Your Immediate Help Requested: Nominate members for EPA’s independent science advisory boards

Reposted from Junk Science

We need your help and the deadline is Monday, May 3, 2021. On or about March 30, 2021, Biden EPA chief Michael Regan fired all of EPA’s independent science advisers and rolled back important anti-corruption measures implemented by the Trump EPA to ensure the independence and balance of these boards as required by law. For background on this, read my Washington Times column. EPA is now taking nominations for new members. The deadline for submitting nominations is Monday, May 3, 2021. Read on to help nominate scientists and experts for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). You can nominate yourself or someone else. This is very important.

The online form for nominating someone to serve either on there SAB or CASAC is here. The link will open in a new tab so you can easily work between the and EPA web sites.

If you plan to nominate more than one scientist (greatly appreciated), you will need to reload this link for each nominee. The link will open in a new tab as above.

Note there are two forms:

  • A form for nominating experts who have previously served on SAB or CASAC (so EPA already has their credentials); and
  • A form for nominating experts who have NOT previously served on SAB or CASAC (so EPA does not already have their credentials and you are asked to provide details).

Of the list of former SAB and CASAC members provided by EPA, nominates and suggests you do the same for each of the following (Name, Board to be Nominated to, Area of Expertise):

Don’t forget to nominate new people who have never served on SAB out CASAC before. You know who you are. You can nominate yourself or someone else (but you may need to have some idea their credentials).

This is important. We want to make sure EPA has a balanced SAB and CASAC — as required by law. The deadline is Monday, May 3. Nominate now!


Send us comments, suggestions and updates. Let us know if you have problems or need more info.


4.4 7 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
April 30, 2021 10:07 am

John Christy, Judith Curry, Will Happer, Ivar Giaever, Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon and Roy Spencer. Dream Team, but not gonna happen in a Biden Maladministration.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Tillman
Alasdair gray
Reply to  John Tillman
April 30, 2021 10:48 am

I guess only US citizens can vote or is it like Nov 20 where the dead the undead and Chinese can vote

Reply to  Alasdair gray
April 30, 2021 12:16 pm

Or when some very special ones can vote up to a million times.

The special, strange and
interesting times we live at the moment.

The interesting times of the foreevahs.


Reply to  whiten
April 30, 2021 7:06 pm

Democratic multiplicity to gerrymander the vote, deny civil rights, and force social justice.

Reply to  n.n
May 1, 2021 3:50 am

Hallo back, Q! I thought they dismantled you after that election? Given up on prophecy now, I see. Tell your programmers that politics is a secondary, no, tertiary, nooo, the people here talk politics only to trolls. That means your Q chatbot programming may need to be redesigned, back to the flow diagramme stage for them. Remind them of the technical meaning of ‘algorithm’.
Maybe learn some maths, it would be great fun to see a self-informing subroutine learn to gobbledegook in maffs.

W Browning
Reply to  John Tillman
May 3, 2021 8:52 am

Tony Heller

April 30, 2021 10:44 am

Would Michael Shellenberger contribute a useful role for this?

H. D. Hoese
April 30, 2021 11:29 am

I was an original member of CERF, originated as Chesapeake Science. Doubt that all of these signatory societies members know much about this, but it is a another significant matter of constitutional law and regulations that I once dealt with. Science%20Societies%20WOTUS%20Letter.pdf

“The undersigned societies strongly oppose the proposed Rule and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’(Agencies) decision to re-write and rescind the science-based definitions contained in the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 CWR)……….The 2015 CWR reflects the best available science regarding connectivity. In essence, what happens to the waters and wetlands in the upper reaches of a watershed, including ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams, will affect downstream waters and wetlands.That is, they are hydrologically, chemically, physically, biologically and ecologically connected to what happens downstream…..The functioning of the circulatory system in the human body is a useful metaphor to demonstrate the importance of watershed connectivity…… Eliminating protections for smaller, intermittent, non-floodplain, geographically isolated and/or ephemeral waters degrades the large downstream waters in the same way that introduction of toxins to small blood vessels jeopardizes the health of the human body if the toxins are potent enough and in large enough quantities. Restoring and maintaining the structural and functional integrity of the Nation’s waters is only possible if the ephemeral and headwater aquatic systems are protected…….Agencies appear again to be proposing to restrict the definition of “adjacent” to one that requires contact…..Moreover, the proposed Rule fails to meet the stated goal of clarity, predictability and consistency. The agencies claim that the average landowner will have sufficient knowledge….History and current experience demonstrate that few states have the legal authority, capacity, or funding in place to fill the gaps in jurisdiction left by the proposed Rule.”

