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 makes me wonder if they're bringing out these stupid bills because they want to appease voters but know there's no chance of them actually passing because of white house veto.
Think about it; this is a wonderful time for the Republicans to create all kinds of crazy ridiculous stuff that appeases voters but that the politicians know is harmful, realizing that none of it will pass and that they'll get re-elected by their crazy base because "at least they tried."
Hmmmm!
What a genius political strategy when there's not a presidential election next year!
While they're busy sucking up to low-information voters who have a non-specific axe to grind, they're also alienating the support they'll need to not lose the White House for the third time in a row for the first time since the 1940's. I get the feeling they think that because it hasn't happened in so long, they're protected by some kind of voodoo fairy magic and pixie dust that will keep it from happening. But that would be par for the course for the party of "science am fake".
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
Can't have the masses getting their info right from the source.
From the article:
"The bills, introduced by a mostly Republican cast of sponsors in both the House and the Senate, would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agency’s science advisory panels."
The president plans to veto common sense.
"His name was James Damore."
I'm sorry, I still don't see how that's a bad thing. What's wrong with requiring some level of scientific rigor in something before making public policy on the results? Now, remaking the membership and procedures of the agency portion, that's rather vague and more info needed, too lazy to look it up.
The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. 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.
Learn to love Alaska
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.
The (Republican) backers response? Apparently they think participants/Patients should sign a waiver agreeing that the raw study data might be made public, or they can simply choose not to participate in the study.
Frankly, I'm disgusted.
The result is clear: very few, if any, studies would be available to the EPA to use as a basis to set policy.
The idea of transparent science is good. But this is clearly an attempt to strip the EPA of any ability to actually do science or regulate based on science.
Public Domain's not the issue here, when the American Statistical Society opposes this bill, there must be some serious problem somewhere.
the devil is in the details:
The secret science bill, for example, would apparently bar EPA from using public health studies based on confidential patient information, wrote the American Statistical Association’s president, David Morganstein, in a 25 February letter to lawmakers. That would force the agency into “a choice between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations,” he wrote. Also, efforts to deidentify sensitive data before release—by stripping names and other information—aren’t fail-safe, Morganstein wrote.
Democrats are further concerned about another provision, not included in earlier versions, that would give EPA only $1 million per year to implement the bill, which would entail, among other things, obtaining raw data from study authors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that the bill would cost $250 million annually to implement early on, and that’s only if EPA were to halve the number of studies it used to 25,000 annually, said Representative Donna Edwards (D–MD)
this bill is not even remotely about "transparency." it's about hamstringing the EPA.
Its funny to see climate-change denying conservatives and anti-vaccine liberals make the same arguments to support their stance against overwhelming scientific evidence,
If the EPA is making decisions based on "overwhelming scientific evidence", what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public, and that people who advise the EPA not base those decisions on unpublished personal research? That's what these bills require.
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government, and the limited number of such datasets shows that this is another case of the perfect being the enemy of the reasonable. Legislation that covers every possible eventuality is going to be overly complex and still have loopholes based on interpretations.
No, that's what he does want, but a law that requires the data be "reproducible" would allow every rule be challenged in court for years. Scientific consensus wouldn't matter if a single "scientist" could challenge the reproducibility. Of course, the lone scientist would be backed by billions from polluters who object to clean water and air.
I was in CA 30 years ago, and more recently. The air quality change was huge. And none of the rules used were science-based. They worked, and worked well. Spending 20 years on each rule, tied up in court, would have killed millions before implementation.
Or unleaded gas. Greatly cut the crime rate, but wasn't backed by science. Lead is bad, so let's ban it. We aren't sure all the problems that level of lead is causing, but it's bad, because we don't like it. But then, long after the ban, we see lead was worse than we thought. But the science followed the rules, by decades. And the rules were right. And if they were wrong, the cost was small.
Sometimes it's better to do the right thing based on the best information you have at the time, than delay the right thing for decades so you can prove it in court against people with a financial interest to get the rules reversed.
Learn to love Alaska
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
The EPA employs 16,000 people full-time and contracts out work to many more, so that is 3 studies per employee per year. I fail to notice anything ridiculous about the number.
Do tell us, what is the "right" number of studies?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
what exactly is the problem with requiring that that evidence be available to the public
Nothing's wrong with that.
That's what these bills require.
Nope. I've participated in medical studies (when I was in college, it was easy money). To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
The bill doesn't require "the evidence" be available to the public (that'd be the completed study). The law requires the raw data be published by the EPA.
It also requires the data be "reproducible". All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible. It may fail in court, but would cost the taxpayer millions, and delay the introduction of rules by years, or decades.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles, while claiming (non existent) benefits.
Learn to love Alaska
the devil is in the details:
Yes, such as the 50,000 studies they "use" annually. Thats 137 studies 'used" per day. I guess common sense doesnt figure into your view of things sine you quoted the part where this is detailed, but failed to notice how ridiculous this is.
you're not a scientist, or even science-adjacent, are you. research institutions, both public and private, review incredible amounts of scientific literature, research results, and related items on a daily basis. that's part of science.
what's not common sense is the belief that the EPA, or any other private or public agency doing science review and research, should stop reviewing data at an arbitrary limit of studies. that's not only the exact antithesis of good science, it's also an asinine claim.
The problem is that ALL the data must be public. For example, it means that medical studies that do not publish the raw data (including patient identities) cannot be used by the EPA as the basis for rule making.
It also requires the EPA to use reproducible results, which means that a number of studies are required and each must come to exactly the same result. Imagine the situation where study results have the same conclusion, but slightly different results (say one says 64% of people will die from smoking and another says 66%). Industries could then argue that the results are not reproducible and these studies should not be used as the basis for restricting cigarettes.
In this article from 2009 our-secrets-live-online-in-databases-of-ruin, researchers were able to identify %87 of Americans with just 3 piece of information: zip code, birthdate and sex. With the mountains of personal data both publicly accessible and in private databases and with what are essentially clearing-houses especially designed to aggregate this data, identifying people in anonymized data is almost trivial unless that data is so heavily sanitized as to be useless to research and in effect fail the "reproducible" requirement of the law.
The ASA makes most of its revenue by charging large amounts for access to closed academic journals. Of course they're opposed to open access laws.
in that case then why does this only apply to the EPA, and not all agencies?
Rune
It's a shame when the EPA's own strategy gets used against it.
No, that's bullshit. It means that patient data from a private study cannot be used unless the owners of the study allow the data to be publicly shared.
The only argument I can see that is valid deals with studies including personally identifiable medical information. Those kind of studies should already be required to remove PII prior to use by the government
TFA cites a letter sent to the Congressional committee by David Morganstein, president of the American Statistical Association. He writes:
[S]imple but necessary de-identification methods—like stripping names and other personally identifiable information (PII)—often do not suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown that it is possible to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with PII removed.
You can read Morganstein's full letter here. [PDF alert]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
But if your information isn't close to 100% complete and perfect, or if there's a reasonable chance the law will create unintended consequences, then the law should have a sunset clause. It's really quite irresponsible to pass a law under those conditions without one.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Are you completely sure it's bullshit? Are you certain that no group impacted by a ruling will not use every possible way of undermining a negative result, valid or otherwise? Have you so little imagination?
Just look at the news today. Republicans are using four words in Obamacare to remove healthcare subsidies for 15 million people. While the act is completely clear, these four words were poorly chosen, and on that basis they want to throw out a major provision. It's no exaggeration to say that people will die if this challenge is upheld.
""would require that EPA use only publicly available, reproducible data in writing regulations and seek to remake the membership and procedures of the agencyâ(TM)s science advisory panels.""
Explain to me why that is bad? First, unreproducable science isn't science. So requiring that the science be reproducable is requiring that it actually be science. As to the information being publicly avalidable, it can't be peer reviewed unless it can be reviewed by peers.
