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 EPA’s 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 “secret science” 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. “Other 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,” EPA wrote in the new proposal. Wheeler addressed the changes.
“These additions and clarifications to the proposed rule will ensure that the science supporting the agency’s decisions is transparent and available for independent validation while still maintaining protection of confidential and personally identifiable information,” he said in a statement Tuesday.
The EPA has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment explaining why the agency is now only give greater consideration to publicly available data. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations)
Obama-era officials, meanwhile, say the change is just as bad as the initial proposal.
“Now 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,” 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: “This move is even more egregious than the last proposal, which the administration’s own hand-picked scientists criticized.” 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 Obama’s climate legacy. Other former Obama acolytes chimed in on the change as well.
“Rather than fixing the flaws in EPA’s proposed rule, this supplemental notice compounds the damage done,” 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 EPA’s Office of Water during the Obama-era.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 — 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 – 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 blind 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 “indirect health benefits’ 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 study’s 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’ 😉
“But I don’t think EPA functionaries have access to this kind of secret science.”
You’re right, but the FDA would.