GOP Bill To Outlaw EPA 'Secret Science' That Is Not Transparent, Reproducible

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Fox News reports that Republican lawmakers in the House are pushing legislation that would prohibit the EPA from proposing new regulations based on science that is not transparent or not reproducible. The bill introduced by Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., would bar the agency from proposing or finalizing rules without first disclosing all "scientific and technical information" relied on to support its proposed action. "Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups," says Schweikert. "For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions." The bill, dubbed the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 (HR 4012), would prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency in the regulations' development including all data, materials and computer models. According to Schweikert's press release a 2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research found that 90 percent of Americans agree that studies and data used to make federal government decisions should be made public. "Provisions in the bill are consistent with the White House's scientific integrity policy, the President's Executive Order 13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, the Bipartisan Policy Center and the recommendations of the Obama administration's top science advisors.""

Comments

"Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.

You cannot regulate them.

This will be one GIANT loophole for industry.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[TheSpoom]

That's the point. I bet the open access requirement is also harder to reach than it seems.

Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Joce640k]

Why only the EPA?

Why not all the other stuff the government does?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Applehu Akbar]

So long as all sides in a controversy have to use open science, this will not happen. You have nothing to fear because all real science is open.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[ebno-10db]

Let's start with trade negotiations. No secretive negotiations whose results are only foisted on congress and the people after they've been finalized. "Take it or leave it." Screw that. All drafts, preliminary agreements, and the results of negotiations to be made public as they're ongoing.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

It could be abused, to force the EPA to include "meta-analyses" of scientific results and use them to discredit reliable results compared to large sets of industry published, fraudulent results. Let's not forget the tobacco industry scientific fraud, for decades, about the poisonous effects of cigarette smoke on humans.

It's also theoretically possible that this kind of law could be used to expose the "industry analyses" to review. That's what I'd hope for, right now: too many analyses are published under extensive non-disclosure agreements that prevent the EPA from being able to publish them. I've certainly seen that kind of restraint of publication about groundwater and soil toxicity analyses for new construction. The project leaders wanted even the existence of the analysis kept secret unless it was favorable to construction.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[John Jorsett]

Why only the EPA?

Why not all the other stuff the government does?

You have to start somewhere, and if it's successful in this case, then the rest can follow. What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[argStyopa]

Is it ironic that comment comes from an anonymous coward?
This doesn't say anywhere that it has to be reproducible by industry, just by anyone.

Methinks you're trying too hard to argue against something that's patently obvious, for your own political motivations.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist". Like you, I demand that ALL science should be uncensored.

No, there is a lot of bullshit being passed off as science by creationists which can't be taught in school science because IT'S NOT FUCKING SCIENCE.

Creationism is NOT science, it makes no predictions which can be tested, and it by design is NOT falsifiable.

Name one non-trivial and reproducible hypothesis given in creationism which actually is 'scientific' -- you can't, because there aren't any.

Creationism boils down to "if God created the world, then it would look exactly like it does now, and as evidence for this, we have folklore and the observation that the world looks exactly as we see it".

You creationism in the context of science is semantic bafflegab, but otherwise meaningless in a scientific context. It's mostly an attempt to co-opt the language of science without understanding what it actually means.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Independent verification from a company who has financial interests is not very independent to me. Funny how it's the science deniers who want this bill in order to deregulate environmental protections.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[ebno-10db]

Science is very political these days in every area.

Nothing new - it was very political in Galileo's day too.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Idarubicin]

There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist". Like you, I demand that ALL science should be uncensored.

Isaac Newton was a staunch creationist who put a great deal of time and effort into literal interpretation of the Bible. (Fun fact: Newton was born on Christmas day!) It's too bad that America's children are sheltered from learning his Laws because of their unfortunate association with a Christian wingnut.

Oh, what's that? Darn. Well, which creationists are doing actual science that is being concealed from children? I mean, surely an advocate of creationist teachings wouldn't make grand claims based in personal beliefs and tenuous or nonexistent evidence....

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[emagery]

see: http://youtu.be/ceFyF9px20Y?t=... ... in this case we're talking the food industry, and in an example a few minutes prior to where this is tagged to begin, Lustig describes how it was the food industry got away with not admitting to people what they were putting in our food (i.e., because it was proprietary information that their competitors could duplicate.) But the point is, some science MUST rely on causal inference. You can't go around infecting thousands of people with HIV to run a study. You can't make someone smoke for 70 straight years to see what happens. You can't spike their food with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat, en masse, and be doing ethical science... and so you must instead examine the statistics that came FROM the fact that industries have already subjected us to these things and make a strong inference. And yet, because of the methods we're limited to, the food industry keeps getting to set the goal line back. 'We need better data,' 'more research to be sure...' and as long as they're 'never sure' we can never say, with any authority, 'okay, this explicative deleted is bad stuff.' I actually kinda LIKE the idea of complete transparency... but if they're going to force it on the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc, they must ACCEPT it upon themselves as well. No product can be sold to the public before it is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Let's see how they like that one?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[sumdumass]

You act as if the only other people who will ever try to duplicate the results using the same said data are companies who are apposed to the regulation. It is interesting that you would think science works this way and think this is a reason not to release all data used to make government regulations.

The fact of the matter is, if sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings and every research team from every university and every environmental group and everyone else who is interested can reproduce it, all that will happen is "the [insert industry] industry" will be labeled morons and we will move on. That's the greatest part about this open access to the data. You can look yourself and see how sound it is, everyone else can look and reproduce it, and if it is true, then no denials by any industry could ever withstand the scrutiny.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Sponge Bath]

There is a lot of science that is easily reproducible that cannot be taught in a school science classroom because it came from a "creationist".

Please tell us what science has been denied because it "came from a creationist".

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.

AKA every bill ever?

It sickens me that my generation and the one after it have latched on to the idea that one team is 'evil' and the other team are 'the good guys', when it is painfully obvious that both teams want the same thing, to be the only two teams in power. neither of them are the good guys.

no matter what a bill says, it -must- be evil, because it's being introduced by 'those other guys', the evil party.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[pepty]

What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

They have been asking that the private medical data of everyone whose medical records were used during the evaluation of soot and particulate rules for the Clean Air Act be made public. The authors of those studies don't have the authority to release that data, neither does the EPA. Though I'm certain the GOP would love to berate the EPA publicly for betraying patient confidentiality if they did disclose that information

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[pepty]

Medical records are confidential, and that is what the GOP is asking for. Scientists are given access on the proviso that medical privacy is respected.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[BonThomme]

Fun Fact: Jesus wasn't born on Christmas day!

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Spazmania]

It's a GIANT problem right now. My parents worked for the EPA before they retired. Most of the regs were good but they were endlessly frustrated by some of the junk science used to support them.

Whatever you want to read in to Rep Schweikert's motivations, he's not wrong on the facts.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[AlabamaCajun]

Industry/Commerce runs and pays for these politicians. They get to write the loopholes. And this coming from the state (AZ) that wants to let industry charge you monthly fees on you effing solar panels.
No, a proposal from the EPA is just a proposal it still has to get backed and signed before it even becomes a bill.
This is just another Fox and friends move to silence scientific study to dumb down the masses. I don't want to here another word about Putin and Russia from anyone that believes it needs to silence the EPA or the FDA.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Mr. Slippery]

How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Almost all of it is in fact available, so this is just more GOP BS.

A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.

As the University of East Anglias CRU explains,

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold....Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties....The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. The Dutch Met Service (KNMI) run the European Climate Assessment and Dataset (ECA&D, http://eca.knmi.nl/) project. They are able to use much data in their numerous analyses, but they cannot make all the original daily station temperature and precipitation series available because of restrictions imposed by some of the data providers...The problem is a generic issue and arises from the need of many NMSs to be or aim to be cost neutral (i.e. sell the data to recoup the costs of making observations and preparing the data).

We receive numerous requests for these station data...These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.

And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.

But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[rtb144]

Obviously you have never dealt with the EPA. Much of the enforcement I have dealt with was arbitrary and capricious based on little more than opinion.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[walterbyrd]

What is your point? Are you saying the work of Isaac Newton is not being taught in school because Newton was a creationist?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

And what's the alternative? The EPA can regulate whatever it wants based on, "Because I feel like it"? "Because I'm the government, so you should trust me"? "Because I said so"?

Are you seriously advocating allowing the EPA to base its regulations on non-science?!

Yeah, sure, the GOP is the anti-science party...riiiiight...

Hypocrite.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Are you advocating the opposite, that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!

Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Not reproducible implies no uncertainty in a measurement.

So you're objecting to this common-sense, science-advocating, holding-government-responsible bill based on your own, arbitrary, made-up "implication," and advocating instead irreproducible "science"?

And you call Republicans scientifically illiterate and stupid.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[superwiz]

Another bill that looks helpful on the surface but really just supports their agenda.

Or both. They are not mutually exclusive. They are just not always aligned. As long as they happen to be aligned in this case, we all benefit. It's how a confrontational system benefits the general public -- by forcing two sides to challenge each others' shortcomings.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[JimSadler]

This is a disgusting scam that attempts to remove all protection from the actions of some very evil businesses. When an agencny like the EPA takes action the science is based upon compilations of complex studies and agreement among scientists. To try to completely document every minute detail in all of those studies would totally cripple the agencies. As an example we could not hope to apply rigid scientific standards to prove that smoking cigarettes casues cancer or heart disease. It is not because we don't have perfect certainty that tobacco kills but documentation will fail simply because cigarettes do not kill every single user. Therefore the consequences of cigarette smoking are not reproducable as they vary. What laws like this would do is unleash all kinds of misery upon the public. And consider why we allow the tobacco industry to sell product at all. The seller knows the product kills and ruins lives. Yet they insist on selling. And when we limit the sale of cigarettes in America they simply export ever greater quantities of the product.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[JimSadler]

Nonsense! Arguments are not proofs. Show me one frog that is not a product of evolution. The creationist will rant that not every single step in the process of evolution is available in artifacts and therefore evolution can not be proved. Yet they can not produce every single detail of the creation or any physical evidence at all. Simply put creationism is bullshit.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Dr. Spork]

Exactly. No more federal money for abstinence-only sex education when independent research shows that it fails in every one of its goals and leads to an increase in teen pregnancy and abortions. And since nothing in "creationist science" is reproducible, let's finally put that behind us as well. Oh and don't forget about DARE, which is completely secretive and provably worthless when independently evaluated, yet isn't defunded. Yes, I think I can get along with these new pro-science Republicans!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gtall]

Ya, I tend to agree, it will make the EPA decisions more bulletproof in the end, presuming the GOP doesn't game the system and have their cronies claim they cannot reproduce the data. Will tests failing to produce also be public?

Presuming the GOP cannot find a way to game the system, I think it will make the GOP rue the day that they forced this though, although I doubt it will pass muster in the Senate.

And yes, the GOP is a bunch of science-hating alleged legislators. The problem they have is that it is difficult spin science. Hence the term "alleged legislators". When the GOP became mostly about spin, they lost any objective analysis for governing. Now, we get to hear their talking points first, and their support for their talking points last and it usually doesn't support their talking points.

The only people worse are the Democrat Party.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[NeverVotedBush]

That's why we should overlook this complete idiocy and attempt to pull the rug out from under the EPA and the laws that protect this country? Have you seen what China looks like? Do you know they have contaminated most of their farmland? Do you really want that here?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[NeverVotedBush]

Oh, you know... How women were created from a man's rib, how cavemen rode dinosaurs, how the earth is 5,000 years old, etc. that kind of science...

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you read the linked bill? Can you point out the language that institutes something other than good science? You might want to read this link to understand where this bill comes from:http://junkscience.com/2013/08/01/statement-of-chairman-lamar-smith-r-texas-business-meeting-to-consider-epa-subpoena-over-secret-science/

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

Because of recent refusals by the EPA to release the science behind new regulations they have instituted, even when that information was requested by Congress.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

"because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists" In fact, yes, we do know that. :D

"Obama and the Democrates[sp] are all open and transparent and honest!" Of course that's not true. We know that too.

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs. Worse, it's a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs barely a month after the West Virginia debacle that should show everyone just how important EPA regs are. Also, yes, Republicans are quite anti science. If they don't want the label, maybe they should be shoving creationism.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, theoretically, but the EPA is in the process of instituting new regulations under the Clean Air Act. Congress has held hearings on those regulations and the EPA promised to send them the studies upon which the regulations are based over two years ago, but have so far failed to do so.
Once this law is passed, if it is passed, it will be much harder to justify opposing similar laws for other regulatory agencies. One thing to point out is that passing such a law for an agency that has been open and forthright about the science behind its regulations is probably a bad idea. However, the EPA has demonstrated an unwillingness to release the data behind at least some of their regulations, making this law necessary.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

Is this (below) what you are talking about? It doesn't look like they are looking for private medical records but rather the diagnostic codes that wouldn't be personally identifiable in and of themselves. Either that or they are instructing EPA to code the PHI prior to release, which would render it safe to release. ( See PHI, and De-identification ) The US Congress is the one that makes the rules, and it appears that release of it may be mandated already. The EPA isn't complying. The EPA is doing making its rules both in secret and based on secrets, and I thought we were against that on Slashdot.

3. Request: That underlying data used to promulgate Clean Air Act rules be made public so the public can independently examine cost/benefit and other issues. That the EPA release a full set of data files for the American Cancer Society Study; the Harvard Six Cities Study; HEI/Krewski et al. 2009; Laden et al. 2006; Lepeule 2012; and Jerrett 2009. This request includes the coding of Personal Health Information (PHI).

Background: Since 1997, Congress has requested the underlying data for particulate matter studies (PM2.5) be made available to Congress and the public. Then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner went back and forth with Members regarding Congressional and public access to the underlying data, citing legitimate scientific inquiry qualifications and confidentiality concerns. In response to the continued reticence by EPA to publicly release data, the Shelby amendment, a rider to the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277), mandated that OMB amend Circular A-110 to require federal agencies to ensure that "all data produced under a [federally funded] award be made available to the public through the procedures established under FOIA."

A March 4, 2013, letter to EPA from Ranking Member Vitter and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith requested the underlying data from additional long term cohort studies that rely on updates from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study, including: Krewski e. al. (2009); Pope et al. (2002); Pope et al. (2009); Krewski et al. (2000); Laden et. al (2006); and Lepeule et al. (2012). This letter repeated multiple communications from Congress requesting the release of the underlying data which are the basis for nearly all the health and benefit claims from CAA rulemaking in this Administration.

Status: Wholly unresponsive.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[NeverVotedBush]

Not only has the creation never been reproduced, we have no witnesses or witness accounts, yet the creationists want to teach it as scientific fact and discount evolution and natural selection - both of which have mountains of evidence and can even be observed easily in species with short reproductive cycles.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[TheGratefulNet]

better mark me troll, too, then, since I agree with everything in the parent post.

the republican emperors have no clothes, here.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[NeverVotedBush]

Why only the EPA? The EPA is front and center for research and legislation concerning climate change. Big oil, coal, and gas want that shut down. So do people like the Koch brothers who make fortunes on chemicals derived from oil, coal, and natural gas.

There is huge money riding on even the smallest and least consequential EPA rulings and laws.

I'm sure if the win with muzzling and neutering the EPA, any other agency that gets in their way will suffer a similar fate. The EPA is just closer to costing them big money now.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Bite The Pillow]

There is something between no science and public science, and that's what we currently have. The public, not just Congress, would need access to the data models used. Not just the papers, which goes beyond what we have today, but the backing data and the model.
Open access journal would not be enough.

We can agree that this is an improvement.

However, Congress is not held to the same standard. There is no requirement to put public funded research in the public domain. There is nothing in this bill except a wish for a scientific community that does not exist.

And because it does not exist, no Administration office will be able to make the regulations that Congress delegated responsibility for. Dumping asbestos in a lake? We need an open access study that says asbestos is still harmful when wet.

I'm being serious, go back and read the bill. Being obvious or accepted or well known is not enough. Citing a meta-study is not enough. A report from Nature or Science is not enough. A reviewed and published study in a respectable journal is not enough.

All of these are pro-science, but they fall short of this bill. Argue for open science all you want, but here is why it doesn't matter:

This bill, on the surface, asks for what makes the most sense. It does nothing to get us there. It is no different from saying only moon people can make EPA regulations, and at the same time providing no funding to put people on the moon. The text of the bill, as written, is asking for what is nearly impossible. If this is unintentional, it needs to be fixed. Otherwise it needs to die.

Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.

You cannot regulate them.

This will be one GIANT loophole for industry."

Nonsense. Reproducibility is reproducibility, and science is science.

Science paid for by the public, or science used to make government regulations at public expense, should be available to the public. Period.

If science isn't "reproducible", it isn't science. If you want to call that a "loophole", so be it. But if the truth is a loophole, learn to live with it.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Junk science is a right-wing global warning denial hack rag. I would put that page right up there with a "creation science" web page...or, for that matter, a web page trying to argue the earth is flat. Slashdot has really gone to the toilet. We used to have famous people posting here. Now we just have a bunch of right wing nutcases moderating up Republican pseudoscience.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

Why do you suppose the revision to the Articles of Confederation that became the US Constitution wasn't done like that?

3.The U.S. Constitution was prepared in secret, behind locked doors that were guarded by sentries. -- Fast Facts

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Hardly.

I'm torn - I think this would be a good idea in principle, but can already see it has been phrased specifically to shut down any attempt to mitigate climate change. Transparent is good, but the world is unique and ever-changing. By it's nature any research into weather or climatology will be impossible to reproduce - you can't make a copy of the planet to try different things on. That makes unraveling the details far more difficult, but we've still got supporting evidence from hundreds of different

Tell you want, I'll grant you reproducible science requirements for EPA regulations if we can do the same for the federal reserve and fiscal policy - they cost the nation FAR more, and there has never been a single reproducible experiment in macroeconomics, ever. In fact there's been precious little *scientific* study of the matter at all, it's all philosophers spinning stories compatible with their biases.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs.

Well you've obviously bought into the ad hominem hyperbole, so you must be one of those half-brain people!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs."

What? Are you serious?

What it is, is a "blatant" attempt to force EPA to user responsible and reproducible science. There is nothing in this world wrong with that. And no, it was not in response to the West Virginia situation. As another poster mentioned above, it is very clearly in response to things like this.

I think a "blatant attempt" to make public policy actually public is a good thing.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[alostpacket]

FWIW Newton was 100 years before Darwin popularized evolution. I dont think it's fair to call someone a "creationist" when they lived 100 years before the theory of evolution was released. He had the same religious beliefs of anyone else of his time.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reproducible science requirements are good for everyone else, but not you eh?

You have to be a real tool to oppose this because it may impact your favorite government takeover.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"presuming the GOP doesn't game the system and have their cronies claim they cannot reproduce the data."

The good thing is, that's not how science works. If studies and experiments have a solid, reproducible foundation, then attempts to "game the system" don't work, because if one party deliberately "doesn't reproduce" the results, someone else will.

This would open the door to allowing science to drive policy, rather than policy driving science.

I used to work rather closely with the EPA. It is a giant, power-mongering bureaucracy, and it is not to be trusted to do things that are in the best public interest. Everything about their rulemaking, including the science it is based on (if any), should be 100% public.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

When an agencny like the EPA takes action the science is based upon compilations of complex studies and agreement among scientists.

No, it's not. You can find example after example of the EPA and other agencies falsifying information and distorting data to get to a political-based outcome. Another famous one was the snail darter population issue in California. The EPA did not go after the problem (agricultural runoff), but decided to treat the symptom by cutting off water to the small farmers in the San Joaquin valley so that the corporate farms on the SF Bay watershed could continue to pollute.

To ignore these abuses is to submit to tyranny.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jythie]

When one produces a draconian bill to solve a problem that did not exist in the first place, placing new burdens on an regulator that the party has made it quite clear they with to see dismantled, yes, I think it is reasonable to assume that the bill is not good for environmental protection. If it was good for the environment, by their own planks, they would not have introduced it.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Of course they can game the system - name one repeatable climatology experiment. It can't be done, like astronomy climatology is an observational science, you can't throw a bunch of alternate Earth's into the lab to experiment on. Requiring that only experimental (reproducible) science be used as the basis for policy means we have to ignore most of what we know about the natural world.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

But climate science is observational research, and thus inherently *not* reproducible. You get a bunch of independent researchers collecting a bunch of different evidence from a bunch of different sources, and if they all point to the same conclusion you have a high level of corroboration, but you just can't make a copy of the Earth to perform reproducible experiments on.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

The already exists a legal definition of "publicly available". In addition, this law would apply to the EPA, not to the labs which produced the results. That is, it is the EPA which this law requires to make this information publicly available. This bill was created in reaction to the EPA's failure to provide the scientific information upon which it based its revision to Clean Air Act regulations to Congress.
Feel free to suggest an alternative wording that is more to your liking.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

While we're at it how about requiring the fed to only enact economic policies backed by reproducible science. Hint - macroeconomics barely qualifies for the name, and microeconomics doesn't apply at that scale.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

It could be abused

What I call abuse is when a bureaucracy takes a law that says industries cannot discharge toxic waste into the navigable waters of the US and re-interprets "navigable waters" to include any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours, and "toxic waste" to include dirt.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

While there is some truth to that, in that context, "reproducible" would mean that someone else could look at the same data and follow the data manipulation methods you used to reproduce your results. There have been several climate studies where the researchers either were unable/unwilling to release their data, or they were unable/unwilling to release the methodology they used to process that data. In either case, other scientists were unable to validate that the data supported their conclusions. Such studies should NOT be used to make public policy (although they may be perfectly acceptable as a reason to conduct more open studies).

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[sumdumass]

DO you always go off half cocked or does stupidity run in your family? I aks because what you mention completely misrepresents the situation without any basis to back it up.

The EPA is current hiding from congress data it claimed it used as the basis for regulation it enacted. This law will not prevent any regulation already enacted but will require the release of all data used in making that regulation. It will take a separate act of congress to undo anything that has already been created. All it will do it ensure that the data and procedures are public and that everyone has the ability to validate them. Some company failing to invalidate the studies or science will not stop anything from moving forward as long as anyone else can reproduce the findings.

If you think no one being able to reproduce the claims is limiting because Big oil, coal, and gas, and people like the Koch brothers might benefit and therefore evil, I suggest you reexamine what science actually is and ask why the government is making laws and regulations with the effect of laws based on science that isn't science. Just because someone or some entity you do not like might benefit from some conceivable outcome is not in and of itself sufficient cause to allow government to make regulation under the guise of science that has no noticeable basis in it. Should there be a basis, those people benefiting or not should be completely irrelevant to the regulation. That is the entire basis of a free country which equal protection of the law is key to the fundamental implementation of the law.

You sound as if you would prefere the EPA to not act in cases in which is needs to if it somehow benefited Big oil, coal, and gas or people like the Koch brothers and that is simply wrong.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[modmans2ndcoming]

like, say...statistical research by five independent non-partisan researchers showing the intended effects of a bill being passed are realistic?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Austerity Empowers]

Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!

There is no doubt in my mind that the republicans will absolutely do bad things if they get their way. The problem is that they're right.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

And I call it "straw man argument" when someone cites bureaucratic foibles with what are demonstrably nonexistent examples.

Kindly cite the cases of "navigable waters" including "any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours". The Supreme Court guidelines are fascinating, and seem to be extensible to include waterways large enough to handle a canoe, depending on whether it's connected to another waterway. But they're workable, and discharging the waste into a creek that _feeds into_ a lake or ocean could certainly make such discharges relevant to public safety.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Idarubicin]

Well, to be fair I was mostly poking fun at PRMan's complete failure to substantiate his claim, rather than trying to offer a serious counterexample.

That said, Newton is illustrative for one essential point--his religious views don't actually affect the content or reliability of his mathematical and scientific work. Teachers don't need to change how they present Newton's models of gravity or geometric optics because of his religious beliefs, no matter how heartfelt, enthusiastic, arcane, occult or dated those beliefs might now be. The same thing holds true for the (very tiny number of) practicing scientists who hold young-Earth creationist views today. Their personal religious beliefs don't matter, just their scientific publications.

I assume that what PRMan is really upset about is that (young-Earth) creationism and the mess of special pleading, cherry picking, and outright misrepresentation that make up so-called "creation science" aren't given equal time and an uncritical presentation, to which I shrug.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[sumdumass]

No, a proposal from the EPA is just a proposal it still has to get backed and signed before it even becomes a bill.

lol.. Do you really think that?

There are numerous areas in which the congress has given the EPA the power to create, implement, and enforce regulation that has the full effect of law without any congressional oversight or further congressional actions. I know it sounds contradictory to the US constitution which states all laws have to be passed by congress and then either signed by the president or the senate has to muster enough support to override a veto. But the fact of the matter is that congress passed a law allowing an agency to effectively create law (regulation) at it's own whim based on a set of criteria surrounding scientific evidence and industry situations.To make things worse, congress has allows the heads of the EPA to be controlled under the executive and the current president at any time appoints and directs the agency as he sees fit.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Xylantiel]

So fund the science. Forbidding regulation is just beuracratic stupidity that will get people killed. My impression is that a lot of regulations don't have good science to back them up because the science costs money and hasn't been done yet, and EPA has to make a rule even in the absence of good science. Are you somehow surprised that they would err on the side of public safety when the science is inconclusive? You do realize that this stuff actually maims and kills people right?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[khallow]

Ad hominem is a classic first step in the scientific method.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jedidiah]

...except afterwards it was published widely while it was being approved by the states. It was a matter of wide public knowledge for YEARS while it was being approved.

The current batch of secret treaties are nothing like that.

Then there's the Patriot Act that people voted on without even reading...

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[kheldan]

I think it's even worse than you think it is. Much of the Republican party are also bible-thumpers, believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, that God put it here for our use (and, apparently, abuse), that the Apocalypse is coming soon anyway, so why bother trying to keep the environment clean? Of course it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. When the environment has been so thoroughly fucked by pollution and raped by industry that it'll never recover, then they'll say "See, the bible was right! The End Days are here!". Fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw, I say.

All that having been said, transparency in the EPA could be a good thing -- but any review of the science behind their policy decisions needs to be reviewed only by authoritative sources carefully chosen for their complete neutrality and incorruptibility, if there can even be such a thing.

Also: FUCK BETA XD /. is fine the way it is, don't need no fuckin' facelift.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[L. J. Beauregard]

Are you advocating the opposite, that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!

The Fox Propaganda school of debating, that assumes that Republican legislation is about what it says it's about. This law must be about sound science and cannot possibly be about tying up any possible regulation in court until doomsday. See also: Voter ID, "Patriot" Act, War on Civil Liberties^W^WDrugs.

Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists.

Democrats are not pushing creationism or global warming head-in-the-sandism. Todd Akin with his "legitimate rape" bullshit is not a Democrat.

And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest!

Both sides are bad so vote Republican.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

No, they are not the same people. No more than the Democrats are composed of nothing but crystal-rubbing New Agers.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

>So what the fuck then is all this "climate change" hoopla based on then

Observational science.

There's two kinds of science: experimental science where you tinker with things in a repeatable way and see the results, and observational science where you're dealing with things that can't be duplicated and have to be inferred from lots and lots of independent corroborating results. Believe me, climatologists, astronomers, etc aren't altogether happy with the situation either, it'd be *much* easier to study the climate if we could tinker with it in a controlled fashion and see what happens, but it's just too big to be possible.

We can tell you how it's changing, and more-or-less why it's changing (though we're still working on some of the details). We can make millions of different measurements and determine that evidence from many unrelated sources corroborates our theories. What we can't do is make a duplicate Earth to perform experimental science on.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

f course they can game the system

Much like cherry-picking data to use games the system.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

It could be interpreted that way, and I agree that transparency is a good thing (perhaps we could get the fed to supply some evidence that the macroeconomic theories they base their policy on are something other than self-serving speculation?).

However, do you really believe that a group who openly wants to shut down climate change mitigation efforts is going to use this as anything other than a way to hog-tie the EPA and draw out this fiasco for a few more decades? Remember these laws aren't being interpreted by scientists, they're being interpreted by politicians with an agenda. "Reasonable" and "rational" interpretations need not apply.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

I dunno - being hanged by the British comes to mind.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"These are the same people that are trying to get an extremist interpretation of the Jewish creation myth taught as science in public schools."

Wow. Stereotype much?

Are all black people thieves, too? Are Polish people stupid?

Get back to me when you figure that one out.

And just for the record, no, clearly what they are doing is in response to the EPA refusing to release bases for its decisions. See the links in the other comments above.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[je ne sais quoi]

I was thinking this bill could actually much worse than just wishing for a scientific process that doesn't exist: there is a large and gaping flaw in its logic. Much of our regulations are issued because of large-scale damage to the ecosystem that costs much more to deal with its consequences than prevent (e.g., the added health costs of air pollution). However, in large systems, especially those involving human beings and livelihood, it is utterly impossible to reproduce something, like the climate change over the entire Earth,. According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.

As for the EPA using secret science, this is an utter load of bull-shit. All of EPA's studies are on-line and publically available. Here is a link to the searchable database containing the superfund site Records of Decision: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/c...

This is another manufactured crisis like the "war" on Christmas attempting to make people on the left (or anyone who doesn't agree with them) into demons. Assholes.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

...except afterwards it was published widely while it was being approved by the states.

Similar to the way that negotiated treaties are when presented to the Senate for confirmation then.

Then there's the Patriot Act that people voted on without even reading...

I'm not a fan of the "pass it before reading" method that has become so popular. On the other hand the Patriot Act has now been available for years and it keeps being reauthorized. People have obviously had a chance to read it before reauthorization.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Megol]

Now that's a good ad hominem. Now the democrats are all smoking crack cocaine, right? (There's at least one example of this so it must be true for all)

Another obvious example: everyone posting on /. with a user name starting with "j" are all brain damaged, you being the proof!

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

And I call it "straw man argument" when someone cites bureaucratic foibles with what are demonstrably nonexistent examples.

Kindly cite the cases of "navigable waters" including "any puddle that lasts more than 24 hours". The Supreme Court guidelines are fascinating, and seem to be extensible to include waterways large enough to handle a canoe, depending on whether it's connected to another waterway. But they're workable, and discharging the waste into a creek that _feeds into_ a lake or ocean could certainly make such discharges relevant to public safety.

Really? The EPA has been abusing people like this for years, but one couple finally stood up to them. I can't believe you've never heard of cases like Sackett v. EPA. Willful ignorance?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

That would have been a bit of an overreach by the British empire since the Revolutionary War had ended 4 years previously.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

Do you really believe that the people who run the EPA care any more for the environment than the people in Congress who have to face elections?
Did you READ the bill, which was linked to in the summary? can you point out to me what part of this bill is more objectionable than the EPA implementing regulatory changes on the basis of scientific studies which they refuse to release, even to Congress?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

Much like Quantum Mechanics.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

So, was the information contained in that article wrong? The link quoted from a statement released by Lamar Smith. Here is another link to the same statement: http://science.house.gov/sites...
Hmmm, I don't see anything different there. So, is he lying? Or did the EPA fail to provide Congress with the science behind their new regulations?

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

... a lot of regulations don't have good science to back them up because the science costs money and hasn't been done yet, and EPA has to make a rule even in the absence of good science.

That statement is an oxymoron.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Oligonicella]

The EPA is a known con artist. Do you trust them?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[AK Marc]

Are you saying that if the EPA has overwhelming "evidence" of a problem, they shouldn't be able to regulate it if an industry shill can come up with a counter experiment? Smoking was suspected to be bad for you for a very long time, but it wasn't until '66 when the first warnings went on. And even in the '80s (or was it '90s) Big Tobacco went to congress and strongly implied that smoking was safe.

After all, no study has ever "proven" smoking causes cancer. There was only correlation.

The point of this regulation is clear, add in a hurdle against regulations. And the wording of the data requirement looks to also be aimed at causing debate able to be sidetracked to debate on Global Warming.

Where are the regulations that were based on absent studies and no data? There are none, and this is a useless bill that just bloats the government with more cost and fewer results? Yup, sounds like a Republican thing. Complain about the size of government while increasing it.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

"you can't make a copy" - Hell, you can't even get a copy of the data or algorithms.

Sure you can if you're not too lazy to look for it. Here's a good place to start.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

As regulators choke industries to death with regulations ...

Better that than US citizens choking to death like the citizens of China because of lack of regulation.

(And yes I realize to irony of polluting industries moving to China because of our regulations but if something can't be produced without all that pollution then maybe it's not worth producing in the first place.)

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[pepty]

Three problems with that interpretation. The first is that they asked for the EPA to release

a full set of data files. for the American Cancer Society Study; the Harvard Six Cities Study; HEI/Krewski et al. 2009; Laden et al. 2006; Lepeule 2012; and Jerrett 2009. This request includes the coding of Personal Health Information (PHI).

A full set of data files would have to include all of the data taken into account in the original epidemiological study: age, sex, family health history, location of work and residence, and quite a lot of other identifying information. Just think about location: to study the effect of vehicle pollution you need to identify people living within X meters of a highway or busy street. To study the effect of emissions from a factory you need to look at the people working there and locations that are directly downwind. But de-identification requires that the residence location be no more specific than the first three digits of a zip code or an area with 20,000 people, whichever is greater, and you can't identify where someone works. You also need to look at how long a person lived at a location, where they lived before that, where they worked previously, etc until you've gone back many years. Once you release that information, even at the level suggested, then add the person's age you've probably already uniquely identified them.

Of course even if a set of data that is fully de-identified isn't useful for science it would still be useful to congress: the de-identified data would be so noisy and coarse they could say that it doesn't support the original authors' conclusions, which should be thrown out along with the EPA's laws. Mission accomplished.

The second problem is the consent forms. Unless the consent forms considered this possibility and took it into account, neither the study investigators, their institutions, nor the EPA would have the right to release the subjects' personal data publicly.

The third problem isn't legal or scientific, it's ethical. We're on Slashdot here. Considering how easy it has become to re-identify people from "de-identified" data, what are the chances of these people's privacy being preserved even if the EPA does release "properly de-identified" data sets?

If congress was serious about trying to vet these studies they would assemble a panel of epidemiologists qualified to do so and ask that they be given access to the data in a confidential setting. That's how it's done when other medical studies are re-evaluated

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[russotto]

(And yes I realize to irony of polluting industries moving to China because of our regulations but if something can't be produced without all that pollution then maybe it's not worth producing in the first place.)

Hooray for hair-shirt environmentalism. We won't choke to death, we'll just starve to death in the cold and dark (because agriculture, heat, and light all result in a lot of pollution)

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama administration has dramatically changed the implementation by the EPA. It is definitely HIS EPA. It's also his IRS that oppressed political opposition. It's also his administration that expanded privacy violations of every US Citizen as well as e heads of state of our allies. If the EPA hadn't been turned into a political tool, and had reasonable, honest, and objective direction this law would be unnecessary. The only reason it doesn't exist at all is because no one ever imagined that such regime would ever take control of our government.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

No, I'll admit I did not read the bill - however assuming the word "reproducible" is present I just told you what part is more objectionable: That certain interests (I won't even call sides, they'rea ll working for the sm folks behind the scene) are attempting to completely defang the already increasingly toothless EPA when it comes to *anything* regarding climate change. Which despite what you try to imply is firmly established science as devoid of legitimate debate as science ever gets.

And no, I don't think Congress gives two fucks about the environment. They care about re-election and setting up cushy post-political careers, and will accordingly dance on the strings of powerful people who have much to gain and very little to lose by letting the status quo play itself out, even if that means the global climate goes to hell and 90% of the worlds population dies in famine and war over the next century or two.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Yes, bias and corruption exist everywhere.

Now that that's settled, look at the state of the environment 50 years ago before the EPA was established compared to today. They may occasionally be biased, but we *know* the opposition is. Is it worth letting big monied interests totally defang the EPA against the biggest threat our species has scene in all of recorded history in order to curtail a few arguable overreaches?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[andydread]

What you are linking to is a partisan political press release from oil industry frontman Lamar Smith of SOPA/PIPA fame. Remember him? Yep he's the sponsor of SOPA/PIPA and big hollywood has him in their pocket too. He has been against the clean air act and have been trying to shutdown the EPA for a while now. I cannot take his words as gospel so is he lying? maybe. who knows. He's a politician in the pocket of big oil and big media/hollywood. Take a look at his top industry donors Says a whole lot.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

Hey, I'll accept well-established observational science even when it goes against me. Rustle some up and we'll talk.

But when the only counterargument is big businesses saying "But it will cut into my profits! Whaah!", you'd bet your ass I'll side with the observational science.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

There have been several climate studies where the researchers either were unable/unwilling to release their data, or they were unable/unwilling to release the methodology they used to process that data.

There may have been some truth to that in the past but not much any more, especially if you're willing to put a little work into seeking it out rather than expecting it to be handed to you on a silver platter.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

> Open reproducible science is a good thing in theory.

Yes, but in many cases it's not a possibility. Transparency is good - by all means let everyone see as much data as you ethically can, as well the details of the analysis which led to your conclusion. (Though I think I heard the poster child is some study where the Republicans want access to individual medical records that can't be ethically shared)

But put the word reproducible into the law, and do you have any doubt at all that business interests are going to use it to rule out observational science completely (working from the same data isn't *really* independently reproduction), or demand a second independent, (but no doubt still tax-payer funded) ten-year study before shutting down their horribly polluting factory?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you are saying that he is lying and the EPA GAVE that information to Congress? Can you provide me with a link supporting that?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you think that is OK to base regulations on scientific studies with results that no one can reproduce?

And no, I don't think Congress gives two fucks about the environment. They care about re-election and setting up cushy post-political careers, and will accordingly dance on the strings of powerful people who have much to gain and very little to lose by letting the status quo play itself out, even if that means the global climate goes to hell and 90% of the worlds population dies in famine and war over the next century or two.

As opposed to government bureaucrats who have all of the same motivations and NOTHING to lose by by increasing the power of government over individuals, and lots to gain, even if that means that the climate goes to hell and 90% of the world's populations dies in famine and war over the next decade or two.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

It's pretty pessimistic to think humans aren't intelligent enough to invent ways of doing all of that without unacceptable levels of pollution.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[GarethIwanFairclough]

Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.

You cannot regulate them.

This will be one GIANT loophole for industry.

My thoughts exactly. This could well enable companies/the government to cripple the EPA, for good or ill.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[andydread]

I never said with certainty that he was lying. He's a politician so he could well be lying. What I said is "who knows"

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a cop-out and basically equivalent to "they both do it, they are equally sucky", i.e. just as intellectually lazy and bankrupt as you claim your generation and the next one are.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jedidiah]

> No, it's not. You can find example [humanevents.com] after example [crimeinthesuites.com] of the EPA and other agencies falsifying information and distorting data to get to a political-based outcome.

Sounds like Bush II's EPA.

He took the independent organization created by NIXON and made a mockery out of it.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[err head]

I know a repeatable experiment.
Greenhouse A. maintain at 100 ppm co2
Greenhouse B. maintain at 400 ppm co2
Greenhouse C. maintain at 1600 ppm co2
Grow pot in all 3 greenhouses. It dies in A, grows normally in B, And grows faster in C
Simple reproducible science. The vast majority of plants grow better, and can grow in more marginal areas, with CO2 concentrations like they were 15 million years ago.
The green choice is to increase co2 output massively

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[MrHanky]

I remember reading Junkscience.com's own 'global temperatures'. They had marked temperature differences between summer and winter. Someone ought to tell them the globe is, well, globe-shaped.

It's not exactly a trustworthy source of anything.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[dryeo]

The problem is when the science starts with statistical observations. Statistics are never 100% and the argument can always be made that correlation does not mean causation. You see this with things like the question of how bad tobacco is for you and historically the germ theory of disease.
The germ theory of disease was a good example with it starting with statistical observations like more people got typhus around particular wells and these wells seemed to be polluted by feces or women who were getting pre-natel exams who were the closest to the dissection room were likelier to get certain deadly infections. Politicians didn't want to pay to make sure sewage was separate from drinking water and Doctors didn't want to be bothered with intense washing and in both cases screamed that the idea of little invisible things making people sick was unscientific. Even Pasteur pretty well showing that there were little things that caused disease the denial was high.
At what point is action taken on theories such as little invisible things causing disease? Especially when obviously some disease has other causes.
In the case of the germ theory of disease eventually the science got good enough to show that little invisible things did cause disease and the old guard died out and now we have scientific consensus that some types of disease is caused by little things but there are still a few nut-jobs who deny it and others who argue that a little bit will disappear in that big lake because sewage treatment is expensive.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Applehu Akbar]

If you have real science to show us, submit a paper for peer review and skeptical inquiry. These processes are where creationists and their lefty brethren-in-politicized science, the Warmtroopers, get into trouble with the truth.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's a fascinating case. It has _nothing_ do with navigable waters, it has to do with wetlands, which are federally protected in various ways, and the Clean Waters Act, which involves protecting water supplies. If you're going to cite an example of bureaucratic abuse because of "navigable waters" that only exist for a day, cite one they're actually guilty of, please. Please don't cite cases that have no direct relevance to your claim of abuse.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[whistlingtony]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Black and White. No, no one is advocating that the EPA should be able to issue regs based on non science. The EPA already issues regs based on science, and it's quite publicly available. It took me three clicks on their website to find info on their regs, a link for submitting feedback, and links to studies.

But your post is exactly how this bill will be used politically. "Are you advocating that the EPA should be able to issue regulations based on non-science?!!!!!!" You need more exclamation points. They make you look more right.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[DadLeopard]

OH, My God! Are you suggesting that the GOP and the Laws they pass should be held to the same level of scrutiny as the EPA, and that no laws should be passed that can't be backed by transparent and reproducible scientific data! You just know that idea is not going to fly!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[surd1618]

Reasonable arguments based on mountains of evidence don't seem to be making any impression on a substantial and vocal segment of society. I for one get really pissed off about this because scientists are, by and large, ridiculously hard-working, honest, and relatively pleasant people. I think the kind of articles that appear in Junk Science are not just lame excuses for journalism, but really disrespectful to a lot of good people, and just generally un-civil. Ad hominem should never get on the table, but there you go.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[sjames]

Because they don't want their hand forced by laws showing the drugs they hate are as safe or safer than drugs they like.

Also, most of their economic policies are voodoo.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

Deducing gravity by noticing what has fallen and how fast is "a bunch of data points and an opinion". It's also falsifiable: you predict what the data will be for other, related circumstances you haven't measured yet. A lot of astronomy, chemistry, biology, and social sciences are done this way because strictly controlled experiments are very difficult.

The ability to make precise predictions, or to give accurate and verifiable _ranges_ for results, seems to be a very good basis for both engineering and science.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[atomicxblue]

We've already been sold -- now they're just negotiating the price.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Stephan Schulz]

The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.

Scientific studies often cost significant amounts of money to produce - at least, they cost significant amounts of researcher time. Unless a study is extremely controversial or you expect to get very different results, few scientists will spend the time. There is minimal new knowledge to be gained, most journals rarely publish papers on successful reproductions, and a CV that says "I did the same as Williams, the same as Jones, and the same as Mayer, and got the same results in each case" is not a career starter for a scientist, either.

Indeed, most studies that can be reproduced can be reproduced from the published papers. It's just hard work and expensive, which is why it's rarely done. Demanding reproducibility is fine, but demanding actual reproduction (as proof of reproducibility) would kill most science-based initiatives cold. Note, in particular, another law proposed by Lamar Smith that would allow NSF funding only for research that is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies". Take the two together, and you have a requirement for reproduction, but deny funding to do the reproduction. Ooops - how convenient.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[tchdab1]

It's blatantly an attempt to control corporate regulations by holding hostage the definitions of acceptable research.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[slew]

Creationism boils down to "if God created the world, then it would look exactly like it does now, and as evidence for this, we have folklore and the observation that the world looks exactly as we see it".

I suggest we do away with the anthropic principle as well while we are at it (I always hated that one as it always had that same smell).

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[slew]

Fun Fact: Jesus wasn't born on Christmas day!

How do you know? Because AFAIK, nobody really has any idea when Jesus was born. Best guess based on biblical accounts is between 6BC and 4BC, but they really don't have any idea what time of year it was based on biblical accounts...

The rationale for Dec 25 historically has been a guesstimate of conception around Spring Equinox (estimated at March 25 by early scholars, but now known to be inaccurate) + 9 months. There is also some anecdotal evidence of a birth date in early January (around Jan 6), but most of these account are from long after Jesus' death and may be confused with a baptismal celebratory date...

Likewise Newton's birthdate is often given as Christmas, but that is a Julian calendar date (in Gregorian calendar, he was born on Jan 4th). Although the Julian calendar was in use in 6BC, it wasn't widely used outside of Europe.

Odds are they were probably born on calendar days that were close to each other relative to the Gregorian Calendar, but nobody really knows...

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

We've already been sold -- now they're just negotiating the price.

Guess we better lay back & enjoy it then, eh?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Oh, this bill was sponsored by Republican candidates, so it must be bad, because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists. And, of course, Obama and the Democrates are all open and transparent and honest! Obama's EPA would never do anything that wasn't scientifically reproducible and valid, even if they won't show us how they did it!

It's sponsored by Tea Party whackjobs, financed and written by climate change deniers. That makes it automatically suspect, since a big thing with the Tea Party's backers is, 'Get rid of the EPA, it unduly restricts trade and our profits'. Follow the money, it goes right back to ALEC and Co, the Kochs, and everybody who wants to make sure their profits aren't cut by 'needless government interference'. Then take a good look at West Virginia's ongoing crisis about their water supply. The Kochs don't live in West Virginia, so they could care less what happens to the water there.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Electricity Likes Me]

Yes because clearly political ideology is exactly as unchangeable as one's race or country of origins.

Talk about bait and switch.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Did you read the linked bill? Can you point out the language that institutes something other than good science? You might want to read this link to understand where this bill comes from:http://junkscience.com/2013/08/01/statement-of-chairman-lamar-smith-r-texas-business-meeting-to-consider-epa-subpoena-over-secret-science/

Smith was bitching that the EPA didn't show their math therefore all the Clean Air regs need to go. After all, if there's no proof that factories cause pollution, why spend all that money cleaning up that smokestack's exhaust? So, til you can prove it hurts people, why regulate it?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

The already exists a legal definition of "publicly available". In addition, this law would apply to the EPA, not to the labs which produced the results. That is, it is the EPA which this law requires to make this information publicly available. This bill was created in reaction to the EPA's failure to provide the scientific information upon which it based its revision to Clean Air Act regulations to Congress.
Feel free to suggest an alternative wording that is more to your liking.

More like an attempt to flush the clean air regs down the shitter. 'You totally ignored the study sponsored bought and paid for by the Very Big Corporation, therefore your regulations do not meet federal law and shall not be enacted or enforced. Thank you for playing, get your gas mask at the door.'

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

"because we all know that all Republicans are anti-science, bloodletting phrenologists" In fact, yes, we do know that. :D

"Obama and the Democrates[sp] are all open and transparent and honest!" Of course that's not true. We know that too.

It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is just a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs. Worse, it's a blatant attempt to get out of EPA regs barely a month after the West Virginia debacle that should show everyone just how important EPA regs are. Also, yes, Republicans are quite anti science. If they don't want the label, maybe they should be shoving creationism.

No, the Tealiban is not antiscience. They totally adore weapons technologies and anything that will help them create more and more wealth for their backers. They just hate science that says what they wanna do isn't safe because it costs their backers money that could be spent elsewhere, like on elevators for their cars in their mansions, or flying in fresh food from somewhere else cause the local food is inedible.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[atomicxblue]

I'm just sad we didn't get dinner and told we're pretty first.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[CanHasDIY]

Yes because clearly political ideology is exactly as unchangeable as one's race or country of origins.

Talk about bait and switch.

So then, it's true - all Democrats are soulless communists who murder babies and hate the Constitution.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[CanHasDIY]

It's pretty pessimistic to think humans aren't intelligent enough to invent ways of doing all of that without unacceptable levels of pollution.

Especially considering that we somehow managed it for several hundred thousand years.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[superwiz]

Observational science is reproducible. You can observe artifacts of events rather than events themselves. Speaking of climatology (is that really a science now?) studies. A tree-rings study is definitely reproducible. So is any observation of CO2 levels trapped in arctic ice. At the very least, the data itself should be available for re-examination. Most scientific journals don't impose the requirement to publish the data on the authors, so even peer review is no guarantee that data matches the conclusions. And I don't mean just in the controversial fields like climate studies. Even the least controversial ones simply don't have the requirement to publish the observed data. Imposing this requirement will unquestionably improve scientific inquiry at large.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Back in the day it was dinner and a movie.

DAMN you, cable tv!!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Nobody's claiming the opposition are saints. They're not, not by a long shot. But they are a proven lesser evil.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Finally, was it when a then-Governor of MA put resumes of highly-accomplished women for his consideration for high-level positions in his administration in (gasp!) binders?

Funny you should mention that. Said former governor got ALEC-provided model legislation recommended by the Heritage Foundation put into law in his state and the Republicans cheered it as a major event.

Fast forward a few years when a Democratic president signs into law a modified clone of that same very legislation as a compromise, modified to cut down on some of the abuses of the 'insurance industry' like arbitrarily terminating somebody's health insurance the instant they're diagnosed with cancer, unless they have the special added cancer rider on their plan, because paying benefits will cost them money, profits, and bonuses. Now, all of a sudden, this legislation is the most evil thing since Hitler, and this president is a tyrant.

And yes, Obamacare was the Republican-demanded compromise, as the Democrats really wanted to go single-payer like the rest of the civilised world uses.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

So, you are saying that he is lying and the EPA GAVE that information to Congress? Can you provide me with a link supporting that?

No, we're saying Smith's handlers wrote this legislation and gave it to him to introduce, as is common these days: The industry to be 'regulated' writes the legislation in their favor and gets it voted in. Knowing who Smith's handlers are, and knowing said handlers' track record, I can be reasonably confident that this legislation is not in our favor and will benefit his handlers. What's the point of buying Congressmen if you can't get your special perks embedded in federal law?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

No, they are not the same people. No more than the Democrats are composed of nothing but crystal-rubbing New Agers.

The Tealiban minority in the GOP keeps getting further and further out there, and regularly blackmails more mainstream GOP candidates, telling them that they'll 'get primaried' unless they toe the Tealiban party line. Considering the Tealiban is backed financially by the richest portion of the 1%, it's a valid threat. Senator Robert Bennett, of Utah, was considered to be the most conservative sitting senator. In 2010, he got 'primaried' by Mike Lee when he actually cooperated with Democrats on some legislation before the Senate in 2010 and refused to denounce Obama as a 'socialist'. Bennett got endorsements from Hatch, Garn, hell, even ROMNEY, while Lee got endorsements from the Tealiban darlings. Lee won.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Barsteward]

Can this also be used against climate deniers, creationists, religious cults etc?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Barsteward]

I wouldn't really care if the EPA decisions weren't completely bullet-proof. A cleaner environment is a benefit to everyone.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[shutdown -p now]

I would specifically narrow down on education, for a start. If it's not transparent and reproducible science, it does not belong in the classroom in a science class.

I wonder how the bill sponsors will weasel out of that one when one of Democrats will introduce such an amendment to it.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

...except afterwards it was published widely while it was being approved by the states.

Similar to the way that negotiated treaties are when presented to the Senate for confirmation then.

Then there's the Patriot Act that people voted on without even reading...

I'm not a fan of the "pass it before reading" method that has become so popular. On the other hand the Patriot Act has now been available for years and it keeps being reauthorized. People have obviously had a chance to read it before reauthorization.

Except if you're a Republican, it's a knee-jerk reaction to reauthorise it, and if you're a Democrat, your Republican opponents in the next election will use your vote to get you out of office because you are 'soft on terrorism'.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

The proposed law does not say WHO reproduces it, merely that someone MUST be able to reproduce the results. If the EPA can point to another, independent, study which reproduces the results of the first study, it meets those qualifications.

Indeed, most studies that can be reproduced can be reproduced from the published papers. It's just hard work and expensive, which is why it's rarely done. Demanding reproducibility is fine, but demanding actual reproduction (as proof of reproducibility) would kill most science-based initiatives cold. Note, in particular, another law proposed by Lamar Smith that would allow NSF funding only for research that is "not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies". Take the two together, and you have a requirement for reproduction, but deny funding to do the reproduction. Ooops - how convenient.

Since the NSF would be precluded from redoing the research, it would fall to private companies to do it. How very convenient indeed. You, sir, have just found the gator in the swamp. My hat is off to you.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

What surprises me about this story is that I thought all that data had to be disclosed already. How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

They have been asking that the private medical data of everyone whose medical records were used during the evaluation of soot and particulate rules for the Clean Air Act be made public. The authors of those studies don't have the authority to release that data, neither does the EPA. Though I'm certain the GOP would love to berate the EPA publicly for betraying patient confidentiality if they did disclose that information

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Catch-22. Reveal the data and you break the law. Don't reveal the data and the needed regulation won't happen.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jamstar7]

Well, theoretically, but the EPA is in the process of instituting new regulations under the Clean Air Act. Congress has held hearings on those regulations and the EPA promised to send them the studies upon which the regulations are based over two years ago, but have so far failed to do so. Once this law is passed, if it is passed, it will be much harder to justify opposing similar laws for other regulatory agencies. One thing to point out is that passing such a law for an agency that has been open and forthright about the science behind its regulations is probably a bad idea. However, the EPA has demonstrated an unwillingness to release the data behind at least some of their regulations, making this law necessary.

The committee wants all the data, including medical data that the EPA is required by federal law to withhold. And the committee knows that data cannot be released. It's grandstanding to position itself to neuter the EPA.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[rocket rancher]

Science paid for by the public, or science used to make government regulations at public expense, should be available to the public. Period.

If science isn't "reproducible", it isn't science. If you want to call that a "loophole", so be it. But if the truth is a loophole, learn to live with it.

No. You are wrong on both counts.

First, not all science is useful to the public, and in fact some science has the potential to harm it greatly, if it were furnished to the wrong people. I certainly don't want the science gained by government bio-warfare researchers, atomic weapons specialists, and neuroscientists studying torture methodologies to be readily available to anybody who wants it.

Second, climatology is not reproducible. It is a strictly observational science, like astronomy -- you can't do reproducible experiments on the climate, anymore than you can do reproducible experiments on a galaxy a billion light years away. It is still science, but it can never produce reproducible results. By demanding reproducible results as a matter of law, Schweikert is making it impossible for the EPA to cite climate models to support regulations aimed at curbing emissions. It will also make it possible for industries to challenge and overturn existing regulations that were supported by these now-illegal climate models.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[taiwanjohn]

Republicans want access to individual medical records that can't be ethically shared

+1 Informative.

Here's a link to support you:

Johnson wrote to Smith on Wednesday expressing serious concern about the chairman's plans to send research data to third parties, noting that credible scientists already had access to the information and that those researchers could be in legal trouble if they hand over the data requested by Congress.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[quantaman]

However, Congress is not held to the same standard. There is no requirement to put public funded research in the public domain. There is nothing in this bill except a wish for a scientific community that does not exist.

It's not a wish, it's a deliberate switch. They don't want the EPA to be able to use AGW science, so they force them to use research from a scientific community that doesn't exist.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[rochrist]

^THIS^

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Bartles]

Hah. You guys support a government takeover of our health care system, and you're complaining that suddenly they want access to our medical records? Where did you think this whole fiasco would lead? It's only going to get worse. Much worse.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Bartles]

DIdn't the EPA already have these medical records, as it used the data in a study? How did the EPA get them? Why are you not complaining about that? I can't read the full article behind the paywall.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[MooseMiester]

You cherry picked one study - the superfund cleanup project - that was actually started by Republicans...

This bill is not perfect, but at least somebody is trying to address left wing GREED and the resultant corruption of the scientific method that the left has brought into anything with the word "environment" in front of it.

Left wing greed is equal to, and in some cases far worse than the "evil corporations" they rail against. Consider this:

Left wingers believe that success creates social injustice. Therefore we must punish the successful - confiscating their wealth to offset the injustice. However they refuse to accept that failure creates an equal, or larger social injustice. So, when their greed causes failure, or their social engineering project turns out to be not such a good idea, they refuse to accept the injustice caused by their failures, and fight against any effort to remedy them. Some people believe they are just arrogant assholes that refuse to admit mistakes. I do not believe this... there are exceptions, of course, some of the posters here would vote for Satan over any Republican. I do believe, however, that liberals are lopsided in their application of "fairness".

Much of what the EPA has done has been good. Much of it, however, has been a failure, and has caused great social injustice in the loss of jobs, lowering of living standards, impediments in scientific research to improve the environmental quality of existing forms energy production, reduced agriculture output, and so forth. But you never, ever hear anyone on the left talk about THAT. No, what you hear is a one sided argument, that in the end boils down to this: Government greed is better than corporate greed. I see no difference between the two, and put it to you, sir, that the injustice created by government failure far outweighs the injustice created by success.

There is a large, an gaping hole in your logic, sir.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Nimey]

Thanks for proving AC's point: you're pointing to one guy because you can't show anything systematic.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[doccus]

Sorry EPA, but the studies sponsored by the [insert industry] industry couldn't reproduce the findings.

You cannot regulate them.

This will be one GIANT loophole for industry.

Doesn't say that the science need be reproducible, or even valid. Just full disclosure. Doesn't mean they couldn't still regulate them, but wouldn't be able to claim scientific studies as the basis for such.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

I mostly agree with you here. Except the part about "consensus". Consensus doesn't matter a whit to science, as your own observations show. The "germ theory" of disease was contrary to the almost universal scientific consensus at the time. But the EVIDENCE became so overwhelming, that the "consensus" was shown to be wrong.

It is evidence that matters in science, not consensus. We don't care if the overwhelming "consensus" says it's correct. We care if the overwhelming amount of evidence says it's correct. Certainly there are nut-jobs that deny it, but they are nut-jobs because they defy the evidence, not because they defy the consensus.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[astar]

Maybe. But science has problems. Science + public policy is something out of hell. Add that a lot of good science ends up conflicting with other good science. Sorting it out takes lifetimes.

I will support this provided the GOP applies it to all agencies and branches of the federal government. :-)

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Jane Q. Public]

"No. You are wrong on both counts. "

No, I am not.

"First, not all science is useful to the public, and in fact some science has the potential to harm it greatly, if it were furnished to the wrong people."

Okay. Granted. But that is the very rare exception. Nuclear bombs and genetic sequences of superbugs are probably not suitable for public consumption. But that is such a minuscule percentage that my generalization is still valid... while accepting those few exceptions. Yes I was wrong to state it as an absolute, but in general it's still true.

"Second, climatology is not reproducible."

Climate does not have to be reproducible. Climate is not science. But "climate science" does indeed have to be reproducible. If you take a batch of raw data, and come up with results that others can't reproduce using responsible methods, then it isn't science.

"By demanding reproducible results as a matter of law, Schweikert is making it impossible for the EPA to cite climate models to support regulations aimed at curbing emissions."

Bullshit. The SCIENCE is still reproducible. Or it isn't science. Repeat: the climate does not have to be reproducible, but the science does have to be reproducible from the original data. Claims of irreproducibility due to exceptional circumstances are a red-flag hallmark of NOT SCIENCE.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[gzuckier]

since you can't reproduce speciation by evolution, that's out.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[romons]

there has never been a single reproducible experiment in macroeconomics, ever. In fact there's been precious little *scientific* study of the matter at all, it's all philosophers spinning stories compatible with their biases.

There have been lots of reproducible experiments in macroeconomics. They happen all the time. They are called legislation, and are analyzed constantly by economists. They may not be well designed experiments, but they are experiments. One form of this is predictions about how a policy would affect certain key variables. Krugman and others predicted that interest rates would not rise due to the expanding money supply (QE). Others predicted a dire calamity, where interest rates would return to those of the early 80s. Krugman and Bernanke and Yellen were right, the others were wrong. So, that theoretical model better fits the current facts, and so is probably true. If you bet on gold because you believed those freshwater guys, you got screwed.

The FED has been managing the economy with monetary policy since forever. They've done pretty well at keeping inflation in check. Not so well at keeping unemployment low. They also couldn't prevent huge corrections like the stock bubble in the 90s, or the housing bubble in 2008, but look at interest rates! That has been their real mandate, at least since the 80s. They aren't in the business of saving speculators from themselves. (They are in the business of propping up banks. That is what they do, right? What is the interest rate on your savings account?)

Similarly, we are currently running a long, dangerous experiment in climate science. The predictions are there, and preliminary results suggest that the hypothesis (that we are screwed, and millions will die) is correct. However, we won't be sure until the experiment is complete. The Koch brothers just want us to complete the experiment, right? They are pro science. They support NOVA!

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[14erCleaner]

Because they hate the EPA and are using this as a pretense to neuter it. There's no way they can provide "reproducible" results to back up many of their rulings - what are they going to do, run a study with one polluted river and one clean one? This is clearly just a smokescreen by the know-nothings on the right, since they have no regard for science otherwise. Fortunately the House can't unilaterally pass legislation - sorry, guys, maybe next week you can repeal the ACA for the fiftieth time instead.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

It's a fascinating case. It has _nothing_ do with navigable waters, it has to do with wetlands, which are federally protected in various ways, and the Clean Waters Act, which involves protecting water supplies. If you're going to cite an example of bureaucratic abuse because of "navigable waters" that only exist for a day, cite one they're actually guilty of, please. Please don't cite cases that have no direct relevance to your claim of abuse.

Idiot. What law does this "wetlands" protection come from? Huh? Idiot. Clean Water Act (not "Waters", dumbass). All that regulation has sprung from the "navigable waters" clause in that 1970's legislation. The rest is unauthorized expansion by overzealous bureaucrats.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Curunir_wolf]

Who modded up this moron? Ideologically blinded much, mods?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

>>there has never been a single reproducible experiment in macroeconomics

There have been experiments yes, however the world is chock full of known confounding factors, and no doubt even more unknown confounding factors, making reproducibility impossible. Restrict them to policies based on reproducible experiments and they couldn't do a damn thing.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

Ahh, a bit of digging points out the 2006 Supreme Court that you seem to be misinterpreting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.... That case upheld the protection of wetlands that intermingle with navigable waterways. I'm afraid that if you wish to cite the Supreme Court decision as "unauthorizied expansion by overzeaolous" bureaucrats, I can only wish you good luck with that.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, I do see the revisions in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.... It's therefore still a messy business to decide what is considered wetlands under EPA protection.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[RockDoctor]

We've already been sold -- now they're just negotiating the price.

Guess we better lay back & enjoy it then, eh?

Enjoying it was never part of the arrangement. Bend over!

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[cold fjord]

If the data is so available then why hasn't EPA given it to the committee? Do you oppose legislative oversight of Federal agencies?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[superwiz]

Everybody thinks that their experience is somehow indicative of a new age in human development. As a specie we are the we always were. Therefore, any wisdom of the ages, which exposes general tendencies of human impulses, is as true today as it always was. Power corrupts. If you untie EPA's hands and let them use their "best judgement" rather scientifically sound methodologies, they will, in time, abuse that power. And then that power will attract those who relish abuse of power and they will abuse it more.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[RespekMyAthorati]

Left wingers believe that success creates social injustice

Prove it.

And no, quoting another right-wing asshole who agrees with you doesn't count.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[MooseMiester]

You've got to be kidding me. The core of Marxism is the injustice caused by wealth accumulation. The Democratic parties current talking points are income inequality (an interesting position, given that it has gotten WORSE under their polices, but that's another story).

The left pushes the notion that "the rich", with their ill-gotten gains, lie around idly partying all the time, laughing at the horrible condition of the peasants. This is why we need a benevolent government to redistribute income. Tax the Rich has been the rallying cry of the socialist left forever. You're asking me to prove that the sky is blue. Try looking up.

The left believes that success, and the wealth that comes with it is not the result of hard work and taking risks. People aren't poor because they made bad decisions in life, or are lazy, etc. they are poor because the system is "rigged" by the evil rich and horrible corporations - both of which need to be regulated by a benevolent government.

The truth is that yes, there are a few rich people who inherited their wealth and act this way. Yes, there are a few celebrities who made millions of dollars and act like complete idiots. The majority of rich people work their assess off. What we should be teaching people is to emulate the rich not chastise them. Look at how many self made millionaires came from utter poverty. These are the true heros. Look at how generously the rich give to the poor - .vs. the rich Democrat Party politicians who hardly give anything.

I put it to you, Sir, that the failures of the American Left have caused far more social injustice than the evil rich. And that it is the politicians, not corporate CEO's, are the most greedy people in America. Not ALL of them - some politicians truly care for the common good and believe in this country. Not ALL CEO's are wonderful guys either. But the left's endless attack on "Evil Corporations" denies the other side of the coin - that politicians often show the same ugly greedy traits. FYI I live in Detroit - First hand experience.

You accuse me of quoting a "right wing asshole". So, if I don't agree with "The Narrative" then I am the enemy, and a horrible rethugnican asshole? I hope you're young, and that you'll mature soon and realize how utterly rude your statement is.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jwhitener]

Sure, there are many areas where Repubs and Dems are the same.

While not evil, given that the majority of the Repubs in the House deny many well understood scientific theories and conclusions, we can at least label one side as willfully ignorant.

Democrats, on average, seem way less likely to ignore experts.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jwhitener]

The majority of the Republicans in the House do not believe in evolution, do not believe that man is changing the climate, believe that the earth is 4000 years old, etc...(I don't know how many of them are just faking these beliefs for elections, but it is kinda irrelevant).

Why wouldn't the sane default position be to distrust any Republican bill concerning science?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jwhitener]

I'm going to trust this conclusion: the EPA doesn't have the data. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/two-decade-old-harvard-data-confounds-u-s-epa-nomination.html

Much more than I'm willing to trust http://junkscience.com/about-steve-milloy/ , who wrote a book titled:

"Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them"

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[jwhitener]

Of course they can game the system - name one repeatable climatology experiment. It can't be done, like astronomy climatology is an observational science, you can't throw a bunch of alternate Earth's into the lab to experiment on. Requiring that only experimental (reproducible) science be used as the basis for policy means we have to ignore most of what we know about the natural world.

Well.. we can't clone the Earth, that is true.

But there are a bunch of climate related reproducible experiments. For instance,

Measuring the heat trapping power of CO2 in controlled jars/tanks
Determining the acidity tolerance of coral reefs in tanks
Mimicking ocean currents and changing temperature and salinity in big tanks to watch how currents change shape or stop flowing.
etc...

Many of the predictions made by climate scientists are based on small experiments like this, and the results are incorporated into climate models.

Re:"Not Reproduclibe"

[jwhitener]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-16/two-decade-old-harvard-data-confounds-u-s-epa-nomination.html

The problem is the EPA doesn’t have the data, which was compiled by Harvard University researchers more than two decades ago, and confidentiality agreements with hundreds of thousands of participants prevent researchers from making it public. The nominee, Gina McCarthy, had nothing to do with the research.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

But Democrats would never believe in conspiracies, not even ones saying that every "right-wing nut"--I mean, Republican--is a corporate sellout.

I know I'm generalizing here, but I think it's telling that so many liberals fall back on ad hominems when conservatives try to have a reasonable, rational argument. One side doesn't need to resort to name-calling to make their point. The other side calls their opponents "nuts" and poisons the well by claiming they believe "nonsense" and conspiracy theories. What's sad is that, as was mentioned before, it seems like a large segment of society falls for it. But I guess nothing's really changed; Barnum was right.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

The GP just said that the bill requires the EPA's research to be made public. The scenario addressed is not that of the EPA's ignoring contrary studies, but the EPA's making regulations and refusing to disclose their own data to back it up. It's more like, "Nope, we don't have to prove that this regulation is based on sound science, you have to take our word for it. Thank you for playing, now go shut down your plants and put your people out of work. (Then they'll need government assistance, and then they'll vote for us, because we took care of them.)"

Don't you get it? Or are you so entrenched in your partisan views that you can't see the other side of the coin?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

You could be right.

But what would be in our favor? Letting the EPA do whatever it wants, without having to justify it to anyone? Don't you know that there are lobbyists on the other side too, and that they manipulate government too?

Really, how can you argue against requiring the government to publicly disclose the scientific studies it uses to justify its regulations?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Does "-1, Funny" roughly equal "+1, Sad but True"?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Can this also be used against climate alarmists, atheists, humanistic cults etc?

I mean, as long as we're labeling people...

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Also, yes, Republicans are quite anti science. If they don't want the label, maybe they should be shoving creationism.

So, if there are any scientists who vote Republican, is that enough to disprove your mindless, well-poisoning generalizations? What if there are any scientists who believe that God created the universe?

Oh, wait, of course, I forgot: that's impossible, because "anyone with half a brain" knows that there is no God, so anyone who thinks there is a God must have no brain. Yeah, yeah, I know, plenty of scientists throughout history have believed in God, but they were all forced to say that; they didn't really believe in God. We're so much more enlightened now.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

"...extremist...abuse...wars...mindlessly..." Labeling your opponents is the easiest and cheapest way to avoid having a rational argument.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're calling your opponents "the Tealiban"?

You know, it's funny, I can't recall hearing any Tea Party folks make up names for their opponents that look and sound like an infamous group of terrorists recognized around the world as just plain evil. But it seems like people who disagree with Tea Party ideas can't even post a comment without resorting to labeling, name-calling, and well-poisoning.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

From your link:

Researchers asked 1,185 random nationwide respondents what news sources they had consumed in the past week and then asked them questions about events in the U.S. and abroad.

On average, people correctly answered 1.6 of 5 questions about domestic affairs.

They found that someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer 1.04 domestic questions correctly compared to 1.22 for those who watched no news at all

If you think that constitutes an "objective fact," then you clearly don't know what an objective fact is.

Here, let me ask you 0.18 questions and see if you answer correctly: How does

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

And that IRS scandal was complete BS.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the IRS's side before.

Well, some people will do anything to defend Obama. We all know that he and his executive branch would never do anything wrong; they'd never, ever misuse or abuse their power to intimidate or inconvenience their political opponents. Yeah, yeah, there were documents and sworn testimony, but that's all made up BS. Why? Because...why am I replying to you? Sigh....

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Either through ignorance or stupidity, you introduced a false dichotomy and assumed people opposed to this have to be against science, and fell right into the trap. I would ignore you, but you are +5 so someone might be influenced by your idiocy.

You know, I thought your post was quite reasonable, until I got to the last line.

I didn't assume that people opposing the bill are against science. I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assumption about me. I asked a question to make a point; namely, that requiring the government to disclose the data and methods it uses to justify its regulations is a good thing--the alternative is secrecy and blind trust, which is the antithesis of democracy. If someone is arguing against mandatory disclosure, one should question their motives, especially if their argument tends toward hypocrisy because of their accusing their opponents of all being "anti-science."

But I wouldn't want to influence anyone with my "ignorance," "stupidity," or "idiocy," so you should probably ignore me.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

According to the logic, to regulate dumping chemicals in a lake, you'd have to show that not dumping chemicals in the same lake under the same conditions doesn't result in mass fish die offs, increased risk of cancer for local inhabitants, etc. Since regulations are issued only after something becomes a problem, you can't ever reproduce the pristine conditions. How do you know it was chemicals and wasn't the weather that killed all those fish? You didn't reproduce the experiment.

This is a false dilemma. Who says a study would have to be like that? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to show that these hypothetical chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, and therefore should not be dumped into a body of water?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?

What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?

Oh, I forgot, those are all made up by big, evil businesses. All the scientists who say that are shills. All the scientists who say we're doomed are the honest ones. We should all throw away our standards of living and jobs and "go green." The government will take care of us. What? Who takes care of the government? Um...it does?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

We can tell you how it's changing

"It's hotter outside!"

and more-or-less why it's changing (though we're still working on some of the details

"Look at all this CO2 we're producing! It must be our fault! Yeah, the CO2 produced by the oceans alone dwarfs what we produce...but it still must be our fault! It has to be! Don't worry about these 'details', I have them more-or-less right, and I'll keep adjusting them until they prove what I think!"

We can make millions of different measurements and determine that evidence from many unrelated sources corroborates our theories

"Look at all these millions of measurements I took! Clearly I am right! Er, no, don't bother with those measurements...they're...uh...irrelevant."

What we can't do is make a duplicate Earth to perform experimental science on.

"Hey, what do you want me to do, reproduce an entire planet? You're crazy! But look, I made a computer simulation that basically does just that, and it agrees with me! And look, I keep adjusting--I mean, improving it! I keep getting more right all the time!"

By the way, who is this mythical "we"? People who agree with you? Oh, okay then.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Similarly, we are currently running a long, dangerous experiment in climate science.

"So we definitely need to stop running this dangerous experiment and run this other experiment instead. Yeah, we don't know exactly what will happen, but 'The predictions are there,' so if we don't do it NOW, 'we are screwed, and millions will die'! Yeah, yeah, 57 million people die every day...but think of all the millions that might die if we don't force people out of work and into poverty! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't force other people to die earlier! Think of all the millions of people that might die if we don't reduce the population by making people die faster! Yeah, yeah, the earth has been around for millions and millions of years, long before humans existed...and yeah, the oceans produce far more CO2 than humans ever could...but WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!! All these rich people just want to get richer so they can afford huge A/C units when the rest of us roast! They're all anti-science!"

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Better that than US citizens choking to death like the citizens of China because of lack of regulation.

Good grief, I'm so sick of these stupid false dichotomies.

"We can't require the EPA to be open and honest and scientific! If we don't blindly trust them, we'll end up like China and won't even be able to go outside!"

Is it even possible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Are we not doing that right now? I have lights, heat, food, and clean air outside. My life expectancy is probably higher than at any time in recorded history. Is that not acceptable enough for you? Must we blindly trust the government and whatever they want us to do?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Is there no doubt in your mind that Democrats won't do bad things if they get their way, too?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

The Fox Propaganda school of debating, that assumes that Republican legislation is about what it says it's about. This law must be about sound science and cannot possibly be about tying up any possible regulation in court until doomsday. See also: Voter ID, "Patriot" Act, War on Civil Liberties^W^WDrugs.

The (I don't know...MSNBC? Huffington Post?) school of debating, that assumes that Republican-sponsored legislation is innately evil. If this law passes, we're all doomed. DOOMED!

Democrats are not pushing creationism or global warming head-in-the-sandism. Todd Akin with his "legitimate rape" bullshit is not a Democrat.

Anyone who thinks God created the universe is clearly an antiquated fool. And anyone who doesn't agree that we're all doomed because the planet is going to cook us is clearly suffering from head-in-the-sandism and should be publicly ridiculed until they convert. And all Republicans think rape is a gift of God, and that women can just not get pregnant if they don't want to. There are no foolish Democrats.

Both sides are bad so vote Republican.

...Both sides are bad so vote Democrat?

Hey, the Republicans have done a lot of bad things to this country too. But ask yourself this: if one group of people wants to take more of your money and make more decisions for you, and the other party wants to let you keep more money and make more of your own decisions, which one is less evil? Which one wants to control your life more?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

Complain about the size of government while increasing it.

How is placing more restrictions on the government's power increasing its size?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

I'm not making logical fallacies, I'm asking questions to prove a point. One side says it wants to require the EPA to disclose the science it uses to justify its regulations. The other side says that's not a good idea, that we should just trust them. My question is to prompt them: If they are not saying that the EPA should be allowed to base its regulations on non- or secret-science, then what are they saying? That is, besides mindless anti-Republican ranting.

No, no one is advocating that the EPA should be able to issue regs based on non science.

Then what are they advocating? That the EPA can keep its justifications secret? That we should just trust them? Or that it's a Republican-sponsored bill, and therefore must be bad, so the Democrats should write their own version, and then it'll be okay?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

"whackjobs", "deniers," "That makes it automatically suspect..."

The irony is so heavy, man. Can you even write one comment without using ad hominems, labeling, well-poisoning, and name-calling?

And you say they should be automatically suspect.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[AK Marc]

Because the person that restricts the government is the government. Regulating the government with new regulations is "big government" as much as government regulating private corps.

"big" isn't solely about power, but the sheer size for the EPA to be constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation will cost much more than using scientific consensus.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

The majority of people I disagree with disagree with me, so why wouldn't the sane default position be to distrust any of their bills concerning science? I'm clearly the only sane one, so my ideas should be the default, and the burden of proof should always be on them. ...Wait, you believe what? You're one of those whackjobs! LOL, hey everyone, look at what this guy thinks!

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

My perception is that the EPA is already open, honest and scientific and enacting this law would just place an extra burden on them that would just result in unnecessary bureaucratic waste. (And I'm not saying the EPA is perfect but over the years the good they've done is at least an order of magnitude greater than any problems they've caused.)

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

I trust science.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Immerman]

>What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

They are absolutely correct - to the best of our understanding it may already be too late to maintain the basic climate we've enjoyed for the last several thousand years, and *every* *single* day we avoid fixing the problem the more drastic the permanent changes are going to be, and the more traumatic and expensive the transition is going to be.

>What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
Right. This time is something different - the rising CO2 levels are the forcing factor this time, rather than just being a part of the positive feedback system. That actually tells us that once things get past a certain point the CO2 levels will probably quickly snowball out of control as the "usual" natural feedback takes over. If you want the run down I can give you some of the basics, but it's getting late right now.

>What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?
It should terrify you. Because it means that there's nothing "normal" about the climate that human civilization developed in, it's just a nice self-reinforcing "comfy spot" the climate settled into for a while, until the next traumatic event shakes things up again. And there's pretty much always a traumatic event that changes things up - cosmic ray burst, asteroid impact, *something* throws the ecosystem severely out of balance and then everything goes to hell for a few thousand years while most of the species on the planet go extinct, until eventually a new stable ecosystem emerges. This time it appears the traumatic event is to be us, most recently by pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere millions of years ahead of the normal geologic carbon-cycle schedule. And if we succeed in pushing things off the cliff it may be thousands of years before this planet has an ecosystem whose health is even remotely comparable to even the present situation, as battle-scarred as it is. And what exactly do you think will happen to geopolitics if we suddenly lower the population the planet can support from the 5-10 billion of present estimates, to only a few hundred million? Even if it takes a few centuries things will get ugly - the sort of ugly that promises that even in the best-case scenario your great-great-grandkids are likely to be a lot worse off than you are, assuming you're one of the lucky few who's gene-line survives the cull.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Kavafy]

So what's your point?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

No, those who restrict the Government are the People. The Government doesn't govern itself; the Government governs the People, and the People authorize the Government.

Regulating the government with new regulations is "big government"

That is simply illogical. Reducing the government's power is not big government; it's the opposite. That's the whole point.

the sheer size for the EPA to be constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation will cost much more than using scientific consensus.

This is a false dichotomy. Who said the EPA would have to be "constantly running billions of dollars of research to justify ever proposed regulation"? This is about forcing the EPA to disclose its research rather than keeping it secret. You're making up objections based on pure speculation and exaggeration. Try being honest.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

...Are you so dense? The point is that the AC was either lying or lacks critical thinking skills. Either he knows those media sources are extremely biased, or he's so gullible he fell for it. This is simply more of liberal media's smear campaign against conservatives. What's sad is that so many people fall for it.

What's your point?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

>What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

They are absolutely correct - to the best of our understanding it may already be too late to maintain the basic climate we've enjoyed for the last several thousand years, and *every* *single* day we avoid fixing the problem the more drastic the permanent changes are going to be, and the more traumatic and expensive the transition is going to be.

This is alarmism and panic and Chicken Little at its finest. You've convinced yourself that you understand something as enormous and complex as the earth's climate and ecosystems over an enormous time scale so well that you are certain you know what's going to happen far into the future. Human arrogance doesn't get much bigger than this. The earth is amazingly adaptable and flexible, and so are its ecosystems and inhabitants. No doubt, the weather will be the weather, i.e. always changing. That doesn't mean we're all going to die--I mean, we are all going to die, because that's what humans do, but you know what I mean. :p

>What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
Right. This time is something different - the rising CO2 levels are the forcing factor this time, rather than just being a part of the positive feedback system. That actually tells us that once things get past a certain point the CO2 levels will probably quickly snowball out of control as the "usual" natural feedback takes over. If you want the run down I can give you some of the basics, but it's getting late right now.

Do you hear yourself? "Yeah, yeah, but that's not how it's working this time. This time we're all DOOMED! It's about to SNOWBALL OUT OF CONTROL! It's over folks!" I can't help but wonder what your motives are.

>What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?

It should terrify you.

No, it really shouldn't. For one thing, if the climate were to go nuts, we'd all be dead long before that happened. For another, we're far, far more likely to die of a million other things than climate change. For another--and this is probably more important than any other point--the earth and its systems are enormous. The CO2 that humans emit is only a tiny fraction of what the oceans emit. But we--well, some of us--think that we have such an enormous impact on the global climate. We are tiny and pathetic compared to the earth and all of its many parts. You really give humans far too much credit. But the bottom line is that the numbers tell the true story: humans have a miniscule, if any, effect on the climate.

Because it means that there's nothing "normal" about the climate that human civilization developed in, it's just a nice self-reinforcing "comfy spot" the climate settled into for a while, until the next traumatic event shakes things up again. And there's pretty much always a traumatic event that changes things up - cosmic ray burst, asteroid impact, *something* throws the ecosystem severely out of balance and then everything goes to hell for a few thousand years while most of the species on the planet go extinct, until eventually a new stable ecosystem emerges. This time it appears the traumatic event is to be us, most recently by pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere millions of years ahead of the normal geologic carbon-cycle schedule.

Your logic is simply flawed. It's like saying, "He's been in a slump for 8 games, so he's due for a hit any at-bat now." And it's really just silly that you would compare a catastrophic, unpredictable event like a large asteroid impact to human beings' putting out a sma

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

You might be right about all you said. But I still don't see how requiring the government to disclose to the People the information it uses to justify its regulations could possibly be a bad thing, except for people who want to enact unwise, unfair, damaging regulations that benefit special interests. How do you justify secrecy? This isn't a matter of national security.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

...What's your point? And who is "science," and why do you trust him?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Kavafy]

What does any of this have to do with asking fractions of a question?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[AK Marc]

No, those who restrict the Government are the People. The Government doesn't govern itself; the Government governs the People, and the People authorize the Government.

Not when you make an over-arching organization, then place restrictions on it that can only be enforced by other parts/pieces of the government.

How do the people restrict the government? If the government oversteps NSA, how does a person do anything about it? Go call a government representative and ask them to spend government money investigating it? Or wait for the next election and vote in people who promise change?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

When the legislative representatives of the People place restrictions on the Executive branch, that's the People restricting the Government. That's really quite simple to understand.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[gottabeme]

What did you do with your sense of humor?

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

Science is a systematic and self correcting enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. I trust science because it is self correcting has shown itself to expand our knowledge in ways that enhance our lives. Occasionally scientists make errors and promulgate bad science but since it's not possible to prevent others from repeating the research sooner or later the bad science gets corrected.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[riverat1]

If I'm right about what I said then the information is already being disclosed and it's an unnecessary law that wastes time and money.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[AK Marc]

And that restriction is adding more process and people to the Executive branch to comply. That's bigger government through "small government" legislation.

Re: "Not Reproduclibe"

[Kavafy]

Talking crap isn't automatically funny. Sad day for you!

wait what?

[ganjadude]

This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me

Re:wait what?

[mellon]

It's a great idea, as long as a willful failure to reproduce the results doesn't qualify as "not reproducible." And of course, it also means that a lot of work that is not being done now will have to be done—there's been a push in the sciences to do a better job of publishing code used to arrive at results, but this is by no means a complete success at this juncture. So the effect of this at present would probably be to prevent the EPA making any rules at all. And of course, I'm sure the Republicans have no intention of increasing science funding to account for the additional work that will be required, and the studies that will have to be re-done, and the code that will have to be rewritten.

So yes, this could be a good thing; nevertheless, I smell a rat.

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.

The bottom line is that no rule can make government work better. For government to work better, the people implementing the rules have to be smart and have good intentions, and there has to be criticism. If you just pass a rule, but don't hire the right people, it's garbage in, garbage out. And we are the hiring manager, much though we might wish to pretend that it's "the corporations" or "the libruls" or whatever. The buck has to stop here.

Re:wait what?

[c0lo]

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated.

"Proven harmful" is even mild in comparison with "reproducible harmful". There are lots of things one can never hope to reproduce empirically: can you really reproduce an earthquake (if you can't control it, how can you hope to reproduce it)? Or the effect of variating CO2 percentage on Earth's climate? (yes, you can observe it, but not reproduce it, there's only one Earth to stand as experimental subject)

Re:wait what?

[penix1]

Maybe all these dick-cheeses that are trying to hamstring the EPA should spend a couple weeks in Charleston, WV during the height of the chemical spill. Maybe we should ship them all the bottled water from the Elk River for their enjoyment.

Sorry for the snark but having lived through this ongoing drama and having to bird bath for a week using bottled water because these asshats prefer money over health is getting to me.

Re:wait what?

[Joce640k]

This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me

It's aimed specifically at the EPA and it's designed so they can basically block anything they don't like.

Remember how nobody could *prove* that smoking causes cancer? That's the way this is going to go...

Re:wait what?

[Joce640k]

I smell a rat.

Yep. Proving things is harmful in a complex system can be almost impossible. eg. They couldn't prove that smoking causes cancer, but was there any real doubt?

This is just designed so they can stonewall anything the EPA proposes.

Re:wait what?

[drinkypoo]

At a glance I'd guess it's an impending all-time classic backfire. They think it's going to let them shit on climate science but instead it will shit on everything they propose

Re:wait what?

[Rob the Bold]

This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me

Ordinary laws get boring names. The crazier the legislation, the more likely it'll be named something interesting-sounding that implies the opposite of what it does. Like "USA Patriot act".

Re:wait what?

[Charliemopps]

This is a bill coming from the GOP??? and its pro transparent science?? Color me skeptical, but this looks like a good idea to me

It is, someone was thinking, and used the GOPs conspiracy theories to gain some traction on a legitimate piece of legislation. You can tell who the ideologs are here by all the leftists trying to shoot it down out of the gate just because it came from the republicans. This is the problem with a 2 party system.

Re:wait what?

[NatasRevol]

All CEOs and their families should have to live down wind/stream/field of their plants/facilities.

I guarantee that would have more effect than any regulations.

Re:wait what?

[Sponge Bath]

...spend a couple weeks in Charleston, WV during the height of the chemical spill.

Or stay in a Sochi hotel.

Re:wait what?

[pepty]

They are absolutely not going to propose or allow the same standard to be applied when it comes to bills on other medical or social issues, such as provision of health care, abortion laws, regulation of marriage or adoption, etc.

Re:wait what?

[tomhath]

This is a bill coming from the GOP???

In general, Conservatives try to minimize government intrusion and control of our lives. So this type of bill would have to come from that side of the aisle.

Liberals (a.k.a.Progressives) would push for more control without requiring justification or checks and balances - which is exactly the problem with the EPA in the current administration. They're pushing a political agenda through executive mandate rather than enforcing laws passed by Congress.

Re:wait what?

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you READ the linked bill? It is one page and amazingly easy to understand. Go read it and then come back and tell us what it says that is crazy.

Re:wait what?

[Attila Dimedici]

Or maybe we should leave to the government of West Virginia, which is answerable to the people of West Virginia (you know, the people who suffered as a result of the chemical spill), handle these problems?

Re:wait what?

[Attila Dimedici]

Really? Did you read the law, it is linked in the summary and is about three, widely-spaced, pages long. It is not hard to read, and the language is pretty clear. Please quote the portion that does something different than the sponsors of the bill says it does.

Re:wait what?

[sumdumass]

Nothing prevented the EPA from regulating the chemical spill in question and in fact, the EPA has not proposed any additional regulation since and has failed to provide regulation for a similar incident a few years earlier.

The chemical spill wasn't a problem of no or lacking regulation, it was a problem with failed enforcement of regulation and failing to maintain equipment and follow laws for reporting spills. No amount of hamstringing would have enabled or prevented or changed what happened in Charleston. Enforcement of existing regulation certainly might have though.

Re:wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. This is more legislation from the Oil & Gas industry to stop, before it really starts, any rules that might stop fracking from becoming more prevalent if damaging evidence comes to light. In short, this will hamstring the EPA when peoples water starts smelling, tasting, and looking funny because the of the fracking going on in an area. And more importantly, when that water, ultimately becomes undrinkable. It will kill any and all investigation by the EPA into said events that could be used in civil or criminal legal proceedings. In short, the Oil & Gas will get a legislated free pass for the unknown effects that all fracking has on areas it has yet to be done in, and all areas it presently operates in.

Personally, I recently moved from Texas to get away from fracking. They recently started planning it in my former area. Not too close, maybe 15-20 miles out, but I knew it was coming long before that. Sure there are loads of oil wells, but fracking is a different beast. And being from Texas, if you're necessarily against it, almost everyone looks at you if you're a freaking alien if you voice that opinion.

Yes, I know how fracking works. But between patented protected chemicals, the lack of transparency from Oil & Gas on it in general, and lack of 3D modeling for fracking an area against water source depths and risk assessments, I'm not a supporter. Also, if they used non-potable water, rather than potable, I'd also be only slightly less against it. Texas isn't exactly a water rich state!

Re:wait what?

[sumdumass]

Remember how nobody could *prove* that smoking causes cancer? That's the way this is going to go...

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases your risks of getting cancer but all cancer linked to smoking also happens naturally without smoking. The differences are the likelihood of getting it. Less than 10 percent of life long smokers will ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking.

Now smoking does _cause_ some health problems and the increased _risk_ of cancer is probably something you shouldn't take lightly. Perhaps if this bill does make it into law, it would stop misconstrued facts from becoming known axioms.

Re:wait what?

[gottabeme]

Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.

Neither extreme is reasonable or wise. Some people think that radio waves are cooking our brains and causing cancer. Should the EPA outlaw cell phones because "it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem"? Or should it base its regulations on scientific studies and reasonable evidence?

If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window. We need to advocate intelligence and wisdom, not dogmatic, arbitrary rules.

Leave it to--well, I was going to say "Slashdot," but I'll just go with "the Internet"--to simultaneously complain about anti-science "denialists" and pro-science "Republicans." Their true colors are showing.

Re:wait what?

[Burz]

IOW, precaution would be outlawed by the bill. You can't "prove" a climate catastrophe could occur because a scientist didn't wreck the actual climate in an experiment.

This is actually an old denier canard, now trying to become a law.

Re:wait what?

[gottabeme]

Maybe instead of making dogmatic rules that hamstring either the EPA or everyone else, we need to make rules that get rid of the idiots who make stupid decisions like the ones that affected you.

Re:wait what?

[gottabeme]

Well, more accurately, it's the problem with idiots, or more simply, with humanity.

Re:wait what?

[sumdumass]

Are you suggesting that everyone in car crash dies?

Of course car crashes do not cause death- it is the injuries sustained from them. I have never heard of a car crash being listed as the cause of death on any death certificate or coroners report.

Re:wait what?

[Curunir_wolf]

If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window.

Exactly right. There is no justification for using the precautionary principle unless you just don't have enough empirical evidence to support your agenda - and that's precisely the reason the precautionary principle was contrived in the first place. It turns the burden of proof up-side-down. It is inherently anti-science.

Re:wait what?

[Mashiki]

Considering that in the last batch of laws that was passed, there was 60k pages of regulations, half of which were from the EPA? I'd say that anti-EPA at this point is just fine. Where laws wouldn't pass, it's become the domain of "regulations" to fuck everyone over.

Re:wait what?

[penix1]

Ah... Local Government can NEVER be swayed...

Here, let me help you...

From: https://docs.google.com/file/d...

In West Virginia, the vigor with which agencies seek to protect human health and the environment is impacted by actions and statements by state leaders. In recent years, their tone has been clear - too much regulation and too much involvement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Any serious recognition of the link between protecting a healthy, diversified economy appears lost in these statements.

Leaders have made numerous public statements to the effect, for example, in a 2012 press release announcing that the state is moving forward with its lawsuit against USEPA, Governor Tomblin is quoted das stating:

"This lawsuit is about the rights of our state to regulate itself within the scope of the existing federal and state laws. The EPA has overstepped its bounds, taken that right away and we're fighting to get it back." (Office of the Governor, 2012).

The Attorney General commented on West Virginia's lawsuit against USEPA for its enforcement of the Clean Water Act against a coal mine:

"At its essence, this lawsuit is about jobs in West Virginia and elsewhere... But this case is about more than coal mining. It's about the ability of states such as West Virginia to be able to engage and promote economic development, highway construction, and other needed investments without fearing a federal agency will step in years later and halt the project. That is why we strongly support Mingo Logan Caol Co's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court." (Office of the Attorney General, 2013).

In 2009, before a subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on Environmenta & {Public Works, the [West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection] WVDEP Cabinet Secretary turned the role of the agency upside-down, stating that the "greater concern" for WVDEP is not protecting human health and the environment, but limiting regulation:

"Coal production is the leading revenue generator in West Virginia, and many in the State are concerned about losing the oppertunities for future economic developemtn associated with mountaintop mining. The greater concern for the Department of Environmental Protection, however, as protector of the State's wate resources, is the unintended consequences of the Environmental Protection Agency's recent actions that have the potential to significantly limit all types of mining." (Huffman, 2009)

When confronted by protestors asking Governor Tomblin to better prepare for a decline in coal production in West Virginia, he chose not to meet with the protestors and, instead, issued a statement via his communications director:

"Governor Tomblin has been clear, as have several federal judges, on the overreaching demands of the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] from this administration... Governor Tomblin's primary focus has always been job creation... Governor Tomblin believes strongly that West Virginia coal and natural gas play a critical role in energy independence - and he will continue to fight for those industires and the jobs they create." (Ward, 2012)

It is within this context that the Freedom Industires spill must be understood - elected officials, agency heads, and members of the Legislature have made it clear that protecting human health and the environment will take a back seat to supporting lax regulation of industry.

So don't tell me that local politics is better than federal. It is far easier to sway local politics when corporations threaten the politicians that they will "lose jobs!" if they are regulated at all much less the little regulation the feds have now.

Re:wait what?

[ganjadude]

funny thing is they have been telling the republicans for 5 years now that they are evil and unwilling to work with the other side.

now a common sense approach, and the democrats and leftists are all up in arms over the ....1 page... easily readable bill

Re:wait what?

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, and then the people of West Virginia can decide if the consequences of the regulation are of greater loss to them than the consequences of lack of regulation. You see the difference is that it is the people who suffer the consequences either way who ought to be deciding, not people hundreds and more miles away who suffer little or no harm either way. They still hold elections in West Virginia. You know, sometimes people make bad choices, but they should be free to do so, because it is very hard for someone else to truly know what decision will lead to the greatest happiness for someone else.

Re:wait what?

[penix1]

So you are saying that the generation today can fuck up the environment for generations to come??? That what happens in West Virginia is going to stay in West Virginia? That is what you are advocating. The condemnation of future generations isn't for this generation to decide all in the name of the all mighty dollar. It is short sighted, arrogant to the max and down right wrong. When the future of the state is at risk due to that shortsightedness, it is up to the feds to provide the will that is lacking in the states. If for no other reason than to keep it from spreading to surrounding states like this spill did. That is why you need the feds to step in.

And reacting in 2014, the next election cycle, does nothing for the people who were affected by this spill now. The damage is done not only to WV but to KY, OH, VA and everyone else down stream. What about their say in it?

Re:wait what?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you seem to think that a bigger, less responsive government is more likely to care for the environment more than a level of government that has to actually live with the consequences. That people who will be only minimally effected by the results of what happens are more likely to make the best decision for the future than the people whose children will have to live with the results? Wow, I just don't know what world you live in, but it is not the world I have experienced. My experience is that the people who must deal with the consequences of an action are the ones most likely to make the best decisions about that action.

Re:wait what?

[penix1]

You need to re-read that link you provided. It blasts both the EPA & OSHA but not nearly as much as the WVDEP. The problems at EPA & OSHA can be partially attributed to cutbacks in federal spending and leaving vacant positions unfilled. It is tough for 1 inspector to fully inspect 7 states worth of industries.

Also, this spill, unlike the others, wasn't required to be inspected due to loopholes the industry saw was in place in state law. That is the trick of the feds. If a law is more restrictive in a state than federal law then the feds have to abide by the strictest interpretation of the law. WV's law in many ways is more strict than federal. The problem is the state lacks the will to follow it as was pointed out in that article.

Re:wait what?

[sumdumass]

You need to re-read that link you provided. It blasts both the EPA & OSHA but not nearly as much as the WVDEP. The problems at EPA & OSHA can be partially attributed to cutbacks in federal spending and leaving vacant positions unfilled. It is tough for 1 inspector to fully inspect 7 states worth of industries.

Perhaps you should reread the post and do a little investigation yourself. MCHM is not even part of the Superfund chemical lists the EPA is mandating reportable quantities for. They do not have any jurisdiction over the chemical or the spill outside of cleanup. The article specifically mentions a couple of WV DEP investigators showed up and asked to tour the company. And yes, the article is critical of the EPA and OSHA, but the problem wasn't with either of them, the company didn't consider the spill a problem and failed to report it. Without the EPA or WVDEP inspecting the site, the problem would have remained the exact same- improperly maintained equipment and failing to report a spill- and the spill would have happened anyways.

Also, this spill, unlike the others, wasn't required to be inspected due to loopholes the industry saw was in place in state law.

What exact loopholes are those? Most companies do not get inspected simply because no one bothers inspecting them and no one is going to change that. No regulation imposed by the EPA can make anything different until the regulating agencies actually put the effort in. It would take an act of congress to get this and other chemicals listed under the EPA's jurisdiction. That is no loophole, that is simply law.

That is the trick of the feds. If a law is more restrictive in a state than federal law then the feds have to abide by the strictest interpretation of the law. WV's law in many ways is more strict than federal.

No, that is not any trick. WV's laws may have have been more strict but nothing prevented the EPA from inspecting to ensure minimum federal guidelines where applicable and reporting violations of WV's requirements. Furthermore, that sort of misses the entire issue as the company failed to report the spill which allowed the spill to breach the containment devices and flow into the river. If the company in question is not going to maintain their equipment and report spills, no amount of additional "We will make this regulation" is going to change that. It's like those idiots who think we need tougher penalties for people who murder someone in order to deter murdering someone when all it does is create a Circus when putting them on trial as you cannot give the death sentence more then once and no matter how many life terms someone is sentenced to, they can only serve one. The bottom line is a law wasn't followed, no agency caught it until it was too late, and employees as well as management turned a blind eye to the entire thing until the chemical surfaced in the drinking water.

Suddenly the opinion of the people matters?

[Opportunist]

90% of the Americans think it's a good idea so we should do it? Ask them about their opinion about bailouts, I guess you get a similar result for NO FUCKIN' WAY.

But aside of that, wouldn't that make it kinda hard to push intelligent design and other bull that's kinda hard to prove because "a wizard did it" isn't quite scientific?

Re:Suddenly the opinion of the people matters?

[BonThomme]

or ask how many believe in astrology...

Re:Suddenly the opinion of the people matters?

[gottabeme]

As far as I know, the EPA doesn't regulate people's beliefs about the origin of the universe.

Let's require this for ALL laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think that this should be required for ALL laws. Every law should be justified, and should not rely on secret justifications or justifications that cannot be confirmed.

The GOP War on Science marches on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmental policy should be based on science and common sense. I would suggest we propose a similar criteria for a bill that regulates what may be taught to children: creationism or evolution. We can teach either one as long as all "scientific and technical information" is disclosed beforehand.

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[ganjadude]

why would you start this thread with "the GOP war on science marches on" when it is the GOP who is trying to bring transparency to science? In fact I believe this bill would in fact be used to stop ID from going further. I wonder if they didnt think that through

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[Oligonicella]

The entire point of science is reproducibility.

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would put a stop to "Evolutionism". Try reproducing the evolution of humans from apes. Or any of the weird other things constituting our current world. You don't have the starting point, you don't have the necessary time, and the results will be entirely different each time anyway.

In contrast, the conclusions of "Intelligent Design" are perfectly reproducible: you come to the same conclusions each time.

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[pepty]

It would put a stop to basing EPA laws on human medical science, since you would have to get everyone whose medical records were used in the study (or their estates) to make their records public. That's what the GOP is asking for:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/publ...

Re:The GOP War on Science marches on.

[sumdumass]

So you are saying that you or science can mutate an ape into a human?

What you are missing here is that saying God did it would actually require God to do it again in order to be reproducible. If you are going to accept God did it as a conclusion for reproducibility, then evolutionism shares no fear as you just state the equivalent of I said so also.

I think the problem you might be experiencing here is not fear of creation but fear of pet causes not being cast into laws because the science behind it is more wishful thinking then facts based evidence. So lets not trot fallacies about creation and I.D. out in order to protect your sacred cows.

Well

[The Cat]

Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.

Re:Well

[ebno-10db]

Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.

In other words, here's hoping the dupes fall for it.

What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose? Yeah, I can't think of any either. Nor have I ever heard of opponents of an EPA policy criticize it on the grounds that the EPA hasn't disclosed relevant scientific information.

This is a "think of the children" type of bill. Tout something that everybody agrees is desirable, and slip your agenda into the fine print. What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?

Re:Well

[PRMan]

So, you support a view the creation/evolution debate under the same standards? Or do you want to continue the current censorship?

Re:Well

[Rob the Bold]

Here's hoping people will look past their pet political stereotypes and commend those who defend fact-based science in pursuit of better legislation and governance.

Now that's funny.

Re:Well

[JimSadler]

Scientific method requires complete reproduce ability. Yet we crossed an invisible threshold in chemistry when certain reactions were found to follow different paths even though tight control of variables was in play. The idea that reaction A could yield result a,b or c sort of forced a rethink on scientific method. And then we have sciences like astronomy where controlled proofs simply can not take place. Astronomy relies upon observations and reasoning rather than experimentation as a rule. Yet astronomy is a real science.

Re:Well

[gottabeme]

What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?

Why don't you go read it and find out?

Or you could keep ranting and praising our glorious EPA who would never do anything wrong and must be trusted unequivocally to the point of not requiring them to base regulations with enormous economic and environmental and human impact on actual, reproducible science.

There's definitely no way that you're the dupe.

Re:Well

[FCAdcock]

What scientific information doesn't the EPA disclose?

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

There you go. Answered.

Re:Well

[fermion]

I certainly would hope that this standard would be applied to all parts of government, and in particular that congresspeople would model this standard by not only making claims that are supported by multiple reproducible studies For instance Boehner smokes and defends smoking even though all science states that he should not. Most of the sponsors of this bill probably thinks climate change is not a human induced thing, even though the majority of reproducible science shows it is. Most medical trials are barely science, funded by the companies who will profit off them, ghostwritten by unethical researches for pay, yer we still allow drugs we know are probably dangerous to enter the market, some to treat trivial conditions like a mild case of acne.

Re:Well

[Nimey]

Nor have I ever heard of opponents of an EPA policy criticize it on the grounds that the EPA hasn't disclosed relevant scientific information.

Not since the end of the Bush II Administration, at least. Bush the Lesser's policy was to quash science that disagreed with his politics, and this included pollution controls.

Re:Well

[error_logic]

Grandparent is just voicing caution, same as you. There are heated interests and reasons for caution on both sides.

Re:Well

[gzuckier]

the people who deny global warming, evolution, etc all have plenty of science to trot out for you to defend their positions, they can't understand why you're ignoring it.
you can't educate the crazy out of somebody.

Color me skeptical

[ThisIsSaei2561]

The purpose of laws is almost always separate from the selling points used to sell it. So, even if the bill seems to have good method (i.e. making information public), the intention is purely partisan, and the use will be similarly malicious.

Transparency I agree with

[Ronin Developer]

I have to agree that when public policy is to made, the information should be disclosed and an open period of debate and review should follow. If this review is actually performed by other qualified scientists in the field vs politicians who understand the laws of nature do not change on a whim and not by 'historical' scientists and explain the findings to the politicians in terms they can understand, it's a good thing. However, to call it a far- left agenda shows the partisan nature of the bill. Sounds like Bill NYE upset the far-rights mindset....maybe for the better this time.

Let's break gov't

[SwampApe]

The real purpose is to bog down the agency with these requirements so that nothing ever gets done.

Re:Let's break gov't

[gottabeme]

That's basically the purpose of our entire structure of government, to prevent any one part of it from assuming too much power and doing too much damage. Our government is based on the fundamental distrust of people in power and government in general. And the result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'm mystified as to why people nowadays want to go the opposite direction, why they suddenly believe government knows best--government that is run by people as messed up as everyone else on the planet.

This kills environmental protection dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change is not reproducible by its very nature (we'd be happy if we could rewind it). Likewise any permanent change is not reproducible since it it terminal.

So this bill is putting a stop to any regulation that would prevent irreversible changes.

Re:This kills environmental protection dead

[satch89450]

Does it? Really? I don't think so. It isn't "government regulaton" that is driving my desire to replace incandescent light bulbs with LEDs -- it's the long-term cost savings and the elimination of bulb-changing hassles. I shun CFLs because they represent a hazard to the environment I live in, so out they go. My shift is driven by market forces, not by rules enforced with the working end of a gun.

What the new proposed law does, as I see it, is slow down the rate of rule-making to something approaching sanity. The new rules and regulations are coming so fast and furiously that keeping up with them is a full-time job in and of itself.

SCIENCE is all about showing your work, and having others verify that the work is accurate. When the raw data is labelled "proprietary" or the analysis methods "trade secrets", yet the summary of that data/analysis is presented as justification to force changes on people, that's not a good use of science. Indeed, it's bad government.

To add to the problem of climate "science", there is quite a bit of elitism applied to the judgements of articles -- if you aren't a member of the "club" you are not allowed to play. This has led to some very interesting criticism of contrary work on non-scientific grounds. That's what feeds my skepticism of the "crisis". When a non-environmentalist criticism of the models used to "measure climate change" (remember when the mantra was "measure global warming"?) leads to a knee-jerk "he doesn't know what he's talking about," I cringe.

I personally witnessed what open, transparent science can do. The clean-up of Lake Michigan was based on transparent science, and carefully-considered enforcement against those who polluted the waters. No esoteric regulations, just prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt science. Effective.

If you think things should change, find a way -- other than regulation or other use of violence -- to move people to less harmful activities. Make it part of their self-interest to do so. You don't need government to make a difference.

Re:This kills environmental protection dead

[BonThomme]

you sure it wasn't the masturbation?

Re:This kills environmental protection dead

[riverat1]

What is not reproducible in climate science is the raw data, the temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, etc. You've got one shot to collect that. But everything beyond that is reproducible.

Re:This kills environmental protection dead

[riverat1]

Climate model are not used to measure climate change. The weather stations and satellites do a fine job of that. They are used to test our understanding of how the climate works. BTW, the term "climate change" was used at least as far back as 1970.

Presentation

[haydensdaddy]

As usual, it's not about the message. The message is a good idea. It's the constantly confrontational attitude that makes everyone roll their eyes at the GOP and not take them seriously.

This sounds like a ruse.

[Above]

"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

That quote is not the same attitude that would come from someone who is looking for solid, reproducible science. I believe most of the people who are strong supporters of solid, transparent, reproducible science would actually say the EPA has been near toothless, not overbearing. For example West Virginia chemical spill that contaminated the Kanawha/Ohio/Mississippi and the drinking water for millions and yet the company was allowed to store the chemical right next to the river with nearly zero monitoring or oversight. Another would be fracking, for which there is ample evidence of ground water contamination, and it causing earthquakes, and yet "full speed ahead!".

No, this is a bureaucratic trick, often used in Washington, so let's translate:

• Transparent - prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go! You can imagine GOP friendly companies (like those run by the Koch brothers) would do studies and then prevent them from being published just to gum up the works.
• Reproducible - In it's most benign form this is a delaying tactic. Perhaps everyone agrees on the science, but until it can be "reproduced" regulations can be delayed. There will be calls for private industry to reproduce findings when there is no (business) reason for them to do so, and then their lack of action will be used to gum up the works. However, in a more malignant form GOP friendly companies will do bad science on purpose, and attempt to question the validity of EPA findings. It's easy to imagine again 10 studies that all agree, and then right as the regulation comes to pass some bad science pseudo-report being released that calls into question the "reproducibility" of the science.

The tactic is alive right in the promotion of the bill. The "Institute for Energy Research" turns out to be a lobbying group run by an ex-Enron director, funded by ExxonMobile and the Koch brothers. As a result I think you can see the sort of transparent, reproducible "science" that will be in play here, starting with the "2013 poll from the Institute of Energy Research" used to back up this bill.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Attila Dimedici]

prohibit the EPA's administrator from proposing or finalizing any rules unless he or she also discloses "all scientific and technical information" relied on by the agency. The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government. The government does not, in all cases, have the rights to republish. The standard being set is all, so if the EPA finds 10 studies on something, all of which agree it's very, very bad, but can only publish 9 out of 10, it's no go!

No, it means that the EPA can only rely on those 9 studies. If it takes the 10th study, which they cannot disclose, to make the case for the regulation, they cannot make the regulation. When they are challenged in court, they cannot say, "Yes, these 9 studies leave the question open, but the 10th study (which we cannot allow you to view) proves that this regulation is necessary." What it means is that if the EPA makes a regulation, independent scientists need to be able to look at the science it is based on and determine if it is sound science. While it can be misused, you seem to be satisfied with regulations being based on, "Trust us, we're with the government."

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[rtb144]

If you think the EPA is toothless, you are ignorant or living in a fantasy world. It is anything but toothless.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[funwithBSD]

The only problem? Much of that data is not owned by the government. It's studies and reports made by private businesses and provided to the government.

Don't think so Above. Quite easily found with a Google:

"Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.

For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publicly available."

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Burz]

No. It means the emails of climate researchers and referenced private medical records have to be put in the public domain. Also, I recall from the climate "controversy" that a good deal of temperature data is owned by private institutions. It might even lead to the requirement that environmental studies can be published behind a paywall.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Attila Dimedici]

Are you saying that it is a bad thing for government regulations to be based on information which the public can actually examine so as to determine whether it actually justifies the regulations?
I understand, and have no problem with, a scientist doing research based on information which they cannot release to the public. However, when they start to use that as a basis for regulating MY behavior, I want to see the evidence behind their claims. It is one thing to say, "You should change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." and another to say, "You are required by law to change your behavior because we have this study which shows that behavior is bad, but we cannot show you the evidence because of an NDA." In the former case, I can decide whether or not I trust the scientist in question enough to change my behavior. In the latter case, I do not have a choice in the matter. This is especially true when the regulation in question seems to fulfill some people's long standing goals, goals which were established long before the study, which I cannot examine, was conducted.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Above]

I want to be very clear on this, the world is much grayer than this bill, or the terms at hand would indicate.

Science has almost ways been published behind paywalls. Prior to the internet it was published in journals, which at the most basic level someone had to subscribe to in order to get a copy. I'm sure the youngins on here don't remember Magazines, but they were a big deal for a long time. Even when not, often times you had to pay to copy, you can show up at the Government Printing Office and get a copy of all sorts of studies, government records, and the like: for a fee.

So there's a continuum of access, here are some interesting points along it:

• Source won't release the data to anyone.
• Source charges $1,000,000 a copy for the report.
• Source charges $500 for a copy of the report.
• Source charges $5 for a copy of the report.
• Source publishes the report in a magazine that can be purchased for $1.99.
• Source publishes the report online, for free.

Clearly the first one isn't open access, and clearly the last one is, but where is the line? There is some de-minimis burden that is acceptable for it to still be "publicly available science". By attempting to set a standard of "free and open" it's an attempt to push people to the last line item, where the costs are all borne by the researcher. Imagine someone doing good research on an important topic, only to spend the next years battling hackers and DDoS'ers online trying to take down the work, all on their own expense? Crazy. That's part of why publishing in journals, all of which cost money, is the accepted method.

To directly answer your question, I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public, the difference is I am ok with it being via paywalls with de-minimis fees. If I have to go buy a copy of a journal to find out the science, I think that's ok.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Attila Dimedici]

So, it's OK with you that the EPA is making regulations on the basis of scientific studies(or at least which they claim are based on those studies) which they refuse to provide to Congress?

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Oligonicella]

"I do believe that any science the EPA uses should be available to the general public" His quote.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Attila Dimedici]

Then he should support the bill, since the impetus behind this bill was the refusal of the EPA to provide Congress with the science behind its latest change in regulations under the Clean Air Act.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[celle]

"What it means is that if the EPA makes a regulation, independent scientists need to be able to look at the science it is based on and determine if it is sound science. While it can be misused, you seem to be satisfied with regulations being based on, "Trust us, we're with the government.""

      As opposed to "Trust us, we're industry". Which (government or industry) do you think would sell out their mother for a dollar?

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Burz]

Its completely understandable that you want to see the information. So do I. But scientific inquiry is already considered to be a contentious and 'open' sphere. The question is whether 'open' is being twisted into an absurd extreme, to the point where climate deniers are constantly looking over climate researchers' shoulders, for instance. That wasn't tenable in 2009 with so-called 'climategate', nor will it ever be.

Remember the deniers' insistence on "proof"? There is nothing that can be proven in science the way these hecklers want it. We don't have spare Earths to use as laboratories.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[Attila Dimedici]

Which (government or industry) do you think would sell out their mother for a dollar?

Both, but if you gave the government a dollar, you are overpaying. They would do it for 50 cents.

Re:This sounds like a ruse.

[BenfromMO]

The thing that always gets me:

Above is like quite a few Americans who trumpets about the evils of the Koch brothers and yet say not a word about how Soros himself spends just as much money on the other side of the argument. The EPA today in fact publishes and uses data retrieved from non-peer reviewed resources and directly from SOROS funded charities all the time. But that is no problem because people like Above agree with what Soros says and only looks to the other side. This is a two directional thing where huge rich people are yanking us the population from one side to the other. Instead of promoting one over the other, why don't we slap both the Koch's AND Soros down and stop with the politicization of science.

We can start by making sure that every citizen can analyze all the data to their heart's content. Make it readable, reproducible, and above all else easy to see the truth of what the data shows us. Why in the world is the EPA allowed in the first place to not document everything and anything? If we have any faith in our leaders, we should hope that they can sift through bad studies like the rest of us and come to the correct conclusions...because otherwise you are simply approving or disapproving of something based on your political beliefs, and that is no way to go through life my friend.

Yet another redundant, useless law

[bruce_the_moose]

This idiot congress critter has absolutely no idea how EPA regulations get written.

"Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups," says Schweikert.

He assumes the regulations get written the same way financial industry and other regulations get written, by think tanksand lobbyists (ALEC anyone?). My sister, an environmental engineer spends a great amount of time in the field collecting samples and then coming back to the lab and documenting the science that goes into developing regulations for the EPA.

"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

Which is pure, verifiable bullshit. His agenda couldn't be more plain. Like laws introduced to prohibit public funding of abortions, which is already prohibited, it's more about grandstanding and politics than anything having to do with transparency, economics, or in absolutely last place, the environment.

Re:Yet another redundant, useless law

[Rob the Bold]

I know you think so, but recently we had mold in our house. The "EPA approved" method of mold remediation was complete overkill for what was actually necessary to remove the mold. No we don't need to tear down half our house to get rid of 2 square feet of mold. We got another guy who just cut out the moldy parts and washed everything with a mold-killer, dried it and then painted it with Kilz. The mold hasn't returned and we saved over $10,000.

What part of the science says that the only way to kill mold is to tear down half my house? When in fact, it has been completely removed and has not returned for over 3 years.

Just because a guy tried so sucker you with his claimed interpretations of government regulations -- that coincidentally cost more and made more profit -- doesn't necessarily prove that the government regulations are overkill. The extra money might be a motive for him. To beat this dead horse a little more, I'm suggesting that the guy was using the old "Government regulations require this massively expensive procedure" trick. It's not new. The trick that is. To scam people.

Re:Yet another redundant, useless law

[belthize]

Couple of points.

1) EPA has no jurisdiction for mold remediation in your house so there are no regulations about how you can go about cleaning it.
2) The EPA does have a mandate to help you and they did: http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldgu... That's the first hit on googling: EPA mold remediation residential, and clicking 'who should do the cleanup'. They clearly state for less than 10 sq feet do it yourself, don't pay anyone.

You didn't even need to pay the person you eventually paid, let alone the person scamming you. Don't blame the EPA or science for your lack of awareness or ability to spend 20 seconds using google. They did what they should to help you.

Re:Yet another redundant, useless law

[ebno-10db]

Since you did it the less expensive way, has the EPA been knocking on your door? What does "EPA approved" mean anyway, EPA recommended? That's a long way from a regulation.

Re:Yet another redundant, useless law

[ebno-10db]

I can agree that business can cause some problems, but I still believe that laws should be passed through representatives and not some faceless bureaucrat who thinks he/she knows best for everyone.

Then talk to congress. They pass the laws, and can give the EPA as much or as little leeway as they want. For example, congress specifically exempted fracking from most EPA oversight (which makes me think the regulatory approach isn't so bad).

Ken Ham

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the debate between Ken Ham and Nye?

At the end, Ham said that they were using the same evidence but that the interpretations are just different. That's all. Ham is also one of the people who say that Evolution is in conflict with Faith. So, if you want to know one of the sources of all this needless conflict from the Religious Fundamentalist who are trying to teach Creationism in science class, look to him.

Science uses ALL data to come to their conclusions. Others, cherry pick and make things up in order for their "theories" to work. In Hams case, one thing he made up to discount the criticisms of the animals eating each other on Noah's Ark, he just proclaimed that obviously they were all vegetarians back then - even the lions.

Evidence for that? Nope. But it makes his "theory" valid because the Bible is The World Of God and everything is on the table to make the stories correct. And the fundies eat it up and just think "See! Science doesn't have all the answers!"

That's the mentality we're dealing with here. Folks discount the science that is pointing to the fact that these emissions are doing a lot of damage - and forgetting that emissions also cause smog and other air quality problems. This bill - if enacted into law - would open up the doors for industry to indiscriminately pollute.

I highly suspect that this bill is NOTHING but industry trying to get the EPA off their backs so that they can go back to polluting like it was 1899 again.

Re:Ken Ham

[BenfromMO]

"I highly suspect that this bill is NOTHING but industry trying to get the EPA off their backs so that they can go back to polluting like it was 1899 again." Quite an imagination from start to finish there. Science is supposed to be open, transparent, and reproducible. This bill simply makes science what it is supposed to be. Sure, if you twist things around enough any evidence will show anything, but that is no excuse for not presenting all of the information for everyone. Otherwise, you are trusting a group of people to tell you the truth and to be honest. Do you trust your fellow humans enough to ever do that? You don't seem to trust creationists, so my word of advice : assume that the people in charge of the EPA are in fact people like Ham, and act accordingly. Would you rather have all the evidence, or only that evidence which Ham wants to show you?

interesting

[DaMattster]

Having lived in Arizona, I know how politically dysfunctional it really is. I support the spirit of the bill meaning that science should be transparent but of course, this barely educated moron has to throw in a gaff at the left. It makes what would be a solid argument and makes it sound childish.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

[Doghouse13]

My first thought was that this sounds eminently sensible. My second was "Just who decides what 'reproducible' means?" My third is that it sounds like a recipe for delaying and tying up in the courts anything the far right don't like, on the grounds that there's "too much conflicting evidence and opinion" for it to pass the test. Frankly - it's a trap. Don't go there. And, just to lay my cards squarely on the table, I have no direct skin in this - I'm not a US citizen.

Same old Republican BS

[oscrivellodds]

"For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

Gee, it sounds like they are doing a lot of this sort of thing. Can you name some specific instances where this has occurred?

"Provisions in the bill are consistent with the White House's scientific integrity policy, the President's Executive Order 13563, data access provisions of major scientific journals, the Bipartisan Policy Center and the recommendations of the Obama administration's top science advisors."

Are ALL or just a few of the provisions consistent with the policy? Which provisions aren't consistent with the policy?

  "prohibit the EPA from proposing new regulations based on science that is not transparent or not reproducible"

So you mean that since they don't have a second planet earth to experiment on, they can't issue any rules that would relate to things like, oh, I don't know, anthropomorphic climate change?

Gee thanks, Mr. Republican, for looking out for my interests.

Re:Same old Republican BS

[funwithBSD]

Quite easily found with a google, you just have to put down your confirmation bias first:

Today we consider the Committee’s first subpoena in 21 years. Unfortunately, we’ve been put in this position by an agency that willfully disregards Congressional requests and makes its rules using undisclosed data. This subpoena could have been avoided.

For almost two years this Committee has been waiting for the EPA to release the taxpayer-funded research data it uses to justify its Clean Air Act regulations. At a hearing 20 months ago, then-Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy committed to make the data underlying EPA’s claims publically available.

http://junkscience.com/2013/08...

I am sure there are more examples out there, but I you have the same access to Google I do.

Re:wait what beta?

[c0lo]

Hey, your post got modded up quick! Please reconsider posting at all, slashdot is about to die unless direct action by its users is taken, did you miss something?

And if everyone is rubishing beta, what do you think happens? Or, do you think geeks are like unionized blue-collars to go on a strike and return next week/month as if nothing happened?
Yes, I can express my olives and fetta, but if I'm limited to only/exclusively that for more than 2-3 days, suddenly it doesn't make sense to even come on /.

There is no controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as all sides in a controversy have to use open science, this will not happen. You have nothing to fear because all real science is open.

Remember the years that the FDA was just trying make cigarette makers put warning labels on cigarette packs? The cigarette industry had plenty of studies that showed cigarettes were "safe". It's easy to find a scientist to create a study to show that what you want then to show.

And while the debates are going on about what is "real" science, industry is plowing ahead making money and harming people.

The same WILL happen with all these industries who are trying get out from under the EPA.

Industry CANNOT be trusted to do real science when it comes to their regulation and their bottom line.

It is naive think that data, truth and science will prevail.

Re:There is no controversy

[sumdumass]

The FDA point is somewhat more important here then anything. I bet you have been conditioned from the no smoking laws and all the reports being threaded to the public that if you look at a cigarette you will get cancer and die a horrible death 3 days ago. And if you ever see someone smoking, your eyes will fall out, you will have a heart attach and die on the spot from cancer.

The fact of the matter is that less than 10 percent of life long smokers ever get cancer and only about 30 percent of all cancer deaths are attributed to smoking. Granted, your risk of cancer does increase and certain types of cancer do increase if you smoke, but it's not the death nail in the coffin it is made out to be.

As for second hand smoke, This is more to the point as the health effects have not been proven and by some accounts, scientific principle has been completely ignored in order to make the association to the dangers.

But by no means am I saying smoking is not bad for you or that you shouldn't avoid second hand smoke if you want to either. But the hype surrounding some of the issues is blown way out of proportion and often are exaggerated. Even the US EPA lost a lawsuit in 1993-1998 for a report it issued stating people were dieing from second hand smoke due to cherry picking data and construing science in order to reach a predrawn conclusion. I guess I should also add that in 2003, the EPA had the decision reversed on appeal, not because their study or release was good, valid, or anything, but because it didn't carry any regulatory weight so it wasn't regulated by The Radon Research Act passed in 1986 under Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).

Again, I'm not saying second hand smoke is good for you but it does appear that the science behind it being bad was if not originally, a political motivation in the least with the goal of using junk science to fuel future scientific reference to it by corruption of reality and pollution of facts. The fact is the EPA conducted itself in the exact same ways as you remember the cigarette industry doing. With open access to all the information, both can be detected more readily and pointed out publicly.

Re:There is no controversy

[gottabeme]

It is naive think that data, truth and science will prevail.

And it's not naive to think that the EPA is trustworthy?

Re: There is no controversy

[NeverVotedBush]

I would say it's not quite that easy to find scientists that can be paid to produce results that favor the payee. Unfortunately it can be done and cigarette companies are a great example. So are a number - but not all - of the scientists working on behalf of polluters. Half of the scientists out there graduated in the bottom half of their class.

The way to tell is if they publish and are respected in their fields. At least for now most of the scientists in government do publish and are respected in their fields. The republicans are working hard to change that though. It won't be that long before their funding cuts, gag orders, and outright attacks from well placed political minions force many or most of the good ones out.

Then these kinds of laws won't be necessary. Agencies like the EPA will be where tobacco company "scientists" can aspire to go. They can simply be told to research how industrial waste is actually good for you.

But this law is probably being sold one way when the real target is different. The EPA is also working on climate change and big oil, coal, and gas all want to stop any and all research and legislation that will get in their way.

Sadly the EPA is square in the crosshairs of all the big money in this country that want to increase profits by polluting this country. That is where the republicans come in with their pockets open wide for contributions in a quid pro quo deal that rapes the citizens of this country.

Re:There is no controversy

[Dan East]

I bet you have been conditioned from the no smoking laws and all the reports being threaded to the public that if you look at a cigarette you will get cancer and die a horrible death 3 days ago. And if you ever see someone smoking, your eyes will fall out, you will have a heart attach and die on the spot from cancer.

I sense over exaggeration here, but I could be wrong.

Re: There is no controversy

[Oligonicella]

The way to tell is if they publish and are respected in their fields.

You mean like Schön?? Scientists have the same foibles as everyone else.

What happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post this to new articles if it hasn't been posted yet. (Copy-paste the html from here [pastebin.com] so links don't get mangled!)

On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design. Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

We should boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.
We should boycott slashdot entirely during the week of Feb 10 to Feb 17 as part of the wider slashcott [slashdot.org]

Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
Commentors - only discuss Beta
    http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org] - Vote up the Fuck Beta stories

Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

-----=====##### LINKS #####=====-----

Discussion of Beta: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=56395415 [slashdot.org]

Discussion of where to go if Beta goes live: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=submission&id=3321441 [slashdot.org]

Alternative Slashdot: http://altslashdot.org [altslashdot.org] (thanks Okian Warrior (537106) [slashdot.org])

Re:On topic replies?

[PRMan]

I, for one, give people the benefit of the doubt when they say, "OK, WE HEARD YOU!" There's plenty of time for another boycott the next time they try to turn off Classic if beta still doesn't have the features we want.

Pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

The irrational hatred of conservatives here is hilarious. If it was a liberal proposing the same bill you'd be all for it, but because it's a conservative-proposed bill you're all up in arms. Throwing out references to creationism and the Bill Nye debate? That has absolutely nothing to do with it. You're just trying to find any possible way you can trash conservatives. You're pathetic.

Re:Pathetic

[buddhaunderthetree]

This is actually a very short bill which is amazingly easy to read. It looks to me like it would be hard to twist into something that is a bad thing.

On that point you're 100% wrong. In general the shorter and more vaguely written a law is, the easier it is to twist it into something completely unrecognizable. For example the bill prohibits regulations unless based on scientific and technical information that allows "substantial reproduction of results." So what does substantial reproduction of results means, if 50 studies reproduce the results and 10 studies do not, is that substantial? Who will decide? How many lawsuits will be filed over the definition of substantial reproduction. This law really is about stopping the EPA from regulating CO2 but if passed it would essentially prevent new environmental regulations by providing a sure fire basis for challenging any regulation in court. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Re:Pathetic

[Attila Dimedici]

How would you write that particular clause to achieve the results which those who have proposed this law are claiming is the purpose of the law?

Trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Yeah, right

Re:Pathetic

[whistlingtony]

Uhm. I call BS. Most liberals I know are quite willing to get angry with "their" party. It's the issues, not the candidate. Frankly, this happens on the conservative side too. Hell, McCain just got censured for being too liberal. Ha!

So, no. Actually, you're just doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing (except they're not. it's all you.)

Re:Pathetic

[buddhaunderthetree]

Well most statutes contain definitions of key terms, in fact this bill contains some definitions but not of this critical term. So you might define substantial reproduction of results as "results that have been reproduced at least ___% of the time by ____" That would take rid the bill of a considerable amount of ambiguity. And for the record yes I am a lawyer licensed in the not so great state of Tennessee.

Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

lets impose the same restrictions on banks & churches.

This is coming from a political party.

[taxman_10m]

You want us to be blind to political motivations? The GOP cares not a wit about environmental protection. Time and time again the GOP has shown this to be the case. It's entirely appropriate to ask cuo bono? This is so transparently a loophole. Anytime there is a proposed regulation and the underlying science cannot be reproduced by the Heartland Foundation then that will tie the EPA's hands. Of course the Heartland Foundation would give a good faith effort to reproduce the results, right?

Btw, this is my first experience with the beta. If this stays, I go.

Re:This is coming from a political party.

[BonThomme]

yes, they're called "Republicans for Obama"

Re:On topic replies?

[demontechie]

When they turn off Classic, that's when it will no longer be an organized boycott. Most will simply leave.

You think the GOP would require this of Big Pharma

[taxman_10m]

They'd call that job killing regulation.

EPA Full of Bad Code

[retroworks]

I agree that simply restricting EPA's regulation is an "end of pipe" solution to the problems at EPA (restricting the power to restrict). But while I think the environment is the most important legacy our generation will leave (or not), there are many problems at EPA. A pile of lead silicate in the sunshine at a mining site is governed by 1872 laws and the cleanup paid by Superfund. Try collecting a stack of leaded silicate at a recycling operation. Outdated EPA codes discourage innovation or investment. In 1960 the USA had 7 secondary (recycling) copper smelters, by 2001 there were 0, because EPA enforcement of "waste" (scrap raw material, defined as "waste") is stronger than enforcement of "extraction" (mined raw material, defined as a "commodity") codes. The codes on EPA books were influenced by property value, making resources extracted from populace more difficult. 14/15 of the largest Superfund sites are at hard rock mining sites EPA can't figure out how to regulate... so they double down regulating recyclers, in a perverse "pecking order" show of strength. Visit this EPA Calculator to see EPA's attempt to put their Codes into legal interpretation, and run virgin leaded ore through it (follow "specific exclusions" path for mined ore, defined under "commodity" exclusion) http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/...

I really liked my colleagues (state env regulatory agency) and hate to sound like a jerk. But that social group-think, and "reverence of the environment", doesn't belong in scientific method, and is part of the problem. There is kind of pseudo-religious hostility towards rewriting environmental regulations, which become ossified and subject to work-arounds. Too many environmental regulators seem spoiled by the knee-jerk support of environmentalists, who fetishize the environmental codes, opposing rewrites and sunsetting of old EPA rules (again, out of justifiable but cynical suspicion the RCRA and CERCLA laws won't be replaced by new ones). Resistance to identified problems with EPA testing methods (like TCLP tests applied to vitrified solids, hah!) feeds the backlash at the GOP over continued use of the old code. How many of the comments here simply dismiss the idea in the article because it comes from the GOP? And how often are Democrats willing to sunset an old code before implementing a new one? It's a vicious intractable political cycle.

All I can think of is to put USGS.gov (US Geological Survey) or NASA in charge of EPA, as the problems at EPA are entrenched officials who don't know how to steer their ocean liner to catch the sunset. RCRA and CERCLA are broken, EPA officials know it, but they are too afraid that if they are removed they won't be able to get replacement law enacted, and won't be able to hire the type of people that would write good regulations out of the new laws. Or if it's a coding problem, maybe a software engineer can fix it.

Re:EPA Full of Bad Code

[whistlingtony]

you're complaining that people at the EPA are afraid that if old laws are removed, they won't be able to get new laws enacted. Of course they are!!!!!

Have you seen congress lately? You try getting some environmental regs past the house. Just try. See how that works out.....

Re:EPA Full of Bad Code

[pete6677]

What would be wrong with tying the sunsetting of old regulations to the implementation of new ones? This law replaces the old law, etc. That way you wouldn't have to worry about old ones going away without new ones to replace them.

Re:EPA Full of Bad Code

[whistlingtony]

I'll repeat myself.... "Have you seen congress lately? You try getting some environmental regs past the house. Just try. See how that works out....."

Re:On topic replies?

[stoploss]

I, for one, give people the benefit of the doubt when they say, "OK, WE HEARD YOU!"

Words are not actions, and corporations are certainly not people. Perhaps that was the disconnect?

Besides, whatever the large banner print gaveth, the corporate doublespeak took away. You did read the message to "the audience" that the banner linked to, right?

Have you ever worked for a company large enough to have an HR department? If so, then you will know how to translate what they said into what they actually mean. They don't want a community like we have, they want an audience they can monetize. The Beta is designed to make that shift happen. They have been ignoring the feedback for months. If they were going to heed it they would have done so by now.

Here's an allegory: did you ever see the website JumpTheShark.com? It was a Wiki-type online community that rated when various television shows had reached their inflection point (a reference to the infamous Happy Days episode where Fonzi jumped over a shark lagoon on waterskis). Anyhow, it was acquired by TV Guide after a few years. It was "monetized" by ripping it apart, throwing away everything related to the community, and turning it into an Entertainment Tonight blog type clone complete with "Shark Bites" news updates. That is the type of future that Dice envisions for Slashdot.

We may not be able to divert the inexorable fate of this community being ground into dust by corporate managers at Dice (or whoever they pawn this site off to in the future), but a boycott will at least be retaliation in the only form they can understand: reduced revenue. This boycott will let them observe how committed this community is, or whether we can be safely flushed away like they were planning to do anyway.

Re:You think the GOP would require this of Big Pha

[dreamchaser]

Not a great analogy since Big Pharma are not government agencies. Now if you'd said the FDA then I'd agree.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[BonThomme]

God saving us seems to be the rationale for trashing the planet.

Re:Who do you think the GOP will blame

[BonThomme]

no, it will be "The scientists failed because they didn't convince us! It's their fault!"

Death Blow to creationism

[sdinfoserv]

I hope they realize they are outlawing the teaching of Creationism and intelligent design as well.

Re:On topic replies?

[emmagsachs]

There's plenty of time for another boycott the next time they try to turn off Classic if beta still doesn't have the features we want.

What company directs 25% of its users to a partially-working, not-ready-for-production website? Please realize that Beta will not have the features that we want, because it goes against Dice's plans for Slashdot. To their advertisers, Dice presents Slashdot as a "Social Media for B2B Technology" platform. B2B - that's the reason Beta looks like a generic wordpress-based news site. A large precentage of the current userbase might be in IT, but /. is most certainly not a B2B site.

Nevertheless, Dice is desperate to make money off of Slashdot, since it has not lived up to their financial expectations, a fact that they have revealed in a press release detailing their performance in 2013:

Slashdot Media was acquired to provide content and services that are important to technology professionals in their everyday work lives and to leverage that reach into the global technology community benefiting user engagement on the Dice.com site. The expected benefits have started to be realized at Dice.com. However, advertising revenue has declined over the past year and there is no improvement expected in the future financial performance of Slashdot Media's underlying advertising business. Therefore, $7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media were reduced to zero.

Beta is not a cosmetic change. It is a new design that deliberately ruins the one thing that makes /. what it is today -- the commenting system. There is nothing wrong with Slashdot, from the users' perspective, that demands breaking its foundations. As others have commented, this is an attempt to monetize /. at any any cost, and its users be damned. Dice views its users, the ones who create the site, as a passive audience. As such, it is interchangeable with its intended B2B crowd. We, the current users of Slashdot, are an obstacle in Dice's way.

That is why they ignore the detailed feedback they have received in the months since they first revealed Beta. That is also why they now disregard our grievances. Their claims of hearing us are a deliberate snow job. It is only pretense, since at the same time they openly admit that Classic will be cancelled soon:

"Most importantly, we want you to know that Classic Slashdot isn't going away until we're confident that the new site is ready.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Dice to fix Beta. Their vision of Slashdot is a crippled shadow of the site as it is today. Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes. Dice doesn't need us, and it wants us out.

Slashdice delenda est!

Re:On topic replies?

[Attila Dimedici]

Because I don't care about your "slashcot". If Dice decides to implement the beta in anything like its current form, that will be time enough to stop coming to slashdot. You appear to want me to stop enjoying slashdot while it is in a form I like, because they have talked about changing it to a form I do not like. If Dice decides that the beta is more valuable to them than my participation in slashdot, I will respect their wishes and leave. Until then I will continue to enjoy slashdot.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Assmasher]

You heard Peter say that?

and Dems too, since it's also Obama's policy?

[raymorris]

I guess your comments also apply to the Democrats since Obama's stated policy is the same? The bill would give that policy the force law.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Assmasher]

It isn't reproducible at all... lol. Unless you are the great bearded Wizard I the sky.

Re: "Not Reproducible"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just trying to keep track...
- EPA: science good
- School Curriculums: science bad

- Families: good
- Families for lgbt: bad

- government handouts for high income and corporations: good
- government handouts for low income who can't afford food: bad

- no abortions: good
- giving people affordable healthcare for pre and post natal care: bad

Might be easier to attract voters to a party if it supported just one side of any issue.

Multiple personality much?

if you can't reproduce the STUDY ...

[raymorris]

No one is talking about reproducing the climate. It's about reproducing the STUDY or experiment. One guy working for Solyndra says these tree rings have a certain attribute? Fine, let someone else look at the tree rings too. Nobody else in the world can see the same thing in those tree rings? Then it's not science, it's tea reading.

Re:Transparency I agree with

[Manfre]

The bill will only serve to allow companies to fight EPA regulations in court by failing to reproduce the results.

A big conspiracy after all

[rtb144]

The conspiracy goes deeper than the GOP. The National Academy of Science is also involved - http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2.... How dare they criticize the science of these holy warriors? A pox upon both of their houses.

Head in the sand

[Sebo]

There are natural limits to our ability to instrument and reproduce cause and effect at a global scale. This seems to suggest that because that limitation exists we should err on the side of making a few bucks rather than objectively considering the massive amounts of smaller scale scientific evidence that can be correlated, if not completely proven as a whole. If you can't absolutely prove today that there will be a consequence tomorrow, it must not be true ... right?

As a whole, capitalism and commercialization are good and beneficial to all. The adage, "the market will right itself" is largely true. But, sometimes the negative impacts which result before the market self-adjusts are irreversible or out of proportion to the assumed benefits. That is why regulatory bodies exist.

Doesn't make science transparent

[pavon]

Nothing in this bill will require federally funded research to be public access, nor will it fund archival efforts for the raw data. Rather it requires that the EPA ignore any science that isn't open access, after the GOP spent years of fighting against open access.

if EPA not busy reading tea leaves, could do job

[raymorris]

Perhaps if the EPA weren't so busy with reading tea leaves, they'd have more of their resources devoted to doing their f___ing job - like keeping an eye on the use and transport of dangerous chemicals.

No Cronyism here with all these groups and the EPA

[sithkhan]

No sir. Not one bit. Nobody doing shady things other than those mean old nasty ignorant rethuggggggggglicans. http://thefederalist.com/2014/...

So it has, not, been written

[Sebo]

OMG, the source of all bad code has been discovered! The Bible clearly has no mention of computer science or programming. I haven't seen one passage written in binary or hex. Clearly, God did not intend for us to advance in this direction :-)

Re:So it has, not, been written

[maxwell demon]

God obviously demanded binary encoding for everything:

"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no '; anything beyond these is of evil."

Politicalization nation

[pellik]

I wonder how many of the comments saying this bill is just to provide loopholes for industry wouldn't be here if there was a D before the state the congress-critter was from.

Re:Politicalization nation

[whistlingtony]

None. Because we're not shills who proclaim something good or bad just because it came from a D or an R. I'm a liberal. Hell, I'm a progressive. And I can rightly say that Obama is a center right corporate shill. I can rightly say that he's george bush lite. I can say he broke his promise on gitmo, his nobel peace prize was a joke, and he magically became for the patriot act after he got elected. Because I'm not a shill.

There are republicans that I agree with on some things. Hell, I HATE Rand Paul. I think he's an ideologue. I also think he's an idiot. But if he's going to actually fight against the NSA overstep, I'm with him all the way. As long as he actually does it and it's not just grandstanding.

This bill is obviously bad. Don't use it to try to jack up the political rhetoric and demonize your opponent. It only highlights that you're doing the exact thing you're accusing us of doing (except we're not doing it. It's just you.)

This is a reasonable requirement

[Karmashock]

It isn't science if it isn't transparent and reproducible.

End of discussion.

Re:This is a reasonable requirement

[maxwell demon]

Well, one would have to read in detail how they define "transparent" and "reproducible" ... you can declare pretty much all science "unscientific" by just defining those terms in an "appropriate" way.

Re:This is a reasonable requirement

[Karmashock]

Not if the methodology is fully disclosed which should be a prerequisite to peer review.

Re:This is a reasonable requirement

[whistlingtony]

Not end of discussion. The EPA regs are based on science. We know lead causes behavorial problems. We know it causes cognitive issues, especially in children. We know lots of things are bad for us, and that science is well documented. So. Maybe we should regulate lead in the environment. Etc Etc Etc.

The problem is that people don't bother to READ the easily available science, and even when it's presented to them on a silver platter (see evolution), some of them still cling to their beliefs. Ironically, there's some good science showing that some people cling to their beliefs HARDER when presented with evidence that is contrary to their belief. They probably haven't read it...... BadumpChing! I'm here all night folks.

Re:This is a reasonable requirement

[Karmashock]

EPA regs are based on science if the science is reproducible and transparent.

If they're neither then they're not.

End of discussion.

You want to claim you're backed by science? Show a LITTLE scientific integrity. If you have no respect for basic scientific practice then you deserve ZERO scientific credit. None. Nada. Zilch.

The rules are very simple. Follow them.

you're forgetting 4th grade science. Obama agrees

[raymorris]

You're forgetting grade school science. The experiment, study, or calculations should be reproducible one person does should be able to be done by other scientists. If someone working for Chicago Solar claims that tree rings indicate that ... and therefore San Francisco will be underwater by the year 2000, other scientists should be able to look at those same tree ring photos, do the same calculations, and end up with the same result.

If a student at TTI runs an analysis of the dihydrogen monoxide levels published by the national weather service, any scientist running the same calculations on the same data should get the same result. THAT'S reproducibility, it's a basic foundation of science and it was on the test in about 4th grade.

If the data is kept secret and the calculations are kept secret, that's not reproducible. That's not science, that's mysticism - tea reading.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[gottabeme]

How many things that you know have you personally observed or heard first-hand?

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[gottabeme]

When did the EPA start regulating personal beliefs about the origin of the universe? or school curriculums?

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Logical Fallacy

[whistlingtony]

Your entire post is a logical fallacy. "Black and White". You know this.

"Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or on the side of the enemy."

There are plenty of alternatives. Like, I don't know, Allowing the EPA to regulate based on common sense (storage tanks in west virginia should be checked out once a year. Good science? I don't know. But it's common sense.) and known science (yes, formaldehyde is bad for people). Basically, shut up and let the EPA do it's job.

I can't believe we're having this discussion barely a month out from the West Virgiania debacle.

Re:Logical Fallacy

[whistlingtony]

Anonymous coward.

climate change science is peer reviewed. It has flaws. All science does. This does not mean it's all crap. That would be a Composition Fallacy. The process of peer review, testing, refining, etc is taking care of them, and growing our understanding of the issue. The science is there for everyone to read. It is open and transparent. You capticalizing REAL science (Fallacy, true scotsman) doesn't change that the science is open, transparent, and easily reviewable by any schlub that takes the time to do so. Come back to the real world.

I don't think I'll hold my breath while this bill turns the GOP into supporting ACTUAL (trues scotsman) science. nothing but lies indeed....

Also, your spelling sucks and you sound like a loon. (ad hominem, my bad, but hey, it really does and you really do.)

Also, sick of the people accusing "dirty liberals, who's views are based on nothing but lies", of (Fallacy, genetic) only complaining about this because it's a conservative bill. Ironically, a Genetic Fallacy, but then.... People tend to assign their own motives to other people. This is just a bad bill. It's an obvious ploy to defang the EPA.

West Virginia

[whistlingtony]

I can't believe we're even having this debate barely a month after the debacle in West Virginia. A company didn't inspect their own tanks, the EPA regs were LAX, not tight, and 300,000 people couldn't even wash their hands in their water for a week, let alone drink it. It's not even ancient history. It happened THIS YEAR, and it's FEBRUARY!

At best, this would just be used as a stall tactic while companies tied up the EPA with further appeals. They already do that. This is just another tactic to use.

Everyone here should be quite aware that the EPA does a needed and useful job. I like not having lead in my kids' toys, formaldehyde in my milk, and chlorine gas in my air. Regulations are IMPORTANT. They keep us safe. Remember, it's way cheaper to not be safe.

Re:West Virginia

[Nimey]

Well, you know. Even after 20-odd kids and six teachers got gunned down in Connecticut we couldn't have an adult conversation about gun control and keeping them out of the hands of crazies, criminals, and the irresponsible. It was basically the same people (the Republicans) who made sure we couldn't.

Re:West Virginia

[DNS-and-BIND]

And this has what to do with irreproducible results, exactly? Is your argument really "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"

Re:West Virginia

[Nimey]

And see, that kind of unthinking fanaticism is exactly why we're going to keep having mass shootings.

Have a nice shotgun mouthwash.

Re:West Virginia

[whistlingtony]

I actually disagree with them on the gun thing, but I think the argument is actually "this shit doesn't happen in nicer countries that control guns." or even "It's hard to shoot people when you don't have a gun." or possibly even "Lets at least make it hard for unstable people to have guns.", all of which are valid points that can be discussed without using (Fallacy, Black or White) "If you don't let us have guns, the government will take over!". Also, you're ironically using a Loaded Question fallacy when you're (wrongly) accusing them of an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy.

Just say'in.

The Science will Remain Opaque to Ignorant People.

[srobert]

The purpose of the bill and the reporting being done on it from GOPNews is to frame policy debate within the myth that what the EPA is doing isn't ALREADY TRANSPARENT. At least it's sufficiently transparent to those who understand the science. It will always be opaque to those who are ill-informed about science. I've been researching proposed regulations in drinking water. An enormous volume of scientific documentation regarding the studies and methods that are being used were freely available at http://epa.gov./ Schedules for periods of public comment and dissenting opinion documentation are posted there also. So how much more do they have to do to be transparent in the eyes of clueless people.

You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Burz]

thus your "colleages" in the regulatory system whom you look down at from your perch of "innovation".

"Reverence for the environment" is an extension of the reverence for nature. There's nothing unscientific about that, and it marks you as an antagonist. It sounds to me like you are using a strawman ('knee-jerk environmentalists') to undermine ecology (which is a science, BTW, though no one could have guessed from your rant).

You want 'outdated' (says who?) regulations re-written because you know that corporate lobbyists are the ones who hold sway in legislatures these days.

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[pete6677]

You could not be more wrong. There is nothing in the comment you replied to that say anything of the sort you are claiming. The former EPA employee simply wanted to replace obsolete regulations with some that are more applicable in the modern world. You then set up your own strawman argument to attack him.

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Albinoman]

So are you saying he's wrong? There is no place in science of any field for personal agendas or opinions.

"Reverence for the environment" is an extension of the reverence for nature. There's nothing unscientific about that...

What? How would a reverence for nature have anything to do with science whatsoever?

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Burz]

There is no place in science for anyone who does not revere the natural world, because that is the classroom where science had its genesis.

What? How would a reverence for nature have anything to do with science whatsoever?

Just Wow... That one is suitable for framing!

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Burz]

Are you claiming there is no pathway for corporate lobbyists (who write most of the new regulations in this country BTW) to address EPA regulations in light of new industrial processes? That beggars belief. Just look at the way Washington has bent over backwards to promote the new 'clean coal' agenda, only to have private generators walk away from it at the 11th hour. It was a stalling tactic.

retrowerks didn't say he worked for the EPA... do you know this person?

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[retroworks]

I do appreciate the points Burz makes, as they demonstrate my point. Merely suggesting that RCRA needs rebooting leads to accusations of conflict of interest and of ill intent. Now put your shirt back on.

Ahem, I'm not a lobbyist and never have been. I guess I'm from "the industry" as I drove a paper recycling truck in the late 80s-early 90s, then ran a state environmental department (about 20 staff) for 8 years, then went back to driving a recycling truck (started solo, now have 30 employees). I hesitated to respond to this, since it really doesn't matter whether I'm a lobbyist or not... it comes across to me as an ad hominem attack. My department adminstered RCRA regulations (Resource Recovery and Conservation Act), which was passed in 1976, and was written by Nixon appointees, for crying out loud. The biggest argument against rewriting it was justifiable fear it would be gutted, my point was that the longer we wait the more likely that becomes.

Re: You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Albinoman]

Actually I think the burden is on you to explain that. One should try to understand the effects of their research, certainly. But what does geology, or astrophysics, even biology have anything to do with a love of nature. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to remove personal biases. The only thing that can come from putting a love of nature into your science is bad science. You'd be doing humanity a disservice by perverting data with your emotions.

Re:You sound like an industry lobbyist

[Burz]

What came across to me is that you appear to think toxicity can go out of fashion like polyester leisure suits. You gave no rational basis or examples for unneeded regulation, either. Instead we were supposed to swoon at the word "innovation" and be aghast at 1970s legislation.

I hesitated to respond to this, since it really doesn't matter whether I'm a lobbyist or not... it comes across to me as an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, but the affiliation of posters does begin to matter when they take stances that are consistent with astroturfing.

My department adminstered RCRA regulations (Resource Recovery and Conservation Act), which was passed in 1976, and was written by Nixon appointees, for crying out loud.

For whom? Mississippi? Louisiana? Some Reagan-wannabe governor?

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Assmasher]

You are entirely missing the point. I don't have to rely on hearsay with science. I can simply test the resul myself if I wanted to. Reproducible results.

  I don't have to take the word of the latest translation of the latest compilation of books translated from Aramaic to market Greek to Latin to English supposedly by a guy who repeatedly denied Jesus but becomes an authority on the creation of the universe...

Re: You think the GOP would require this of Big Ph

[fche]

"on Medicare and are forcing me to pay for the sickness"

You are stuck on the well-predicted slippery slope: acceptance of socialized-welfare programs leads to pressure to micromanage people's lives (to minimize cost of said social-welfare programs). The former leads inexorably to the latter. If you don't like the intrusion of the state into your body, perhaps you shouldn't support nanny medicare-like programs either.

Can the GOP point to any of this science?

[Dcnjoe60]

As part of the discussion on this bill, can the GOP point to any of this secret science that has become EPA regulations? Or, is this another of those GOP fixes for a problem that doesn't exist (like votor fraud).

Re:Can the GOP point to any of this science?

[hax4bux]

If they could point to it, then it wouldn't be "secret science." Duh.

Just take it on faith, like WMD in Iraq (a "slam dunk").

Re:Can the GOP point to any of this science?

[Dcnjoe60]

If they could point to it, then it wouldn't be "secret science." Duh.

Just take it on faith, like WMD in Iraq (a "slam dunk").

I'm not suggesting they point to the secret science, like you said, it wouldn't be secret if they could. I'm asking if they can point to any regulations that were issued based on secret science.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Assmasher]

Then why haven't you? Lol.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Assmasher]

Are you aware that Genesis contradicts itself?

Make ANY regulation blockable

[Fencepost]

Did the researchers throw some numbers into an Excel spreadsheet at some point to check something? Is that spreadsheet included? It wasn't saved? This regulation is overturned.

Gaming built into the bill

[Immerman]

Sadly, while I agree that reproducible science is the gold standard, it's often not possible. How can a cosmologist repeat a supernova to make sure things happened as they believe? More to the point, how can a climatologist repeat a particular climate event? It's just not possible. That doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good idea what's going on, just that the researchers had to work a lot harder and have to rely on lots of corroborating evidence from different sources to make their claims.

Rather like macroeconomics in a way, except with less self-serving philosophy and a lot more actual science.

And this bill seems a pretty obvious attempt to use that difficulty to shut down any attempt to mitigate climate change, which is flat out stupid. Are we 100% certain that we know everything about it? Absolutely not. But when you discover a dragon at your door you don't spend over 50 years counting it's teeth and arguing over whether it's actually a chihuahua while it establishes an unbreachable lair.

Re:Gaming built into the bill

[superwiz]

Sadly, while I agree that reproducible science is the gold standard, it's often not possible. How can a cosmologist repeat a supernova to make sure things happened as they believe?

Well, if he is lucky, it was observed with multiple sensors. If not, he has to hope that the data he collected did not have accidental noise due to equipment malfunction. But if there is only one source, of the data, he can't really be certain. Either way, he can't make the claim that he observed it without publishing the data based on which he makes that claim (peer reviewed publications do not currently require publishing data).

Sore Loser

[bussdriver]

You are just a sore loser. His point is valid and his expertise (if true) makes it even stronger so then you smear his point simply because 95% of lawyers are scum?

Besides, you seriously think the people who constantly campaign on how they want to completely kill the EPA are going to put forward something that would improve it? Most their party works around fucking things up and then campaigning against the messes they help create in an idiotic cycle that should be obvious to a competent citizenry.

Re:Sore Loser

[Attila Dimedici]

Did you read the bill? He brought up a complaint about the wording of the bill, I asked him to provide wording which accomplished the declared purpose that was better than that contained in the bill.

Re:You think the GOP would require this of Big Pha

[sumdumass]

I haven't heard anything about the EPA and cigars but nothing surprises me. As for kids and cigars, ever hear of a blunt? That is where kids (teens) hollow a cigar out and put weed in it to either conceal the smell of the pot while smoking or to enhance the buzz a bit by the tobacco nicotine.

And no, I don't really have a problem with either separate or combined. Neither is my cup of tea either but to each their own.

Re:On topic replies?

[Above]

If we all stop using SlashDot classic in "protest", there will be no one to upset with the change, and they will move forward with the Beta site. Once the users are lost there's no incentive for them to keep it around.

If you want classic to stay around you need to boycott the beta, and use the crap out of classic.

Re:Creationist "science"

[Immerman]

You're muddying the creationist discussion here, let's leave that part to them. It's important to remember that there are *two* scientific theories in play: One well established, the other still largely speculative.

- Evolution states that life forms change over time in response to environmental pressure - this is *extremely* well established, dogs and Darwin's finches being some obvious examples, and we can even watch bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance in the lab. Even many (not-young-earth) creationists will grudgingly accept this.

- Abiogenesis states that life arose spontaneously, evolving from associations of self-replicating chemicals. There's essentially zero direct evidence of this - we can trace our lineage through the fossil record back pretty far, but there is no rock on Earth as old as life itself, that first half-billion years of our planet's history has been forever lost to geologic recycling. Abiogenesis is speculation based on what we know of life and organic chemistry. We've been able to create ever more lifelike intermediate states in the lab, but the fact is that without a time machine we'll we'll never know for sure whether life arose spontaneously in the universe, or if God sneezed in our direction and gave the primordial slime a chance to do something interesting.

TL,DR: Evolution is fact. Abiogenesis is speculation that life evolved from chemistry. Well-grounded speculation, but direct supporting evidence is probably forever lost to time. And *both* are necessary to provide an alternative to intelligent creation of life.

Maybe he should have said it another way

[tp1024]

Instead of: "Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups," says Schweikert. "For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

He should have said: "Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of capitalist corporations," says Schweikert. "For far too long, government agencies have approved regulations that have placed a crippling burden on the environment in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions."

I'm sure slashdot would have agreed.

The hypocrisy is strong in this discussion.

Why just the EPA?

[HiThere]

If this is well intentioned, and well done, then it should apply to all, or almost all, government agencies.

Because it singles out the EPA, I suspect a political agenda, and don't trust it.

Re:Why just the EPA?

[Nimey]

Because climate-change denialism. Because EPA can force the Free Market (peace be upon it) to not pollute so much, i.e. to cost them money and kill jerbs. Because the fossil fuels industry is very rich and can afford the finest congressweasels money can buy.

Re:Who do you think the GOP will blame

[sumdumass]

The east coast will never be under water. At most, it will move inland a bit but the coast will always be the coastline.

On that note though, if the east coast is going to be relocates due to some preventable event, it will not happen for years and years so it will be relatively easy to deal with it over time. So the sea level is expected to climb something around 3 to 4 feet by the year 2100 if all goes as claimed. That's about 86 years from now.

So here is the question of the day, why can no levies, changes in building codes, flood plain maps, flood gates, or anything like that ever be implemented in that 86 year time span (roughly 2-3 generations of productive lifespans)? Even if Global Warming is a threat, why is the only way to deal with it seem to be cut emissions and oppress populations in order to protect the prime real estate of wealthy people instead of dealing with the problems as they are expected to be realized? Sure a flood wall might be an eyesore blocking your pristine view of the bay just like all those windmills that never got built would have. But why must the cost of energy and products become so outrageous that people cannot afford it in order to preserve that life style and views? It's not like we can stop or reverse global warming so why not deal with it and blame yourself if you get caught checking your mail in your underwear?

While we're at it...

[crath]

Let's also outlaw secret courts, non-transparent legal processes, unfettered wire tapping, etc. This action against the EPA seems to be nothing more than a way to distract voters away from the government's illegal actions.

Re:Creationist "science"

[Malizar]

So, Creationists have conducted an experiment were, in one test, there is a God, and in the second test, there is NOT a God, and all other conditions are identical, and in the first, life appears, and in the second, it does not?

Have scientists conducted an experiment where, in one test, there is an earth where man has polluted the environment, and in a second test, man does not exist to create the pollution, and all other conditions are identical, and in the first global warming appears, and in the second, it does not?</s>

Some things on both sides are just accepted as fact by people on both sides, it's why the debate on some topics is so heated. At least the creationists admit they are acting on something they believe by faith.

Re:Reproducible scientific proof, like Creationism

[Oligonicella]

Um, God is random. He changes throughout the Bible. Read it. We *have* produced evolution in laboratory bacteria for one. Also, it's been incontrovertibly found in nature, see nylonase.

Re:Creationist "science"

[Immerman]

What? No. Try re-reading what I said.

I'm just saying the debate is not actually "creationism versus evolution" unless you're arguing with a young-earther who believes man was created in our present form. Creationists like to attack evolution on the creation of life, what Kam called the "Molecules to Man" theory, but there is no such scientific theory. There is a well established theory of evolution (single-celled-organisms-to-man), and a speculative hypothesis of abiogenesis (molecules-to-single-cell-organisms) that extrapolates back to reach a reasonable conclusion about something we'll never know for sure.

Muddying the waters by conflating the two simply allows creationists to use all the weaknesses of the abiogenesis speculation as arguments against evolution, and that is not at all helpful to getting things sorted out.

Evolution on the other hand has a mountain of evidence on its side, which can't be countered by a rational creationist unless they're willing to presume a willfully deceptive God. Get 'em to accept evolution from primordial slime, and frankly who cares where they think the slime came from?

And the next time we go to war...

[drstevep]

Can we amend this legislation to include similar principles to be used when a president proposes invading a foreign country?

Re:The Science will Remain Opaque to Ignorant Peop

[whistlingtony]

This should get modded up. The EPA is already transparent, and the regulations are based on good science (and some common sense).

If anything, the EPA regs are far too loose. Ahem. West Virginia. Freedom Industries. Need we say more?

Ha!

[h4x0t]

If EPA regulation meetings are anything like ASTM or ISO meetings, then there is honestly very little room for the purported chicanery. It takes YEARS to get anything to move, and there are interlab studies done on everything along the way. IMO this bill is designed to leave room for additional regulation stalling.

This reminds me of...

[whistlingtony]

This reminds me of a graphic I saw once. Let me dig it out of The Internet for y'all.

This'll do. http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/...

I think this sums up what's happening here quite well.

For the link averse.... "Which is more likely? Regional environmental groups and community activists... are spending their limited operating budgets... in a massive conspiracy with 90% of the global scientificl community... to create a hoax and ruin the economy? Or Oil Companies... are spending their obscene profits... to bribe anyone that they can... to protect their profits and limit any future liability that their pollution might cause?"

You know the answer.

EPA should just adopt..

[strstr]

A zero pollution tolerance. That is, if particles are distributed or disturbed by a company, and the act does not occur naturally, it would be banned. Any emissions that alter air, water, spoil, or electromagnetic environments that last and cannot be undone with 100% certainty should not be allowed.

If a company wants to do business, it should find new ways that do not pollute, won't spill over, or leak or alter the environment. It's the new "gold standard" in finding clean perfect methods for operation, without excuses or exceptions going forward.

I mean, who gave these fuck tard companies the right to pollute or modify my living standards, after all? And what about all the other creatures that gotta live on this planet?

Re:The Science will Remain Opaque to Ignorant Peop

[bugs2squash]

It seems to me that the purpose of the parties is to create wedge issues and then keep them going for as long as possible. One side can defend the EPA right or wrong and the other can spread FUD to paint it as immoral and outrageous, the truth being an unavoidable casualty of the war between the parties. That way both sides can use the issue to fill warchests and "the right thing" is never done to address problems in the EPA without opening the door for polluters to profit at everyone's future expense. I can see this bill getting bipartisan support for this very reason.

Lets pass a law it is a 100 degree felony

[ralphaostrander]

For anyone except an elected law maker to write a bill.

Re:Who do you think the GOP will blame

[riverat1]

So the sea level is expected to climb something around 3 to 4 feet by the year 2100 if all goes as claimed.

Don't make the mistake of thinking sea level rise stops in 2100. The last time CO2 levels were the current level, 400 ppm, sea levels were 80 feet (25m) higher than they are now. It will take centuries for the great ice sheets to reach a new equilibrium but sea level will continue to rise until they do.

I think it's the Gulf Coast and Florida that is most threatened. What does 3 or 4 feet of SLR do to Huston, NOLA, Mobile, Miami or Tampa Bay, particularly when the next hurricane and storm surge comes along?

Re:Who do you think the GOP will blame

[sumdumass]

What does SLR do to Holland? You know, the country that is famous for building dikes and pumping tidal waters out so they can reclaim land and put it to use constructively?

The problem isn't necessarily with SLR, it's with this concept that no one can ever deal with it so we much oppress everyone in the name of science and heal Gaia right now.

So when asking What does 3 or 4 feet of SLR do to Huston, NOLA, Mobile, Miami or Tampa Bay, particularly when the next hurricane and storm surge comes along? The question is incomplete. You need to also ask if there is remediation along the way verses doing nothing in the hopes that increasing the costs of everything and making people suffer can somehow magically prevent the sea level rise. So what does a 3 to 4 feet rise in sea level mean for any area that has planned for the rise? If it happened tomorrow, major problems sure would exist. If it happened 85 years from now and society planned for it, normal problems associated with current hurricanes may only exist.

Re:so?

[n6kuy]

If you really believe that "most republicans think Iraq attacked us on 9/11" then... Irony Alert.

Re:Creationist "science"

[Immerman]

>(Which is not the same thing as saying that Invisible Sky Daddy worshipers are the only people that such ideas come from.)

Exactly - sanctimonious busybodies are going to do their thing regardless of whether they have magic goo to blame it on - if you wish them to stop then the solution is not to convince them God doesn't exist, but that they shouldn't be sanctimonious assholes. Otherwise they just give up god and become born-again vegans or something. Do you really want to be responsible for unleashing such horrors on the world?

Poe

[CauseBy]

This is a poe, right? Creationism isn't science because it isn't falsifiable, period, end of question. It can't be science, ever, because "God did it" isn't a testable claim.

That doesn't mean creationism is wrong it just means that it isn't science.

Poe

[CauseBy]

You're awesome. I love this thread.

Yes, Newton believe in God and wanted the Bible to be right. So did Kepler, lo those many nights he spent trying to figure out the crystal solids. Darwin was a racist, too. Yes, all those things are true, and totally irrelevant. Your ancestors were murderers and rapists, because all of our ancestors were murders and rapists. And yet, just like today we have laws which criminalize murder and rape, today science has discarded the bad ideas of the past. Well, some of them, it's an ongoing process.

doubtful

[CauseBy]

I think it's a lot more likely that the title and preamble of the law are the opposite of what the law would actually do. Remember the "Clean Water Act" that made our water dirtier? Yeah, I bet it's like that.

But, sure, asking the EPA to release their science? It seems pretty good to me.

Proof

[CauseBy]

There's no such thing as proving anything. Any denier can always use special pleading to avoid conceding a fact.

Impact factor

[drolli]

Leave science decide it self what is worth reproducing.

Make the cumulative impact factor of the citations (corrected with a delay depending on how fundamental the study was - very fundamental studies take longer to collect citations) of previous studies a mandatory criteria for distributing big scientific money to funding institutions for a specific field. If something can not be reproduced, then it will not collect citations and will be gone soon. Given the specific wording of the dear Senator I am not sure that this turn out how he expects it.

Why stop at the EPA?

[bkcallahan]

So long as the Republicans apply it to their religion, to what is taught in schools etc.

Let science do its job!

[bbsalem]

The minute we let Congress or the local church minister tell us what is and is not science, we have given up our advantage in being a leading nation in innovation and new solutions to problems.

Science has already adequate means to self-correct errors, including being on the take from economic interests or submitting to political pressure to bias or censor results. Even if Peer Review is weakened by government intervention or payola, our competition will see the advantage in not poisoning the well and out strip us to discover and control new technology that results.

It is our advantage to lose, and like dealing with Creatiionism and other biased pseudoscience, reasoning people eventually come up with a good answer. (I'd bet with the Bible Thumpers who deny Evolution that flu epidemics are an answer to their nonsense and they don't get the flu shot because they don't accept its basis that viruses are rapidly evolving pathogens.)

Sp, let politicians and energy company propagandists speak their minds. If the GOP gets to censor climate research they will be no better than Hitler denying quantum mechanics and missing the opportunity to invent atomic energy. Someone else will get to the truth faster and it will be their advantage and not ours, and maybe they will have a case that blames us, our politicians, our business people, for the damage we are causing and have a moral cause to come after us. I'd say let science prevail, especially at correcting the failings of the human beings who do it.

Seriously

[Riceballsan]

Creationist is a pretty bad example. first off being a creationist, doesn't bar people from science in any field. When a creationist or anyone else sets forth data or experiments, it is put through the peer review process and tested for validity. Someone already pointed out, newton was a creationist, but his laws of motion worked just fine within their context. He also believed in alchemy. His belief in alchemy and the supernatural, had no impact on the acceptence or rejection of his physics. Nor does his brilliance in physics, give alchemy a free pass into accepted science. The assumption that all laws of physics, are subject to change at the whims of a supernatural being, of whom we cannot get to break the laws under controlled conditions because he doesn't like being tested, will not be accepeted by the scientific community, but that has no bearing over whether the scientific community will accept a testable provable claim, made by someone who holds beliefs that are untestable or flat out rediculous.

oh you're not as pathetic as you think

[gzuckier]

if it were a liberal proposing the same bill, instead of trying to cripple the EPA it would be to require reproducible evidence that some other country was squirreling away WMD to use against us before we put the war we're already in on the back burner so we can go to war against this new country (and put it on our high interest credit card)

Re:Iraq invasion

[Curunir_wolf]

No, that's a good point. Let's put at least the same burden of proof on any federal agency, probably even more on the ones advocating for war and violence. "National Security" should mean avoiding violence, not instigating it with secret motivations.

What about the FDA?

[Anonymous Coward]

All that stuff that is OK'd by the FDA? Where is the transprarent and reproducible data for those claims?

Oh, commercial in confidence? Well, then, it does't count, does it!

Ooh, can we require the same thing of religion?

[mlemley]

Ooh, can we require the same thing of religion?

Re:You know

[gottabeme]

My children used to try to change the subject and assert correctness rather than have a rational discussion. they grew out of it, however.

Global warming as a plumbing exercise

[Immerman]

>You've convinced yourself that you understand something as enormous and complex
No, I've convinced myself that a community of scientists, many of the brightest and most intellectually rigorous minds on the planet, members of whom have spent the last 50-100 years studying an alarming hypothesis and finding ever more supporting evidence, aren't totally incompetent. Meanwhile you are convinced of... what exactly? That the whole system is so far beyond human comprehension or influence that we may as well ignore it completely?

As for the oceans "making" more CO2 than humans (actually they're net absorbers IIRC, though CO2 continuously flows both ways by diffusion), I see this reasonable misunderstanding a lot, so if you'll bear with my analogy for a moment I'll try an explanation. Picture a 1,000 gallon tank of water that's being filled at one end by a well-regulated pump moving 100 gallons a second, and being emptied at the other end by another pump moving another 100 gallons of water a second. Everything stays nice and stable, right? Now imagine I add another pump bringing in only 1 gallon of water per day. You probably won't even notice the extra trickle of water in the rush, but after a day the tank now contains 1,001 gallons of water, and after a year it contains 1,365 gallons of water.

And that's basically what's happening with the atmosphere now - our ecosystem has three massive "tanks" of carbon - atmosphere, ocean, and biomass, and carbon gets pumped between them at fairly constant rates by a variety of processes so that carbon levels stay fairly constant in each tank. We also have a fourth tank, "geology", that mostly involves much smaller and pumps than the others so is usually ignored. Except humans went and rigged up our own pump from geology to atmosphere, and as you would expect the amount of carbon in the atmosphere tank is now increasing. It's a tiny, gradual increase, but the other pumps in the system haven't changed speed so it keeps building up.

That's the accepted interpretation of raw data - we can calculate pretty accurately how much carbon is in the fossil fuels we mine, and thus how much CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere, and for as long as we've been monitoring atmospheric CO2 levels they've been climbing pretty consistently with our contribution. Now no, we don't understand every aspect of the system, but when you're pumping water into a tank at one gallon per minute, and notice that the volume of water in the tank is increasing at about one gallon per minute, you don't need to understand all the complicated plumbing attached to make the reasonable assertion that you are the one causing the change, and that if you stopped pumping the water would stop rising.

And once it's in the atmosphere we have plenty of experimental evidence of the warming properties of CO2. Double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you roughly double the amount of heat it reflects back to Earth, at least at such low concentrations as we're dealing with. It's only one tiny factor in the massive exchange of heat between Earth, the sun, and space, but it's well enough understood that we can calculate roughly how much solar heat will be trapped by a single "average" atmospheric CO2 molecule over the course of the year, whether it be in a carefully controlled greenhouse or in the open air. And while I've mostly forgotten the results it works out that the CO2 produced from fossil fuels by humans last year will, this year, trap several thousands (millions?) of times more energy than will be released by all human technology combined. A staggering number, whatever it was. And it will continue to do that every year for for many decades to come until eventually it gets trapped as part of a plant or diffuses into the ocean. So add in the rest of a century of CO2 buildup and *that* is enough energy trapped every year to actually start destabilizing a planetary ecosystem.

> For one thing, if the climate were to go nuts, we'd all be dead long before that happened.
Why would yo