 1979-2017 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures & atmospheric CO2 ppm data.
Now Simon, if you study that factually accurate graph you should notice that atmospheric CO2 plot (black dotted line from lower left to upper right) has been steadily increasing for the past 39 years (1979 @ 339.26 ppm to 2017 @ 409.69 ppm), ā¦.. a total increase of 70.43 ppm CO2.
So there is your 1st proof, Simon, ā¦ā¦ atmospheric CO2 increased by 70.43 ppm between 1979 and 2017 ā¦ā¦ whereas the 1979 to 2017 near-surface lower atmosphere temperatures were totally UNAFFECTED by the increase in CO2. (Oh course you will have to open your eyes to see that on the cited graph.)
And here are 7 more randomly selected proofs:
2. the Keeling Curve disproves claims of CAGW
9. data from various fossil plant stomata studies disproves claims of CAGW
12. the extremely quick increases/decreases in desert temperatures disproves claims of CAGW
13. the absolute lack of any direct association or correlation between Average Global Temperature increases, world population increases and/or atmospheric CO2 increases disproves claims of CAGW
14. the impossibility for anyone to measure the warming effect of the lesser quantity of a radiant gas (CO2) in a mixture of two different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H2O vapor) is constantly changing from hour to hour and/or day to day …….. disproves claims of CAGW
16. claiming that 400 ppm of CO2 is directly causing greater āwarmingā of the near-surface atmosphere than does 30,000 ppm of H2O vapor is silly, idiotic and asinine.
18. claiming that the bi-yearly āwintertimeā increase of 6 to 8 ppm in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the rotting and/or decaying of biomass in the Northern Hemisphere is a biological IMPOSSIBILITY ā¦.. and is therefore silly, asinine and idiotic ā¦ (because itās in direct violation of my Refrigerator/Freezer Law that governs natural biomass decomposition by bacteria, fungi, yeasts, molds and mildews)
We should be worried more about data accuracy rather than where it came from and how can one verify accuracy without questioning the source?
Secrecy is the death of freedom. If one allows an unaccountable group of people to make rules on a whim without asking them to justify their decisions, they are effectively mini dictators. The rule should always be transparent. Citizens pay for this show with their tax dollars so they are entitled to know what they are being thrown at. Rules take away freedoms – we should know why we get the shackles. If there is a need for secrecy, let them argue every single case.
Plenty of rhetoric and zero substance from McCarthy and Southerland.
Probably a given they would be shrieking at pretty much any Trump-era changes, and even if it were something they agreed with, they’d say it doesn’t go far enough.
The agency’s definition of pollution is itself polluted, so it has become a propaganda machine not to be trusted.
Somehow anyone with a half of a brain should know āSecret Science,ā is not science. Of course that leave out the left, the media and most Republican elites.
āSomehow anyone with a half of a brain should know āSecret Science,ā is not science. Of course that leave out the left, the media and most Republican elites.ā
Mark Luhman, it is quite obvious that there are also a few persons āwith a half of a brainā that refuse to recognize the fact most all Democrat elites support āSecret Scienceā simply because they have a lucrative āfunded intere$tā that they wish to protect at-all-costs.
Said Democrat elites are heavily invested in most all āgreen energyā schemes that will eventually declare bankruptcy after they have siphoned off the invested capital, to wit:
.
The secrets of Gina McCarthy and her EPA being kept hidden is so embarrassing because they include the studies done by Harvard/Syracuse that were used as inputs but were scientifically accredited but still not disclosed.
Here is a partial list of some of the during the the longstanding cozy relationship between government grant-makers and grantees–like universities, environmental groups and college professors–making the EPA blindĀ to even the most obvious conflict of interest, which leads me to recommend that there should be full disclosure for all organizations using federal dollar.
* The lop-sided appointments by the previous EPA for its Clean Air Committees: The Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel where 24 of the 26 members received over $190 million in direct or indirect grants and the the Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Panel 17 of the 20 members received over $192 million.
* There were very close (some would say inappropriately close) relationships that the EPA staff had with the researchers from Harvard, Syracuse and other contributors to the Dr. Charles Driscoll Health Study Team. This study was used to justify $37 billion of dollars allegedly saved in āindirect health benefitsā in the first iteration of the Clean Power Plan. While Dr. Driscoll claimed that the study was independent and objective, it was revealed that the studyās researchers had received $45 million in EPA grants. In addition, there is a trail of emails from the research team and the EPA before, during and after the study was completed.
* During hearings in Congress (2013, 2014, 2015), Gina McCarthy admitted that āClean Power Plan” had no measurable climate impact: One hundredth of a degree. But she claimed the Clean Power Plan was symbolically important.
* The EPA did an original Cost/Benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, with the annual cost of $10 billion (many experts deemed far too low) and an annual benefit of about $9 million, but justified the Clean Power Plan by claiming $37 billion of āindirect health benefits,ā annually.
* She applauded the EPAās role in the banning the use of DDT and helped engineer a global ban, but she did not mention that without DDT to kill disease carrying mosquitos millions and millions of children and adults have died of malaria in Africa.
* After the Colorado toxic spill, there was a hush over the climate industry/major media about the EPAās ā1 million-gallon toxic mine spillā on August 5 (which was later changed to 3 million gallons by the EPA.) In fact, the EPA did not give the States of Colorado and New Mexico any warning for the 24 hours. EPA regional director Shaun McGrath was quoted as saying, āsome of our early comments may have sounded cavalier about the public-health concern and the concern for the wildlife.ā
* Even after a second toxic spill in October, no one at the EPA was ever disciplined or prosecuted. In the end, the EPA gave out small compensation to the Native American tribes, and none to local tourism and ranching. One can only imagine the financial penalties if a private company had caused the spill.
* In the federal Flint, MI water investigation, the report finds that āthe State of Michigan and EPA equally at fault.ā Furthermore, there is evidence that the local EPA knew about the Flint lead in the water problems for over 9 months and you as Director knew about the Flint problem at least 4 months before it became a disaster.
* The EPAĀ “improperly” withheld Pebble Mine documents with regard to its decision toĀ prematurely restrict the Pebble Mine projectĀ in Alaska and prompted a Federal Judge to express “no confidence” in the EPA’s ability to decide which documents it should release or redact publicly.
* While the EPA argued the Clean Power Plan was the reason for the recent emissions reduction, Ken Colburn, a former state air regulator with the Regulatory Assistance Project, said, “If anything, the Clean Power Plan is not the cause of changes sweeping the power markets. What you’re already seeing is a power sector transformation operating in such a way that it’s actually cleaning up the grid anyway, a phenomenon that appears to be occurring even earlier than we expected,” he said.
* According to a New York Times article, the āE.P.A. broke law with social media push for WOTUS, auditors found.ā The EPA used Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and even a more innovative tool known as Thunderclap. In total, their campaign reached 1.8 million people. The other questionable PR efforts included an asthma ad campaign and Mercury and Air Toxic (MATS) PR campaign.
* While she continues to discuss the current attack on science and EPA transparency, her tenure at the EPA is fraught with climate change dogma and lack of transparency. To this day, she has kept access to her inter-office, inter-agency, and outgoing EPA communications shrouded in mystery.
Do a Google search of communications between the HARVARD/SYRACUSE STUDY and the EPA in 2015.
“I’m from the government and I am here to help.” That sentence was a stand-alone joke when I was growing up. The government has gotten worse since then, but it has gotten some really wonderful press. Consequently, more and more people seem to think the the government has the answer to all our problems, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Gina McCarthy at the EPA is a prime example of government corruption expanding proportionally with government power.
Hopefully this is the precursor to overturning the CO 2 endangerment ruling. This more than anything has skewed the climate change debate. The process to overturning it and the reaction to it will at least ensure main stream coverage. The climate change bias of the MSM is as much about articles they donāt cover as those they do. Climate sceptics need a huge controversial announcement that will get everyoneās attention and shine the spotlight on the dishonesty of the global warming alarmists. It was interesting when Craig Kelly ( an Australian parliamentarian brought up the issue of unexplained alteration of Bureau of Meteorology raw data that accelerated the warming trend by more than 50% by adjusting downwards historical temps with no coherent explanation. He was shut down by the opposition and it is so obvious that EPA, CSIRO, NOAA, BOM and the major scientific organisations pushing this alarmism are fearful of close scrutiny. Thatās why this change to the EPA is so important. It may be the start of an unravelling process that is necessary to tip the scales to our side of the argument
Zigmaster, to his credit, Craig Kelly has not stopped speaking out. Malcolm Roberts is another Australian politician who supports the same cause as this site and he has plenty to say. There are a few other politicians finding there voice now too. I think we have to keep putting it out there.
I have been writing to local, state and federal politicians without response for many months now. I think I need to make reference to the ‘gatekeeper’ in future correspondence, they decide what gets passed on. I wonder how many of them are green? Been trying to fight large scale wind and solar renewables, it would be good to know that the message was getting through to the intended recipients.
Same message really, if the truth is withheld there is nothing to stop real damage being done.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/05/abc-sees-positive-climate-change-lessons-from-coronavirus/#comment-2931974
Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts Exposes The Climate Change Scam –
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGaFrgaHPFg
Tony Heller and Tim Ball speak to the media – a worthwhile video.
“Trust Me” is the last step in the scientific method, isn’t it?
No, “. . . needs further research . . .” is the last step in the scientific method, these days.
Well, it’s definitely a method in political science that marks the end of genuine science.
These people can be trusted as far as you can throw a live bull up a silo.
Gina McCarthy showed up at a Congressional hearing and was unable to answer any details about many problems. She was great at specious propaganda rote, but not the details of why, when or where.
Gina McCarthy used a secret email address, “Richard Windsor”, hidden from the public, but not from activists.
Gina allowed activists to write regulations for the EPA.
Gina is also the EPA Administrator who allowed John Beale to claim CIA agent status to excuse his frequent absences, while billing the government for his fake CIA assignments.
If Gina hates the new rule, it must be the right direction for EPA.
Hi ATheoK, – For context only: EPA’s Lisa Jackson was who used the RichardWindsor pseudonym & not just for emails – but also for certification training programs.
Gina was a full participant in the “Richard Windsor” scandal. Including transitioning emails to “Richard Windsor” to her email account after ‘Lisa Jackson’ left the position.
One should not overlook that it was Gina McCarthy’s mismanagement that allowed the Animas River wastewater spill travesty to be triggered by an EPA-led crew; allowing three million gallons of toxic orange sludge to drain from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado into the Animas River affecting multiple potable watersheds below the spill.
That was no accident. First a Letter to the Editor a week before, then the massive land grab & $uperfund$ answered the question: Who Benefits?
ļæ¼
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/letter-to-editor-predicted-colorado-epa-spill-one-week-before-catastrophe-so-epa-could-secure-superfund-cash/
Letter to Editor PREDICTED COLORADO EPA SPILL One Week Before Catastrophe=> So EPA Could Secure Control of Area
Roger that, ATheoK.
Secret climate science has misled.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Natural sources of it made the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve.
What happened to common sense? Whole rivers have been dammed with added evaporation from artificial lakes and water used for irrigation and other uses where it evaporates. There are more than 57,000 large dams worldwide.
Water tables are declining worldwide due to pumped irrigation. Irrigated cropland is now more than four times the area of France.
Measured average global water vapor has been increasing 1.47% per decade which accounts for all the global warming attributable to humanity. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
āNow is ALWAYS the time to subject critical medical, climate and any other research that underpins every rule designed or used to advance a political agenda! The Green New Deal is a prime example,ā Gina McCarthy, a former EPA chief during the Obama administration, should have said in a statement Tuesday responding to the news.
(Fixed it for her. Pity she every had authority.)
āNow is ALWAYS the time to subject critical medical, climate and any other research that underpins every rule designed or used to advance a political agenda! The Green New Deal is a prime example,ā
Seems incomplete.
“subject critical … data … [to scrutiny]…”?
Let’s says that in some fields “anonymized” data that has still all data point can be used to target individuals, because there are enough non nominative data to infer the identity of the person measured (say there is the age bracket, town which is small, and pathology which is rare).
How could that possibly apply to all studies, many of which use zero information about individuals, about pathologies, or are based on averages of cases?
Of course the “revealing personal medical data” is just a scare tactic. It’s a bait and switch. It’s the other “secret science data” they want to hide from qualified scrutiny.
But, concerning personal medical data, it would take a determined individual or group to drill down through the data, with no names attached, to identify an individual.
And if they did succeed, what would the worst that happen?
Robo-calls from ambulance chasing law firms?
(I mean, what does Yamal 06 have to lose from a bit qualified scrutiny?)
Mr. and Mrs. Bristlecone (and their gender-neutral kids) will sue!
The best part of this is that swamp things are leaving the government. I sincerely hope that it accelerates over the next few years.
It tis a conflict of ideology.
Some prefer Evidence based policy making,when their money is being forcibly stolen to support government ends.
Others prefer policy based evidence manufacturing,while they are stealing taxpayers dollars to benefit their schemes.
Obviously us taxpayers are just too stupid to understand we are not woke enough to be permitted a say in how our wealth shall be “redistributed”.
Climatology.
In all it’s glory.
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” –Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes
Yeah, but its really hard to block and ban developments you don’t like if all the science is out in the open.
The WW2 bomber pilot rule:
The heavier the incoming AAA flak, the more certain you can be you’re approaching a target that’s very important to your enemy.
Whatever Pruitt and (now) Wheeler are going after is mighty important to the NRDC mafia.
“The best part of this is that swamp things are leaving the government. I sincerely hope that it accelerates over the next few years.”
The climate scam has cost society decades of progress, trillions of dollars and millions of lives.
A few selective prosecutions would help – followed by the suggestion that those who quit their jobs within 60 days without compensation will not be prosecuted, should have a remarkable cleansing effect.
I’ve been thinking about Dr. Happer’s recent interview where he said that after the November 3, 2020, presidential elections, President Trump wanted to have a public dialog about human-caused climate change, with both alarmists and skeptics present, and Trump might want to be the moderator of this discusssion.
I assume Dr. Happer didn’t just say this without having some reason to do so.
So why at this time?
I think this is Trump’s time to debunk this CAGW hoax.
I think Trump wants to openly scoff at this idea and rub all the delusional leftwing politicians in the Western Democracies nose in it. Trump has nothing to lose politically.
Wouldn’t you love to see Trump really come out and tear this CAGW hoax to pieces and shame these idiots running the nations of our good friends here at WUWT into giving up their delusions about CO2 being dangerous and that it is necessary to spend themselves into bankruptcy to fix this non problem.
Why else would Trump do something like this?
It would have been wonderful to have Freeman Dyson among those skeptics. Of course, he has said quite a bit on the subject already that would be valuable to a debunking.
Here’s the link:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1062466435
Trump wants prime-time climate science challenge ā Happer
Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter Climatewire: Friday, February 28, 2020
“President Trump wants a climate science review where he might take center stage as host in front of a prime-time television audience, a former adviser said yesterday.
Trump is also interested in bringing back a hostile review of climate science if he wins reelection, but he’s concerned that it would affect him in the general election, according to William Happer, a former senior director in the National Security Council. The emeritus Princeton University professor worked for months to promote a hostile review of climate science.
Happer told E&E News he’s interested in a purely academic challenge to the National Climate Assessment, while Trump wants a televised event.
“The biggest audience, which is the average American public, has to be informed, and he thinks he’s better at doing that than I am. I’m sure he’s right,” Happer said. “He would prefer it be on prime time, maybe with he himself participating, who knows, but it’s impossible to make much of an impact on the scientific community that way.”
Happer said Trump was already familiar with his view of climate science, which holds that the world needs more carbon dioxide,”
end excerpt
Ya gotta love Trump!
If Trump were to do this, you can bet it will make a huge impact not only on the scientific community but on the political community, too. That’s all they will be talking about.
Some of those politicians are going to have a light go off in their brain and they are going to realize if they take Trump’s position, they can save their nation’s TRILLIONS of dollars, and stop destroying their economies trying to do away with fossil fuels.
And since the alarmist don’t have any evidence demonstrating human-caused climate change, they are going to lose this argument. The simpliest way to defeat them is to request the evidence the alarmists used to show that CO2 is dangerous. They have no evidence that CO2 is dangerous. Argument over.
I think one of the most important things Trump could do would be to disabuse all these alarmists of their CO2 fears.
They could stop wasting their money on windmills and solar and start getting on with their lives without fear of the future.
Donald, you need to show these fools they have been duped into taking actions that are against their own best interests. Help these poor people see the reality that CO2 is not something to fear and is not something that needs to be controlled.
If anyone can do it, it would be Trump. It’s time for him to slap down the human-caused climate change charlatans.
The howling is music to my ears.
If it is real science, it must be peer reviewed. How do you do that if it is secret?
Jim, science (of the left) is ‘peer reviewed’ by their buddies. It’s only secret to real scientists.
The peer review process is worthless when the reviewer is not identified – as is often the case. If a particular article is hogwash and the reviewer is named, he can be held accountable and publicly shamed. We need transparency in the peer review process and a platform to expose questionable reviews.
It works both ways. If you publicly criticize the work of someone with lots of political connections, it can ruin your career.
“The peer review process is worthless when the reviewer is not identified ā as is often the case. If a particular article is hogwash and the reviewer is named, he can be held accountable and publicly shamed. We need transparency in the peer review process and a platform to expose questionable reviews”
I think you would quickly run out of reviewers.
The reviewer doesn’t need to be identified, unless their reviews are consistently irrelevant, abusive, and/or do not address the substance of the paper. I think the reviews themselves definitely need to be made public.
Notice how often extravagant scientific claims are hidden behind a paywall. If these researchers are so confident and believe their insights to important to mankind, why not publish these in open source journals?
Science is not ‘secret’ if the identity of patients in clinical trials is kept secret. The data needed to replicate the trial is a statement of the age of patients, sex, ethnicity and any other particular human features critical to the trial taking place, along with clinical treatment used, dosages, modes of administration and measured endpoints.