Here someone will say "but we had some secret shadow council of scientists look it over and they said it was fine."... but since you're not disclosing it, then how can we know? What is more, your selection of scientists could be his buddies for all anyone knows.
I'm not talking about the science being behind a journal paywall. That's one thing. But if the science and data is straight up not disclosed then I'm not approving legislation based on it because I can't get it verified.
Look... republicans and democrats either need to kill each other or the two need to be able to work together reasonably. This is not an unreasonable requirement from what I can see. So... democrats... seriously... what the fuck? If the republicans are doing something stupid, then bitch about that and shut it down. But if they're not... then at least have a rational discussion about it. In fact, strike that... always have a rational discussion.
I know there is a lot of factionalism and tribalism in US politics. But we've come to the point where we need to get over that bullshit or throats need to get cut.
This shit is old.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The obvious target is to tie up all EPA regulations until courts have confirmed the reproducibility of the data used to base the decision on. 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.
The language of the bill is very clear. It is intended to do what it says: make sure our regulatory bodies (employees of The People) are making their decisions based on publicly available, sound science.
Why should they be able to keep their "science" secret, as they have? That's obviously a non-starter. Especially when they're attempting to shove the most expensive regulations in history off on the public.
I hope you aren't suggesting that Republicans do care about science - there seems to be ample evidence to the contrary.
And why would Democrats want to destroy capitalism? The stock market has done much better under the last two Democratic presidents than under the last two Republicans who held the office. Heck, when Clinton left office we had a net surplus and were actually reducing the national Debt.
To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
First you claim that the EPA will have to reproduce the data or it will be illegal, and now this. No, the law doesn't say they have to publish your SSN, and at worst only those parts of your history that are relevant to the study might need to be online. If you think your SSN is somehow relevant to a medical study, you're wrong. And if you think your specific DOB is necessary and not just an approximate age, then you must believe in astrology. I know of no medical issues that depend on a specific age down to a specific day in history. (Were you a Hiroshima survivor?)
It also requires the data be "reproducible".
No, it does not. It says that the data used to make a decision (not all data ever provided to EPA) must be "publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results." All the EPA has to do is make sure the data is publicly available so that someone who DOES want to try reproducing it can. It doesn't even require the EPA to be the data warehouse.
All you have to do with a study with 95% confidence is to it 20 times, and then take the 1 failure to court and show the 1 success to be wrong and unreproducible.
And now you ignore the word "substantial". If the EPA is basing regulatory decisions on one study with one result and this law stops it, that's a good thing. One study does not science make, and one unpublished study with secret data makes for even less valid science.
The obvious point of the law is to add hurdles,
Yeah, an impossible hurdle of letting the public know the science that is being used to create regulations they have to obey or have the weight of the federal government crash down on them. If the science cannot survive the scrutiny, then it's isn't valid science and shouldn't be used to make regulations.
What's also not common sense is that this would keep EPA from using health studies from confidential sources. By their very nature, such studies are presumed to be repeatable; if not, then the researcher(s) are using questionable statistical methods at best. Like biased sampling methods, for example.
There is nothing in there that would preclude using decent studies which used non-controversial methodology. Whether the subjects of the studies remain confidential, or not.
We are blessed with a fair amount of light-duty science shows on TV... but... it seems to be financed by non scientists. Why is Nova paid for by the Koch Brothers ( http://www.cpb.org/ombudsman/d... )? Seems David and Charles are all for pushing the populace to see just enough science to not want to dig further. To displace science provided by scientists. I want to see Science TV shows that make me want to learn more about the topics ... to understand and even participate in the process of adapting / adopting. Why not feel part of science and not subject to it?
How about science that seeks to inform. Rather than fascination with Mars, how about how pollution affects the living world around us... how ocean currents work, how to integrate my home, How to wire up a Raspberry Pi to do myriad things, what life forms am I made of?
There is enough science to go around. Lets light our kids' imaginations!!
Lets have some science with a capital S!
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
From the full article, the law as written, would bar the EPA from using any studies involving confidential patient information unless they were made public.
This is really reaching, by anybody's standards. I read the article, and Morganstein's letter.
The language of the bill calls for "publicly available science". It does not say that the subjects of any studies cannot be kept confidential. That's just malarkey.
As I wrote above: such studies or surveys, by their very nature, are presumed to be repeatable. The idea is that anyone else who conducted such a study, with a similar but separate sample of individuals, would come up with the same results. After all: that's what the studies are for.
To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't anywhere say that study subjects cannot be anonymous. The only thing that can't be anonymous or secret are the authors and their methodologies.
I don't mind honest debate about the issue, but the idea that the statement "publicly available" could reasonably apply to study subjects is a pretty long and thin stretch of the imagination.
In many fields, it is the case that data ultimately becomes available to the public. For example, in astronomy, the principle investigators are given a time frame for exclusive access to the data, but it ultimately is made available for download.
The issue here is that there are cases where you shouldn't make the data publicly available (public health studies, for example) because it isn't always possible to anonymize public health data (even when names, etc. are stripped). As a result, we need to limit access to those data sets. Researchers can still petition to get access if they can show they have a legitimate need to see the data, but that doesn't satisfy the requirements of the bill.
To meet the strict letter of the law, the EPA must publish my SSN, DOB, and medical history, or they can't use the study.
Please show us exactly where it says this.
In a medical study, your SSN, DOB, and (non-anonymized) medical information are not data. In fact they are mostly irrelevant to the actual DATA of the study. Your approximate DOB may be important, and your medical history (and I very highly doubt they would require a complete medical history) might be relevant, but your name or SSN? Fucking hardly.
Here is how that will work:
EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.
Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?
EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!
Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?
EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?
Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.
Our Chinese friends (yes.. the capital-communists ) are beginning to figure out the need to have a balance between industry and pollution for the publics' good. http://thinkprogress.org/clima... The incessant back and forth of the Red Vs Blue (especially when fabricated) is not helping anyone. There is no guarantee that the earth can stay inhabitable... Its up to us to treat it as the gift that it is. Why an instinct to protect our environment is harpooned is beyond me. Here is the question..., Does the perfect net catch -all- the fish? Think about it.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
Where are all the stories about those "obstructionist Democrats" and "the party of No" that we should be seeing by now, I wonder? I mean, with all of the vetos and "walking out" on foreign dignitaries we should be seeing these headlines regularly, shouldn't we?
Publications comprised 20% (2012) and 27% (2011) of ASA's budget, according to this audited report on page 10 of their membership magazine's June 2013 issue (pg 10) (PDF). They make a big chunk off publications, but I wouldn't say that's "most of" the revenue; membership dues accounted for 29% (2012) and 25% (2011) of revenue.
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.
So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?
If its a reaching non-issue Why would the backers of the bill suggest study participants can sign waivers or opt out? Why aren't they just fixing the bill to exclude that interpretation?
That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.
The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.
400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.
I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.
And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.
EPA would pass a regulation, repubs would sue saying it's not reproducable and here is contracitory evidence, then there would be 8 years of sutis and appeals where EPA would have to show reporoducability at each step. repubs are just introducing a stall tactic they can use later.
I've read some excerpts, but haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. Probably not until the weekend.
The bill requires it be "reproducible" but doesn't define that term, so at least one court case will be necessary to define it.
All the court cases will be by polluters, wishing to continue their polluting ways, claiming that it's a matter of "freedom" to poison your air and water.
Learn to love Alaska
Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:
=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.
=======
It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".
There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.
Why should only the EPA have to base policy only on publicly available, reproducible studies?
Any government agency that is making science-based, public policy decisions should only be using data that I am also allowed to access. I am sick of the government doing so much in secret, behind closed doors, where I am not allowed to see what is happening.
There have been some concerns raised elsewhere in the comments, and I don't think any of them cannot be addressed by some changes to the legislation. This could end up being a very good piece of legislation from the standpoint of government transparency and accountability.
Love sees no species.
If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it.
One of the sponsors of the Secret Science Reform Act was Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. Here's what he's had to say on that topic:
God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. There's a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says. And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.
He does want a "faith based approach to law making", but at least he's been "forthright about it".
No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound. You will have people in favor of the regulation reproducing it, you will have universities doing the same. if someone cannot reproduce it and others can, you will only have people looking like dumbasses and nothing more.
Just as Morganstein says, simply stripping names is not always enough to de-personalize data. But other methods are easily available.
This is a non-issue.
Sez you.
Scenario: Scientific study of infant mortality and birth defect rates in a specific neighbourhood (e.g. Love Canal) is used to justify an EPA order shutting down a major manufacturing facility until such time as it ceases to pollute. The data correlates proximity to pollution sources with health data. Using the now-publicly-available data, the manufacturer identifies every family likely to be involved in a class action suit, applies divide-and-conquer techniques. Lobbyists for the industry hire a quack medical expert who claims the results can't be reliably reproduced. Insurance companies refuse to pay out because they think they can lay the blame on the manufacturer. The company, meanwhile, continues polluting, possibly forever.
Scenario: Scientific study of environmental effects of Chemical A are troubling, but inconclusive. The EPA issues a ruling applying the Precautionary Principle, stopping use of Chemical A until further studies have been completed. Industry lobbyists challenge the ruling, stating that the science is neither well-established nor reproducible. Chemical A is put into widespread use. Further study determines the fears were justified, but it's too late—hundreds or thousands of people are already suffering adverse effects.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
All of these requirements add up effectively to denial of service attacks on regulation. They don't have to contest a proposed regulation on its own merits, they could just repeatedly contest the research backing it. Even if published research checks all the boxes they're demanding, they can grind it to a halt by forcing everyone involved to verify the case. And if something doesn't meet the requirements even if it doesn't substantially impact the validity of the research, that's a probably needed regulation that will take much longer to implement, even if it never gets past that stage. There will also likely be a metric ton of industry-generated "everything's fine, nothing to see here" "research" that does fit that opponents will demand to be considered.
You know, today's EPA also has changed regulations to make a pond be considered a "navigable waterway". These regulations are ridiculous. I am awaiting the EPA using their SWAT teams to come after farmers for mis managing their waterways.
How about you read the entire article and not quote selectively. One major issue is the raw data from clinical studies. In these studies the data identifying the patients is protected to preserve the privacy. The reason for this is that publishing data that identifies the subjects of the study will deter participation, particularly from people with severe conditions. This will ultimately bias the results and will make the studies irrelevant. There is also the existing legislation protecting the patient privacy which prohibits publishing personally identifiable information without explicit consent from the patients. The law that is being proposed will make it impossible to use epidemiological data from medical records. It is pretty obvious that the goal of this legislature is not to enforce "common sense". The goal is to make EPA powerless by preventing it from backing its decisions with real data. The most telling part is that the legislature will quote: "bar academic scientists on the panels from talking about matters related to research they’re doing." WTF? How is EPA supposed to make decisions? By ignoring the advice of scientist who work on the matter and taking advice from people who are completely clueless?
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it.
You're holding the EPA to a lower standard then a corporation that files its yearly tax return.
You're being cousined. It is not unreasonable to ask that studies be reproducible before using them as justification for law and protocol. And it is not unreasonable for those same studies to have their data audited.
If you have such contempt for the political process then just come out and say it now... just say you hate democracy. Say you hate due process. Say you hate freedom of speech. Just admit it.
All these things make dictatorial rule difficult.
Due process forces those that wish to claim power to justify their actions and associate those actions with existing law. Democracy means you can't just take control unless you have a solid majority behind you. Some little cabal can't just do whatever they want. And of course, freedom of speech lets people tell you to your face... that you're a fascist fool. And that's not the image of yourself you want to project when you're pulling these hijinks.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Richard Nixon would not today be a big supporter of the monstrosity the EPA has grown into.
