Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
No more Mann made global warming unless the data is there to back it.
“EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public.”
‘secret’? You mean like entrail divination?
Oh, my. That’s gonna leave a mark.
“…entrail divination” That describes AGW/Climate Change in a nutshell.
Here’s the view from the other side:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076559
Their reasons for not wanting transparency in data and methods seem pretty weak. It’s like they want a trial without a defense team. No one should be allowed to see the evidence or question it.
One is that it will increase costs for the EPA. *eye roll* Sure.Since when do bureaucrats worry about the cost to taxpayers.
They also worry that industry will be able see and possibly reinterpret the data. Well, yes, in science that is known to happen. I could almost here the Catholic Church warning that the Bible must only be interpreted by men of the cloth.
This seems to be the big “concern” – “Many scientific studies rely on data that can’t be made public for reasons like patient privacy concerns or industry confidentiality.” Sure. There’s absolutely no way to maintain anonymity -and- release research used to fundamentally change energy systems and impose billions in costs to citizens and businesess.
It’s obvious these guys are hiding something. Demanding transparency-in science- shouldn’t be controversial. If the science is used to write policy then transparency should be automatic. Why the secrecy? Bad science or corruption or both?
That will transform the US economy.
And what should really bake your noodle is to learn that the SCOTUS relies EXCLUSIVELY on the “findings” of the EPA … which is entirely based on … secret … data. The highest Court in America relies on HIDDEN information. So when the SCOTUS confirms that Co2 is a pollutant which can be regulated out of existence … it is based on secret testimony. Secret “facts”. If THAT doesn’t send shivers up and down your spine … then you’ve not read 1984
ban the peoplekind
You breathe in:
Oxygen: about 21%
Carbon dioxide: about 0.03%
Nitrogen: about 78%
Rare gases: about 0.97%
Water vapour: amount varies
You breathe out:
Oxygen: about 16%
Carbon dioxide: about 4%
Nitrogen: about 78%
Rare gases: about 0.97%
Water vapour: lots
Read up on the Climategate I and II email scandals – nothing new about this, with the UN IPCC and governments all over the world buying into the (claimed) results of computer models created by hand-picked paid scientific prostitutes who all know perfectly well they’re lying their asses off, with skewed and/or cherry-picked data inputs so they’d get the results they wanted.
When people ask why, tell them it’s simple: money and power. The unlimited power of the state to extract money from your paycheck, by force if necessary, to spend on whatever they want without your permission and without revealing their reasons. If they still don’t get it, walk away, because you’re talking to a trained parrot, not a fully formed human being, and as HAL9000 said, the conversation can serve no further purpose. 🙂