Senate Advances "Secret Science" Bill, Sets Up Possible Showdown With President

sciencehabit writes: Republicans in Congress appear to be headed for a showdown with the White House over controversial "secret science" legislation aimed at changing how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses scientific studies. A deeply divided Senate panel yesterday advanced a bill that would require EPA to craft its policies based only on public data available to outside experts. The House of Representatives has already passed a similar measure. But Democrats and science groups have harshly criticized the approach, and the White House has threatened a veto.

Comments

EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing

[sideslash]

The EPA under the current administration has been going a little crazy with expanding its oversight into areas it's not really entitled to oversee. For example, it is not at all clear that the EPA should be regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. There isn't a compelling scientific case for it, nor is there legislation that covers it. The EPA has been overdue for a smackdown to draw it back to a more focused and appropriate mission.

Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing

[sideslash]

The Supreme Court ruled that the agency is legally required to regulate CO2 back in 2007, and the Supreme Court is by definition right on all points of law.

You're both right and wrong on this. The SCOTUS's opinion is effectively conditional on CO2 being a greenhouse gas that can endanger public health or welfare. If there's no provable danger, then it slips out of the purview of the EPA. Back in 2007 was before ClimateGate, revelations about the fraudulent hockey stick with the dramatic downfall of Michael Mann's reputation, not to mention of course "The Pause". So there are questions about the EPA's authority here.

Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing

[sumdumass]

Perhaps their mission should be to mow the whitehouse lawn. There certainly is no constitutional basis for the EPA to exist anyways.

That being said, what exactly is your problem with requiring all information the EPA uses to set policies be open to the public and able to survive scientific scrutiny? I would think you of all people would be championing this transparency as well as the stability the rigor of the scientific process could give as they justify their moves. Perhaps you only don't like it because republicans want it to happen?

Re: EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing

[sideslash]

Do you have any comments to make other than insults?

Re: EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. This is 2015, angrily typing "educate yourself, shitlord" is now considered a viable debate tactic.

Re:The all-or-nothing fallacy

[Bing Tsher E]

The idea that the Great Lakes would revert to sludge without the dear EPA to save them is a little ridiculous. More than 'the EPA coming into existence' has happened to change the environment. Don't give Big Government so much credit. It makes you look like a toady to the bureaucrats.

Re:Why is this even a debate?

[AK Marc]

Citation? TFB (The Fucking Bill). I've read it. The "openness" required would ban funding most analysis science, and that's the type used for long-term health studies and climate. The Conservatives are happy to kill innocents to push their personal opinion as law. They are so afraid of AGW that blocking most medical research wouldn't matter to them.

You act like you haven't read the bill. Or you don't know how studies are done.