Hell, even Eisenhower warned about the rise of the 'scientific-technological elite' in the same speech where he warned about the 'Military-Industrial Complex.' Many people excerpt just the 'good part' out of his speech.
So the EPA should be able to make rules and then say," Because...this". What is this? No one knows.
Making rules, regulations and public police is serious business and should be done open and above board.If you want to restrict or prohibit something, you should have real science, available science to back it up. All this garbage about privacy is just that. Scientific studies are done all the time protecting the patient's info and is perfectly acceptable science.
I think they don't want to be forced to show their work...just write down "the answer".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
look at it this way... if the repubs are pushing a bill, then it must be for a nefarious purpose even if it seems logical on its face. once you realize this and start looking at people's motivations, you'll understand. follow the money!
This is ridiculous. Real after me: It is impossible to scientifically prove that environmental damage is bad, or should be illegal. It is impossible to scientifically prove that killing innocent people is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically prove that theft is wrong. It is impossible to scientifically prove that the risk of particulate pollution above level X creates an intolerable hazard, but below the level does not, and lacking that level of predication, rule making becomes impossible.
If you create the standard that a law must be justified by science, no law could be sufficiently justified. The EPA makes regulations based on science, but also on things like risk assessments, ethics, moral attitudes on the value of human life, and popular democratic demands. Risk assessments and ethics aren't science and never can be, making them into science is scientism. If the people vote for clean air or dirty air, or their legislators demand it, they should get clean or dirty air, science be damned.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Just how does one reproduce a temperature measurement from 150 years ago ? Aside from photocopying the handwritten record ?
Nullius in verba
Ah, so by the rules in this law, Global Warming can never be proven. Just like it's never been proven that smoking causes cancer. No study on that is "reproducable" because anything that would prove a link by exposing humans to smoke is unethical (thus illegal). It's illegal to prove smoking causes cancer, and thus illegal to repoduce any proof to that effect, so the EPA couldn't regulate smoke, because nobody can replicate a study proving smoke (or lead, or whatever) causes problems in humans.
So, is it malice or stupidity that gives us this catch 22 that makes all effective regulation illegal, and only ineffective regulation could be legal? I vote malice.
Learn to love Alaska
But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound.
And what will be the benchmark for that? If the thing in question is the result of a ten-year study, will it include redoing ten years of measurements? Just because a result is reproducible in itself doesn't mean it will be reproduced quickly.
Ezekiel 23:20
As to the standards, absolutely. Any science used to back up a war should be reproducible. Whether it is disclosed or not in that case is a little more suspect because you're talking about war. Wars are won and lost often on secrets. So for example, I would be in favor secrets being kept when those secrets could save lives.
However, science that is not reproducible is not science.
You think you're being clever by conflating very different things together... military intelligence versus a scientific study.
The problem with your logic here, is that if you don't conflate you know I'll agree with you... and if you do conflate then you suggest that scientific studies should be treated with the same skepticism one regards for military intelligence.
For example, if I said I didn't find a military report to be credible that would be entirely valid no? But if I said I didn't find a tested scientific fact to be credible that would be unreasonable on my part.
By suggesting that they're the same thing you either put standards on military intelligence that are unworkable or you diminish the value of science to such a point that it basically hearsay.
I am prepared to engage with you on this issue rationally. But you should be warned now... I am extremely rational. Doubletalk, sophistry, and other fallacious nonsense will simply get vivisected and pinned to an examination table while I take it apart bit by bit putting each little piece in its own little formaldehyde jar with its own little label.
If you are not honest with me or you think yourself to be clever enough to get away with flimflam... then I will engage you as a troll.
If science and logic are on your side... prove it by not repeating any more sophistry.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The temperature last June was -135.4 degrees below 0. Laugh at that. Its just .3 of a degree within being the coldest temperature ever recorded on the planet. Or how about this "scientist", Dr. David Viner of the Hadley Climate Research Center: "We have seen our last snowfall. A snowfall will become a rare and exciting event. Children will just grow up not knowing what snow looks like."
That was in the year 2000. 15 years later with winters colder than ever we see that his "science" was wrong. The number of people freezing to death has not gone down. The number of snowfalls in Florida has not gone down (it snowed there in January). Now if you still believe in whack-jobs who are doing politics and not science then just keep supporting them and not requiring to disclose where they came across this new-found alien science that no one knows about but the Environmental Quacks and no one can see but them. That is how we wind up with anti-vaxxers and the zealots behind the GMO hysteria.
Because it leaves all sorts of loopholes.
There is no scientific literature on how nasty fracking fluid is (blatantly not just inert chemicals) because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it.
With this bill, it would be impossible to regulate because there's no information about it. Depending on how the bill is written it would be impossible to even require information about it because that too would require "scientific studies" and I'll bet there's not a lot of papers out there with platitudes like "things we have no idea at all about may possibly not be good".
Make no mistake, this is not done with good intentions, it is a bill intended to neuter the EPA in order to benefit lage corporations. It's been given a sheen of science to make it seem reasonable, but it is almost certainly not designed for the purpose of making the government more scientific.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You provide the raw data collected by whatever means, plus the methods used to take that raw data and translate it to a temperature measurement. Very straightforward. You provide the raw data without any adjustment or hedging, so that the raw data is accurate and as complete as you can make it. You then explain very carefully any assumptions you have made about your transformations, without any handwaving or "here a miracle occurs" or "I just know that this means that."
Subject privacy? The first step in any data collection would be to remove identifying information from the incoming data, so that the subject's privacy is maintained. By doing the stripping as the very first step, then publishing the stripped data as the raw data used for the rest of the research, you maintain transparency without compromising subject privacy.
The next step, when you want to coerce people to spend money, is to design a model that will predict what will happen, and measure that model against raw data of what actually happens. From that, you can validate your model, so that recommendations made can be measured against the model to determine the cost/benefit ratio.
This.
Requiring EPA to use publicly available data sound reasonable enough until you realize that many of these same (mostly GOP) people have no problem with (often times heavily subsidized) companies refusing to share data.
Like the fracking example parent mentioned; nobody is able to research their methods and the compounds used, because trade secrets. Something similar happened with GM crops, which have been widely planted for over a decade before the scientific community at large were able/allowed to research them.
"Seeking to remake the membership and procedures" is just code for subverting, eroding, EPA until it is a hollow shell of what it was intended to be.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Of republicans declaring that science isn't science if it's "secret" and this makes the bills good because they haven't actually read the article and has no idea what "secret" MEANS in this context.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Every major science group in the country has opposed this bill, all the scientists oppose it.
Considering that they all love and live the scientific method, if this law was what it says it is, they would be supporting it.
You should reconsider judging a law by what republicans claim it does.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You have more faith in government than I do. I read the bill as regulating a regulator to make it more expensive and harder to do anything.
The EPA is part of the government. If you have little faith in the government, why would you want it to be easy for them to act using unpreproducible or other bad science? It is easy for EPA to have a huge negative impact on society and any industry it involves itself in. Surely you don't believe that all of government is filled with bad actors with the one incredible exception of EPA, staffed by only angels and sages instead of political apointees and bureaucrats?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Have you not see the stupid lawsuits brought by fringe environmentalists that greatly drive up the cost of much economic activity for little or no benefit? Have you not seen stupid government regulations that either prohibit various activities or greatly drive up the cost of various economic activities for little or no benefit, or even create actual harm? Surely you can't believe that ALL rules are good rules that must be imposed according to the whims, agendas, or mistakes of bureaucrats and political apointees? Is your thinking that all politicians are evil and untrustworthy, but bureaucrats and political apointees are all sages, angels, sweetness and light? Or is it even simpler: bureaucrats sounds like Democrats and therefore have your unthinking support?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?
Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"all the scientists oppose it." Right. And 97% believe in AGW.
Existing studies can have identifying information removed, leaving raw data to examine. Unless, of course, the raw data has been lost, massaged in the first place or is simply being refused access to. You're making a false assumption ( "We have to redo them.").
That's quite simply not true.
It quite simply is true.
Read: http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://www.newsweek.com/theres...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The proverbial Devil is in the Details. While the main public "idea" behind the bills makes sense, the bills contain provisions that make them, in effect, EPA-killers.
The "Public Data" bill contains a provision only giving the EPA $1M per year to make the data public, which is not nearly enough money to do the job. It would essentially stop the EPA in it's tracks, unable to make policy. (Which is likely the true intent of the bill.)
The other bill bars academics from even discussing research they are performing if it hasn't yet been published. (But I'll bet that provision doesn't apply to industry members.) It also requires panels to respond to ALL public comments on their work. In practice, this means their work would never complete. No other regulatory agency has such a restriction.
You mean the compounds so secret that there's a wikipedia page listing them all?
First, there is no reason to believe that list is exhaustive. According to the page itself, it is "a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives that are used or have been used in fracturing operations." It was only released in 2011 in response to a congressional investigation, having been held secret for 60 years. Nor does it help you know whether fracking fluid is mostly toluene or mostly liquid nitrogen (personally, my guess is that there is very little, if any, liquid nitrogen in fracking fluids, but it's on the list)
Second, from a random sampling of MSDS:
So, under the proposed legislation, even if you know what the chemicals are, you have to wait for someone to get interested enough in them to perform ecological, carcinogenic, and mutagenic studies with those specific chemicals and publishes the results. Until someone proves that a compound is carcinogenic, it would be regulated like it is not carcinogenic.
Perhaps you are willing to have your dinner grown next to a factory that can hold its chemical waste secret for 60 years, and then be unable to regulate that waste for another few years or decades, waiting for someone to bother to measure their health effects. Maybe you believe that no company would knowingly or accidentally release chemicals without clear confidence in their non-toxicity (even if they can't release that data to the public). Maybe you trust those companies, more than the politicized EPA, to balance their profits against potential harm to humans and environment.
The Republicans don't know the first thing about science. Though truthfully that applies to most politicians, the difference being that one side is at least willing to listen to scientists as experts, rather than assert that they have a right to the data so they can personally review and comment on it despite their thorough lack of qualifications.
The GOP chiefly understands the scientific method as a 5 step recipe they learned in 2nd grade, as evidenced by every time they talk about "the scientific method", such as when they try to impugn scientific research they don't like "because it didn't follow the scientific method". The scientific method they learned in 2nd grade is not a recipe that you can just take, add researcher, stir, wait 50 minutes, and out pops Science. It has been vastly oversimplified, and in their inability to go further and realize that that is NOT the end of the knowledge road, their ignorance holds them back from actual understanding.
It's like if they once learned that 2+2=4.
Then down the road someone told them that 1+1+1+1 also =4.
And their response is "uh uh, no way, that's wrong. Only 2+2=4".
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data.
What I had in mind is what silly conditions will be pushed by people in power who don't like the conclusions of some studies.
How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on
At what time? What refusals? What are you talking about? Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896! Publically, of course. You're saying that somebody has been hiding some data for a century?
Ezekiel 23:20
So what you're saying is that "Due Process" is inconvenient?
The EPA should be subject to due process. If they're saying they're doing something because of a study... then that study itself should be subject to examination... that includes whether it is reprroducable and therefore science at all... and then you're going to want to know where the information came from so you can audit it...
No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.
You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like a politician. This has nothing to do scientific veracity, and everything to do with how to neuter the EPA so that corporate whores like Inhofe can line their pockets with more "free speech" while trashing our environment.
~X~
of the people, but due to gerrymandering, still managed to elections. This can only continue for so long.