From the dictionary–adjacently adv syn adjacent, adjoining, contiguous, juxaposted, meaning in close proximity. (absence of the same kind in between).

Their cherrypicked definitions
“However, the Rapanos plurality physical connection requirement ignores three out of the four synonyms given for “adjacent” (i.e., “next to”, “to lie near”, and “close to”), and instead adds a requirement that an adjacent feature must “abut” a jurisdictional water, and that “abut” means “to touch at least at one point or side of.” The three “adjacency” terms that the proposed Rule ignores are better encompassed by Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard.”

Scientific organizations might do better if they stick to science. And learn the difference between an ecosystem (water cycle) and a body (circulatory system). I warned them about getting into politics. I didn’t warn them about incompetence.

Mark D
April 30, 2021 11:53 am

I nominate Rud!

April 30, 2021 12:00 pm

The nominate now link appears to be broken.

April 30, 2021 12:12 pm

Firmly, with most certainty and conviction, I personally
nominate Bill Nay.

The science guy, the one and only.


Reply to  whiten
April 30, 2021 8:30 pm

The end is Nye (sic) guy.

April 30, 2021 1:07 pm

Seriously ?

They already have a load of AGW sychophants lined up….

…. regardless of any scientific or other credentials.

“the independence and balance of these boards as required by law.”

ROFLMAO.. as if the Democrats give two hoots about the law !

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Alan Webb
Reply to  fred250
April 30, 2021 4:02 pm

Or science.

Rich Davis
Reply to  fred250
May 1, 2021 4:59 am

Sure’n they’ll be balanced. Everyone from Leninists to Trotskyites, and Stalinists, too. The full spectrum of responsible views.

And serious scientists I’m certain. Let’s see, maybe AOC and Grrrrrreta as a start.

Alan Webb
April 30, 2021 4:00 pm

Can I nominate Willis?

April 30, 2021 8:39 pm

Soooo, they have a reference list of past folks, but where is the full list of qualified candidates? What are the qualifications anyhow? I see Mosher in our future 🙂

This whole thing doesn’t smell right to begin with, at the source. Just sayin>>

Nominate Candidate Experts to Advisory Panels and Committees | EPA Science Advisory Board Staff | US EPA

Douglas Lampert
April 30, 2021 9:47 pm

The nomination link has a mandatory “affiliation of nominator” field. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Reply to  Douglas Lampert
May 1, 2021 12:23 am

I just completed that field with ‘None”. Accepted and received confirmation.

Reply to  Douglas Lampert
May 1, 2021 1:52 am

Probably means any links you may have to related organisations, government departments or Universities.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Douglas Lampert
May 1, 2021 4:52 am

It’s a dropdown on my browser with choices “Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace, Chinese Communist Party”

Which one should I choose?

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 1, 2021 5:15 am

You definitely have missed the very last choice there, for some reason…;

“All of the above”


Rich Davis
May 1, 2021 4:40 am

Sorry to be a naysayer but if anyone thinks that Dementia Joe’s puppetmasters are going to select someone who is not a pious believer in The Science (Church of Climastrology), then maybe you also want to get your nominations in to the Chinese Communist Party to get more libertarians on the Central Committee.

May 14, 2021 8:23 am

Thanks for sharing this post! Science has been helping modern people with their demands. The science advisory board has been doing an excellent job. This website helps people to get connected with other people around the world.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights