Slashdot Mirror
White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
sciencehabit writes The U.S. House of Representatives could vote as early as this week to approve two controversial, Republican-backed bills that would change how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses science and scientific advice to inform its policies. Many Democrats, scientific organizations, and environmental groups are pushing back, calling the bills thinly veiled attempts to weaken future regulations and favor industry. White House advisers announced that they will recommend that President Barack Obama veto the bills if they reach his desk in their current form.
It will fall to the EPA to prove their data is reproducible by someone who wishes to not reproduce it. Everything else would be illegal.
Did you read the bills? Where does it say this? I didn't see any such requirement.
Well..the Democrats are using the EPA as a political tool rather than an environmental agency. The guy Obama put in charge of the EPA gleefully admitted that he only job was too destroy Capitalism. Democrats don't care about science. They care about power and control.
I wish Slashdot forced moderators to comment.
What makes them say that I'm a troll? Is it that there's not a presidential election in 2016, that the GOP doesn't do things that tick off nearly every informed voter, or that the GOP isn't the only party that is consistently anti-science.
Because last I checked, there is an election in 2016, the GOP consistently does whatever the majority of voters object to (see: their response to the FCC ruling for a recent example), and literally every single anti-science thing that ever originates in D.C. comes from the GOP. Every. One.
But I guess that because I said something negative about the GOP, reality is suspended and I'm a troll.
The G.O.P. is the party of stupid
The G.O.P. even introduced the term
http://thehill.com/video/in-th...
But among Jindal's most provocative suggestions was the demand that the GOP needed to "stop insulting the intelligence of voters" — and display more intelligence itself. Jindal's comments seemed targeted squarely at conservative candidates in Senate races whose comments on rape and abortion appeared to torpedo their electoral chances.
"We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments," Jindal said.
The Louisiana governor also warned that Republicans were too associated with "big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes."
"We must not be the party that simply protects the well-off so they can keep their toys," Jindal said. "We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive."
it's a good strategy: identify something rich people need and want, then wrangle the idiots with fearmongering into supporting that agenda, even if it hurts the poor idiots. they're idiots, they can't even understand they're hurting themselves. so you have people without adequate healthcare for example, screaming low iq fears about obamacare
this doesn't mean there are no intelligent conservative people, they do exist. stupid liberals also exist
but it's just that if you meet a stupid person, they are more likely to be a conservative, because their simplistic dimwitted way of thinking about the world matches conservative ideology more closely
http://www.livescience.com/181...
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So why have this bill at all if it apparently changes nothing?
Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?
The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:
(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,
(B) "publicly available"
(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.
There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.
demographics my friend
old angry stupid white people die
who remains and what groups grow long term?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it