If you are going to ban all data from all clinical trials you are simply off with the fairies.
I think this is being raised as a false argument.
A secret study is one in which it is impossible for anyone else to replicate the experiments due to lack of basic information about experimental protocol. Clinical trials are easy to replicate from the submissions made to regulatory authorities concerning the proposed protocol.
Wheeler was a pathetic pick for EPA head. Why? The MSM hardly complains about him which means they approve of him. Pruitt was a great pick which is why the MSM went after him. I wish Trump would fire Wheeler and put Pruitt (or an equivalent to Pruitt) back as EPA head …
In my view, this whole secret ‘science’ thing is nothing but an way for rich left-wing foundations and people to get societal changes they want enacted. I suspect they do it by funding a lot of ‘science’ studies that conveniently and coincidentially often prove or (could, may, might prove) what they want. Then the left-wingers at the EPA use this ‘science’ to push for changes in laws and policies.
I personally am 100% in favor of making any ‘science’ study public that is or could be used to change laws and policies. As far as the names of the people in them, redact them in the public version of the reports.
Time to throw out the EPA’s endangerment finding? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/03/the-epa-co2-endangerment-finding-endangers-the-usa/
In an interview on Fox, Dr. Patrick Michaels (https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/patrick-j-michaels-discusses-climate-change-foxs-life-liberty-levin) said it originated by a suit against the EPA filed by the state of Mass. I’m not surprised, I live in Mass. and this state is dominated by enviro fanatics. The state has also been the source of opposition to the use of wood for energy. It hired the Manomet Institute (in Plymouth, MA) which declared that burning wood for energy is a terrible thing. As a forester who sees the need to improve forests by removing highly defective trees to allow better trees to grow- and the best market for such trees is to convert them into chips for biomass electric power, I detest the state and its phony justification from that Manomet Institute. Their logic began with the assumption that CO2 is a terrible thing and is the main cause of climate change. Massachusetts is so fanatic that at the time- nobody even challenged that assumption. This state is so Puritanical, that I doubt there are more than a few people who even understand that there are many people outside the state who challenge the climate change mantra. Virtually no state politicians understand the controversy.
The state of Mass. is also on the verge of passing a law saying it’ll become carbon zero by 2050 (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/massachusetts-governor-lawmakers-aim-for-net-zero-emissions-by-2050/570912/) – without the slightest clue how to do it. I keep asking state politicians how it can happen- and they don’t reply. The enviros in this state hate all fossil fuels, they hate woody biomass, they hate nuclear, they hate bringing in hydro electric from Canada, they hate pumped storage- and now, some are telling me that they also hate large scale wind and solar. They’re all totally nuts.
Here are a examples of the longstanding cozy relationship between government grant-makers and grantees–like universities, environmental groups and college professors–making the EPA blindĀ to even the most obvious conflict of interest.
* The lop-sided appointments by the previous EPA for its Clean Air Committees: The Scientific Advisory Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel where 24 of the 26 members received over $190 million in direct or indirect grants and the the Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Panel 17 of the 20 members received over $192 million.
* There were very close (some would say inappropriately close) relationships that the EPA staff had with the researchers from Harvard, Syracuse and other contributors to the Dr. Charles Driscoll Health Study Team. This study was used to justify $37 billion of dollars allegedly saved in āindirect health benefitsā in the first iteration of the Clean Power Plan. While Dr. Driscoll claimed that the study was independent and objective, it was revealed that the studyās researchers had received $45 million in EPA grants. In addition, there is a trail of emails from the research team and the EPA before, during and after the study was completed.
If anyone complains all I do is ask them to read Chapter 4 (Sludge Magic) of the book “Science for Sale” by Dr. Lewis. The EPA is long overdue for some transparency.
It is nonsense there would be secrets in EPA science. Secrets in government are on a need to know. If its secret the people doing the reviews need to know and certainly the public needs to know because it impacts on their lives.
This is no different than federal and supreme court judges finding things in the Constitution that no one else can see and it is justified by their insight and high position. Is there a secret Constitution that is not written in plain language as is the one on display at the National Archives? Perhaps it is kept at an undisclosed location for security purposes.
Secrets to protect national security yes. Secrets to cloak justification and protect civil servants no.
“Secrets to protect national security yes. Secrets to cloak justification and protect civil servants no.”
Don’t forget commercial secrets. The secret recipe for Coca Cola? A scientific study and process for a new super expensive medication?
But I don’t think EPA functionaries have access to this kind of secret science.
They probably had access to the ‘other science’ š
“But I donāt think EPA functionaries have access to this kind of secret science.”
You’re right, but the FDA would.