Biden EPA sued for illegally stacking science advisory panels

Reposted from Junk Science

Steve Milloy,

Young v. EPA is a hugely important lawsuit. The law requires that EPA seek scientific advice from an independent and balanced panel of qualified scientists as part of its policy-making process. The Biden EPA has turned the law on its head by first deciding what its policy is and then stacking the panel with its cronies.

These EPA cronies are academic researchers who have been awarded tens of millions of dollars’ worth of EPA grants. This will not be independent and balanced scientific review; rather it will be the rubberstamping of EPA’s predetermined policy in contravention of congressional intent. Dr. Stan Young and other applicants were rejected by EPA from panel membership not because they are unqualified, but because they have points of view that might jeopardize EPA’s pre-determined policy plans.

The EPA policies at stake rely on of the agency’s most potent regulatory powers and will have major economic and social ramifications for America. The notion that these policies will not get the independent and balanced review Congress intended for them to have is simply outrageous. A copy of the complaint is here.

5 26 votes
Article Rating
60 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
October 18, 2021 10:02 am

If you can’t stack it with cronies, who can you stack it with?

Anon
Reply to  Scissor
October 18, 2021 10:29 am

How about this:

Now calling the case of Young v. EPA, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan presiding…”

Last edited 1 month ago by Anon
Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Anon
October 18, 2021 3:28 pm

I believe, before we hear “…now calling…” we will hear “…case dismissed on grounds you’re not woke…” if the “honorable” Mr. Sullivan hears it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Scissor
October 18, 2021 11:20 am

Scissor
October 18, 2021 10:02 am

If you can’t stack it with cronies, who can you stack it with?

What ever effluent they stacked it with, they certainly piled it high

commieBob
Reply to  Scissor
October 18, 2021 11:31 am

That’s the problem. You need subject matter experts. Where are those experts? Why they’re in the very groups who have an interest in subverting the regulations to their own benefit.

If you’re a civil servant regulating an industry and you want a better job, where could you go. You probably have to go to the very organizations you are regulating. Better make some friends. Better not make enemies.

Regulatory capture is a big big problem and its hard to deal with.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  commieBob
October 18, 2021 5:36 pm

Or it might be simply that the subject matter experts’ experience is in the industry being investigated…..and those from outside have inadequate experience. Industry rules based on the recommendations of amateurs is likely going to have bad results.

commieBob
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 19, 2021 5:17 am

The obvious solution is to quit trying to regulate every tiny detail of an industry’s operation. Reduce the regulations to a minimum. Among the benefits is that you don’t need as much staff to write, administer, and enforce the regulations. That makes it easier to recruit the folks you need.

George Friedman points out that subject matter experts seriously lack wisdom. You actually need the ‘amateurs’ to assess the effect of the regulations on the economy as a whole.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  commieBob
October 19, 2021 7:24 am

Yeah, its always good to to get input from the local PTA on Monetary Easing Policy……/s

commieBob
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 19, 2021 10:52 am

You joke but you also aren’t far wrong.

Do a web search for the words:

economists wrong

You’ll get a page full of hits explaining that economists are wrong more often than they’re right.

Tetlock showed that experts can’t predict the outcome of complex situations … basically anything to do with human beings. 🙂 That means they can’t tell whether their suggested policies will work or not. I leave it to you as an exercise to connect the dots.

MarkW
October 18, 2021 10:09 am

No doubt the usual trolls will soon pipe in to declare that only those who agree with the consensus are real climate scientists.

Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 10:11 am

While the best climate scientists aren’t climate scientists 😀

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
LdB
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 18, 2021 6:15 pm

There are very few actual Climate Scientists most are activist refugees from other fields.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 10:13 am

No such thing as a ‘climate scientist’. No one person could possibly master all the scientific skills required to become such.

Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2021 10:24 am

Take M.Mann, not a even scientist but in a lifelong climacterium 😀

Disputin
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 18, 2021 11:14 am

Take M.Mann…

please!

LdB
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 18, 2021 6:27 pm

Mikey technically does have a Masters in Science from Berkley in 1989 but switched faculties and his expertise is in geophysics and geology.So he is one of the few that is actually a scientist.

joe Lynch
Reply to  LdB
October 19, 2021 1:47 am

a fine example of being educated beyond his ability – such as it is….

North Vega
Reply to  HotScot
October 19, 2021 8:16 am

Geologists come pretty close.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2021 12:08 pm

Actually, it seems to me that the “usual trolls” are keeping a lower profile the last few days than is normal for them. Maybe the recent articles aren’t ‘over the target.’

stewartpid
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2021 1:35 pm

Hopefully the mods gave Griff a time out or better still the covid got him 🙂

Redge
Reply to  stewartpid
October 18, 2021 11:09 pm

Idiot

J Mac
October 18, 2021 10:19 am

I wish them the greatest success in their lawsuit! Biden’s advisory panel stacking is socialist democrat cronyism at its worst.

Last edited 1 month ago by J Mac
Tom Halla
October 18, 2021 10:20 am

I remember the history on this topic. The Trump Administration barred EPA contractors from advisory boards, citing the clear conflict of interest.
Evidently Biden (and I am using that as a synecdoche for whoever is actually running this clown show) wants nothing but vendidos on the boards, people already on the payroll who will act to protect their self interest in endorsing those passing out grants.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 18, 2021 11:20 am

Wasn’t barring EPA contractors just stacking the board the other way? Making sure that anyone sympathetic to the EPA’s policies was excluded and the board consisted of people critical of or feeling overlooked by the EPA?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 18, 2021 11:29 am

Unless you believe no one but EPA contractors support the positions favored by senior EPA management. Surely there must be some academics backing the “science” claimed who are not on the grant payroll?

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 18, 2021 1:02 pm

No. It was preventing those appointed from having financial conflicts of interest that would affect their judgment. There is no excuse for breaching that standard other than to push an agenda not supported by objective science. There is no escaping the disasters to come if Biden and the environmental activists have their way and get policy written that was predetermined by policy makers who don’t understand the actual science but have lots of power and money to accrue through the policies they create.

North Vega
Reply to  Tom Foley
October 19, 2021 8:28 am

I think you misunderstood the Trump direction for the EPA science boards.

I basically understood it that if you were self-funding yourself on Global Warming research as part of the EPA science advisory board, and so were your fellow EPA committee members, then that was not science, but a cash cow. So break up that monopoly, and don’t advise for your own pocketbook.

Trump broke up that monopoly and went back to the basics of scientific debate, which is consensus is a political term and has no place in science when it comes to policy decisions that exclude any debate.

PaulH
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 18, 2021 4:37 pm

“Synecdoche” An excellent word I’ll add to my vocabulary. 🙂

Ron Long
October 18, 2021 10:20 am

This process of “first deciding what it’s policy is and then stacking the panel with its cronies.” is an increasingly common variation of the “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome”, which is shooting many times at the side of a barn, then painting the target around the best concentration of bullet holes. The new angle is paying these “cronies” large fees for their “contribution”, at taxpayer expense, of course. Shirley there are rules against this misuse of taxpayer funds? Please don’t actually injure any barns out of curiosity. Thank you.

GeoGeek
Reply to  Ron Long
October 18, 2021 12:35 pm

Yes, you are correct. And don’t call me Shirley.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  GeoGeek
October 18, 2021 2:38 pm

Are you talking about a barn or a Temple …

Reply to  Ron Long
October 18, 2021 2:36 pm

re: “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome”

Rather, that should be “Texas sharpshooter fallacy”; an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized

The “Texas Sharpshooter Syndrome” – is when someone who gets this sudden euphoric high from shooting the bad guys during a combat situation …

Last edited 1 month ago by _Jim
Rud Istvan
October 18, 2021 10:21 am

The problem is the venue—DC district court. I am not optimistic even tho the suit has obvious merit.

old engineer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 18, 2021 10:46 am

Rud-

You are right. In my brief brush with the DC district court almost twenty years ago, I found that the DC court had a long history of siding with the EPA.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  old engineer
October 18, 2021 3:36 pm

And in Chevron v. NRSC the judge(s) came right out and said so.

Pat Frank
October 18, 2021 10:23 am

Stanley Young is the guy who showed that PM2.5 levels have zero correlation with acute mortality. See his Figure 5 for PM2.5 data relating to the San Francisco Bay air basin.

Air quality and acute deaths in California, 2000-2012

Abstract: Many studies have shown an association between air quality and acute deaths, and such associations are widely interpreted as causal. Several factors call causation and even association into question, for example multiple testing and multiple modeling, publication bias and confirmation bias. Many published studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce because of lack of access to confidential data sources. Here we make publicly available a dataset containing daily air quality levels, PM2.5 and ozone, daily temperature levels, minimum and maximum and daily maximum relative humidity levels for the eight most populous California air basins, thirteen years, >2M deaths, over 37,000 exposure days. The data are analyzed using standard time series analysis, and a sensitivity analysis is computed varying model parameters, locations and years. Our analysis finds little evidence for association between air quality and acute deaths. These results are consistent with those for the widely cited NMMAPS dataset when the latter are restricted to California. The daily death variability was mostly explained by time of year or weather variables; Neither PM2.5 nor ozone added appreciably to the prediction of daily deaths. These results call into question the widespread belief that association between air quality and acute deaths is causal/near-universal.

2017 PM2.5 and O3 Deaths Fig 5 Young.png
michael hart
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 18, 2021 12:58 pm

I’m not sure which is worse: Acute death, or chronic death.

HotScot
Reply to  michael hart
October 18, 2021 1:58 pm

Is terminal mortality something like terminal velocity?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2021 3:37 pm

It sounds correct that terminal velocity is a speed great enough to kill you when you hit the sidewalk. If you survive, you failed to attain terminal velocity. Right?

Pat Frank
Reply to  michael hart
October 18, 2021 2:03 pm

An amusing conundrum. Acute indicates rapid death after exposure. Lags investigated were 0-6 days.

TonyG
Reply to  michael hart
October 19, 2021 10:05 am

would chronic death be something like zombie-ism?

dh-mtl
October 18, 2021 10:30 am

Stacking science advisory panels!

Another (small) nail in the coffin of science.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  dh-mtl
October 18, 2021 2:41 pm

Well, packing the Supreme Court is also a nail in the coffin of justice…
All these ideas seem to have the same source…

Steve Case
October 18, 2021 10:31 am

Is this limited to “Climate Scientists” or can others be considered? You know, Ph.Ds from physics chemistry engineering, biology, mathematics, statistics and maybe even a few from the arts and of the aforementioned from regulated industries.

Stacking the deck, stacking the courts, and stuffing the ballot box is the Democrat way to power. At least that’s what the “Duck Test” says.

2hotel9
October 18, 2021 10:39 am

Glad I went through the comments. This lawsuit may be aimed specifically at O’Biden Admin but this is nothing new. Federal and state level “regulatory agencies” have been doing this for decades. While glad this has gotten in front of a judge I don’t see it changing anything. Unless that judge is going to order US Marshalls to start kicking in doors and making arrests they will all continue on with their unconstitutional crap.

Last edited 1 month ago by 2hotel9
October 18, 2021 10:51 am

It is not just the EPA. The Wall Street Journal had this little gem on Friday: “Members of the FDA advisory board supported Moderna’s booster dose even though the evidence for it was from a small study and had mixed results.”

The board voted 19:0 on the evidence. This method is also being used very successfully by the IPCC. It is a demonstration of how the modern “science” works.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Curious George
October 18, 2021 2:06 pm

There isn’t a notable crisis in the US today that is not manufactured.

Reply to  Curious George
October 18, 2021 2:44 pm

“If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”

MarkW
Reply to  _Jim
October 19, 2021 12:37 pm

If two people agree on everything, one of them isn’t necessary.

Neil Boortz

ResourceGuy
October 18, 2021 11:05 am

Which is the equivalent to stacking the deck at NLRB for unions. Not sure which as was guide for the other but they both amount to Obama’s third term.

Danley Wolfe
October 18, 2021 11:24 am

The entire climate change movement is based on the same chimera mind fabrication. Tally up all of the persons and the money they have made by lining up with their palms up … the amount of money involved in top ten national GDP size, not to speak of positions, salaries, grants, publications, … and don’t anyone question or criticize … ha ! “Criticism” is the backbone of the scientific method.

Peta of Newark
October 18, 2021 12:44 pm

See where The Science gets us…
Headline from the UK Express:Putin U-turns on promise: Russia checkmates EU and sends gas prices soaring”
Link of that story to FT

simultaneously suicidal and criminal, the whole damn lot of them.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 18, 2021 3:41 pm

…and who here is surprised? Anybody? Hands please, raise them high. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

October 18, 2021 12:51 pm

This lawsuit might have a greater effect if other well qualified but rejected applicants joined in a class action. How many are there out there?

Duane
October 18, 2021 1:03 pm

It’s good to challenge this, but recognizing that this can take years to work through the courts, up to and including SCOTUS. It is pretty difficult if not impossible to reverse administration actions for long. The real solution is a change in administration.

Greeboz6
October 18, 2021 1:57 pm

When they declaired CO2 to be a pollutant, when it is crucial to all life on earth, you should have realized it had become a creature of enemy propagandists who are using it as a boogiema for their Anthropromorphic Global Warming scam for giving government full control of all energy and production. Essentially giving them all control over all aspects of your life. They would decide which production was required, how much and where. That would decide what you could purchase, where you could work and live, what energy you could use in your vehicle and home.

OK S.
October 18, 2021 2:16 pm

Oh for the days when men were manly.

Blue Flame Natural Gas Rocket Car 

Industry executives recognized public relations potential of LNG in 1968, after watching X-1, a rocket dragster.

October-23-blue-flame-profile-AOGHS j.jpg
Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  OK S.
October 18, 2021 3:43 pm

I was greatly disappointed in that thing. It could not leave twin streaks of rubber on the pavement as torque boiled the tires.

slow to follow
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 19, 2021 1:59 am

How so? There aren’t any drive shafts in the photo?

Michael in Dublin
October 18, 2021 3:17 pm

Corrupt as hell!

%d bloggers like this: