Slashdot Mirror
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.
Secret toad controls Congreff. Secret toad has poison webs in its eyes. Secret toad is behind all NATO exercises and World Bank. Secret toad controls air with secret toad poison rays and mind controff.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Making decisions based on research that can't be independently validated or audited is the very definition of junk science. I mean, I know that the pay journals would love to see open access go away, but that's just their flawed business model talking.
If they're going to create such a rule for EPA, then it should also apply to NIH, FDA, DOE, and so on. If they don't make it universal, then they're showing an obvious bias and clearly pushing an agenda which is attempting to influence specific science.
I'm sure they're trying to pull a fast one of some kind but I admit to not seeing the problem with this idea in general. Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
You have to start somewhere.
Even if there is such a bias, what of it? It is not like imposing this rule on the EPA today would prevent imposing it on other departments/agencies later.
Besides, the opponents of the idea do not oppose it on the grounds, that it is not going far enough. Obama is not saying:"I will veto this bill unless the rule covers the entire federal government! No way, no how!!"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you're wondering why using "secret" science to regulate various environmental issues is a bad idea:
Researcher A: I've just discovered a substrate that makes solar cells 50% more efficient. This pushes their cost effectiveness to the point of making widespread adoption a no-brainer.
Researcher B, funded by the coal lobby: Hey EPA - this new solar substrate causes birth defects in robins! You can't show the proof to anyone though as it involves a secret process...
EPA: OK, effective immediately this substrate is banned.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Basing policy decisions on data that can be peer reviewed -- why would this even be an issue? Isn't this better than "you can't do that, and we won't tell you why" or the nebulous "studies say". What studies? Secret studies. Ok...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If Congress is for it, it probably isn't science.
"Secret Science" must be their code words for real science.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"and the White House has threatened a veto"
Yes! Our transparency president to the rescue....
love is just extroverted narcissism
They should pass a law that works the other way: If any federal agency has scientific data that could affect the future health and safety of the population enough to justify legislation, then they should be required to publish it openly.
There is ample evidence of Ocean acidification to suggest that CO2 needs to be treated as a pollutant.
I RTFA and don't get the controversy. Of course the data used to form regulations should be easily available to everybody. The only reason to use secret data is you want to hide something.
Not trying to troll here, just not seeing the other side.
I know we have to try to make responsible laws for things like the environment, but when has the U.S. government EVER gotten science really right? "Hello, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." Right. We are up to our eyeballs in regulations, many based on bad science due to ignorance and politics, and many others based merely on greed and backroom dealings. So I'm all for transparency. President Obama utterly failed to actually provide any of the transparency he promised when he was campaigning, yet I am not sure this legislation is the way to do it either. Typically, the bill has all the trademarks of politicians who don't know anything about science or the scientific process trying to pass science legislation. There is more political relevance than scientific relevance to this, and some of it just wrong-headed. As stated in the article, "[S.544] would require EPA to base all its rules, assessments, and guidance on data that is ... reproducible" and then later states "many studies, such as longitudinal surveys, are not realistically reproducible" which means they would not be allowed to be used under these rules. I am suspicious of the agendas of all of the various elected officials who are discussing this bill. (FWIW, I am neither a Republicrat nor a Demopublican.)
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
The scientific case for regulating CO2 as a pollutant is completely, utterly, and totally irrelevant.
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. Buch was able to put off actually regulating the dang things, so the Obama administration didn't have draft regs ready until '10, but legal case for regulating CO2 is decided.
Pollutant = A resource in the wrong place, as in "do not pollute my scotch with water". The evidence of harm caused by 1/2 trillion tons of CO2 in the wrong place may not be clear to you, but it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye. AFAICT the senate republicans think an appropriate mission for the EPA is to STFU and mow the whitehouse lawn.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Every single study which involves health records would be forbidden to be used, because the RAW data is not available to the public. It's the perfect knot - previous law prevents the release of personally identifiable medical data, and this law makes it illegal to base any regulation on any study for which the raw data (in this case, personally identifiable - as it must be able to be 100% independently verified) is not released to the public.
This is about neutering the EPA's ability to "prove" that any particular pollutant causes harm to humans. If you can't provide the raw data that asbestos has led to lung cancer - patient records going back decades - you aren't allow to regulate it. Black lung? Chromium compounds in drinking water? Sorry, unless you publically release the medical records of every single person in every study you cite, it's "secret data" and junk science.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Outside experts" of course being another name for "lobbyists".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yes, but it's a *good* attempt to influence science. Open, repeatable processes are strictly a good thing.
I realize they're trying to attack climate change, but I think it would be better to accept this challenge head on. There really ISN'T anything to hide and accepting the challenge would be the better way to prove that.
..is as usual relying on the ignorance of the public. For example one of the long time complaints about the "hockey stick" from the deniers in the US senate was that a small portion of the raw data could not be published due to (default) copyright terms imposed by the french and a couple of other geographically small nations. The data was available but you had to go to the French government and wait six months to get it. There are lots of other cases where data is collected from industry and individuals where those supplying the data do not want the raw data published for legal, commercial, or personal reasons. The basic rule of research is you take what data you can get and publish what you are allowed to by those who supply it.
A more useful law would be to force anti-science "charities" such as the heartland institute to reveal their accounts to the public, if the IPCC and EPA can do it why can't a tax exempt no-think tank do the same?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
There's not only plenty of scientific evidence, there's also legislation and a Supreme Court ruling supporting it. Just because your belief system rules out the facts, it doesn't make them any less true.
One mention of the EPA and we're already at BIG GUBERMENT CO2 neck collars. I can't believe someone so dumb can use a computer, let alone reads /.
Are you trolling or just stupid? If you aren't trolling I suggest you bother to check your facts.
Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.
Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Why do people keep saying shit like this?
It's the Congress that created the EPA. It's the Congress that funds them. It's the Executive that controls them in accordance with the laws passed by... Wait for it... CONGRESS. All that based on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution.
Or maybe you are suggesting that control of commons should be relinquished to the corporations?
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
I am not going to argue whether or not "secret science" should be used by the EPA. I will point out the hypocrisy in there is no difference between the EPA using "secret science" and the FDA using "secret science" when approving drugs. If you are going to ban it in one regulatory agency then you should ban it in all regulatory agencies.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The SCOTUS's opinion is effectively conditional on CO2 being a greenhouse gas that can endanger public health or welfare.
The SCOTUS does not "judge" science. They based their decision on what other organizations have said. In other words, the SCOTUS has never "judged" whether or not CO2 is a pollutant.
The reason people don't want EPA to cover CO2 is not because of science, but because it potentially eats into oil and energy profits.
I am not going to argue whether or not "secret science" should be used by the EPA. I will point out the hypocrisy in there is no difference between the EPA using "secret science" and the FDA using "secret science" when approving drugs. If you are going to ban it in one regulatory agency then you should ban it in all regulatory agencies.
Shrug. That works for me. Although we may have to work on them one agency at a time. Tell you what. You help with the EPA and I'll certainly help with the FDA (that sounds like a good idea anyway).
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
There is a very clear constitutional basis. The environment is very key to interstate commerce without any doubt. If you could confine the environment to every state's borders then perhaps things would be different, and Ohio could be full of burning rivers as long as Illinois is not affected.
But according to some nuts, under the constitution the feds can't do anything except manage wars. The constitution as it existed in 1781 is not the same as it is today. People forget all the amendments, all the judicial decisions, and the great big massive war we had that overturned the constitution so that slavery could finally be abolished which resulted in a strong centralized federal government no matter what the hell the founding fathers who owned slaves would have wanted.
There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.
In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's also why they are trying to kill solar.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
because there isn't and your reading of the US constitution fails basic comprehension.
While this general welfare clause has been expanded over the years, it still fails on several levels. The courts have only allowed the general welfare clause to be used with the taxing and spending powers of congress. No court and no competent constitutional authority has ever said it extends congress's powers to create departments that can make law independent of congress or constitutional processes nor have they used the clause to establish fines and/or imprisonment terms to anyone. There is simply no constitutional basis for it.
And the general welfare clause would allow this to happen only if every single regulation, fine, or punishment was voted on, passed and signed by congress and the president. Do you see the disconnect here?
Can congress create a department of the second amendment, staff it with a bunch of people who create regulation saying you have to own at least 3 guns per person in the household, molest your children at least once in their life time, spin in circles twice before taking a piss all without congressional action? Can the EPA make any of these regulations? The answer is no to all because there is no constitutional authority for it. The only difference is how silly the regulations might be but the general welfare claim can be made just the same.
If congress had free reign over anything it could construe to be in the interest or general welfare, then why is Abortion out of their grasp? In order for your presumption to be true, they must be able to create a department of abortion that could impose a tax penalty or jail terms on everyone who performs or haves an abortion. But that simply is not possible because the general welfare clause does not do what you think it doe. It would however, allow congress to tax and spend money either encouraging or discouraging abortions.
Maybe you should think a bit before posting. Perhaps study a bit on what you are posting about.
Your reading implies that Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants if it deems it to be for the General Welfare. That pretty much flied in the face of the idea of limited government, which is the central pillar of our Constitution.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
A few facts from a true environmentalist and an engineer who lives off a solar array:
1. EPA regulations cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars each year. Some regulations are well founded in science and worth the cost. Most of these regulations were put in place 20+ years ago.
2. CO2 is a key molecule of life. If all of the CO2 were scrubbed out of the atmosphere all plant life on the planet would end and the rest of us would soon follow. Regulating CO2 will increase the cost of ENERGY which plays a part in every facet of human life.
3. The EPA has gone from a facts based, common sense clean air clean water agency that everyone can support to a tin foil hat wearing envirowhacko organization that wants to regulate almost every facet of life and un-necessarily increases the cost of living for most Americans. The fact that the global temperature has been flat for the last ten years, proving their climate models are wildly inaccurate, is just one symptom of a larger problem.
4. Any scientist who runs from the sunlight of publication is very likely a snake oil salesman.
5. The fallacious argument that medical studies would not be basis for policy is a straw man. While the personally identifiable info (name, phone number etc.) would be protected, the raw data of the study (age, health conditions etc). would be available, and that is what the bill is proposing. Governmental professional review would still have access to the protected information during their review process,and this does not violate the privacy laws, as there is a difference from publishing names and phone numbers and internal review followed by publishing the raw DATA which is not names and phone numbers. That aside, the goal of this law is environmental studies and models, and everyone knows it.
A bunch of left wing nut jobs and their envirowhacko lap dogs on /.are trying to find any argument they can to avoid showing the public how they have been lying and scamming them out of billions of dollars of research grants, screaming the sky is falling and trying to control every aspect of everyone's lives for the "greater good" to "save the planet." The FACTS support that the world is doing just fine, it gets warmer and colder (i.e. previous ice ages predating human existence, and more prior to industrialization), and if we can get China to enact some basic environmental protocols and get rid of a bunch of crazy ones in the US, it will get 10x better in absolute, objective terms for the entire planet. There is real pollution, but it is happening in China and India, and regulating CO2 in the US will devastate our economy for absolutely no reason and have no other effect.
California, the land where silica(glass) causes cancer? The place which passed a physically impossible laws about electricity? That wretched hive of clueless nutballs? I'm all for cutting CO2, and fossil fuel usage, but basing anything legal off California is asking for trouble.(I am assuming everyone here knows how to google to find what I've referenced)
No government policy should be based on anything that can't be seen or challenged by the public except in emergency situations or national security. Anytime anyone in authority says "Because I say so" when making law, you should be suspicious.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who knew the movie Idiocracy was real.
No we are not. The EPA or whatever is only has to show the credibility of their science used. If they show that yellow and blue make green, and I declare it makes orange, as long as they can reproduce the green claim, they can use it.
You cannot discredit something that can be proven through the scientific process. All you can do it show alternative results.
Poppycock. I have no doubt that they are trying to make it more difficult to impose sweeping regulation but it's hardly to that point. It's quite simple really, use open sources and if you cannot, then don't bother imposing regulations. The EU has made most all their climate data open and anyone can grab it and do whatever they want with it. I really do not see the problem/.
Of course it allows it - but does it *fund* it? That's the chloroform in the rag. Unless the original study authors spent the money up front to carefully anonymize the data, it all has to be re-hashed from scratch to ensure that no identifying data is released to the public, but that all the records are intact. That costs money, and I'm going to bet a donut that there's not a single cent allocated to pay for that data. And every single study would be required to be anonymized whether or not anyone else is going to look at it. It's a ruse to make access to the research which is out there simply unaffordable to use. And if you can't pay for it, you can't cite it.
Game. Match. Set.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
SCOTUS ruled that CO2 meets the definition of "pollutant" in the Clean Air Act, and that EPA therefore has to define a regulatory mechanism. They did not rule on "science" - they ruled on law. EPA must use science in the manner prescribed in the CAA to come up with regulations, and has fairly broad discretion (subject to lawsuits regarding its interpretation of the CAA by any and all participants) regarding how to do that.
Many of the things that appear to be "out of control" EPA by anti- (and even some pro-) regulation types are in fact required by their enabling legislation. For instance, when setting air quality standards, EPA is prohibited by the Clean Air Act (as interpreted by several courts) from considering the feasibility and cost of actually achieving the standard. They can only consider documented health effects, and whether compliance with the new standard(s) would avoid or minimize those effects with a margin of safety. That may seem unreasonable to some, but it's the law.
First, judicial decisions do not change the constitution, only amendments brought about in two specific ways can do that.
Second, the American civil war was not about slavery so much as it was about preserving the union. Granted, the constitutions underwent new interpretations at the time, but slavery ended with the passage of the 13th amendment.
Now, on to your meat or guts of your argument. Congress might have a role in regulating pollution between the states. But that still does not form the basis of the creation of a body within the government that can on their own, create law, proscribe fines and punishment, and even ban commerce or trade entirely all outside constitutional processes. It's simply not there. Congress has to make the laws, congress has to put the fines and imprisonment in place, congress have to ban the trade and they have to do it by voting in certain ways on bills, they have to get the president to not veto them or they need to vote in another way to go around the president.
Call me a nut all you want, it doesn't diminish the fact that the congress is supposed to be doing what the EPA is doing and while congress could establish the EPA and take their advice, there is absolutely no constitutional basis to abdicate their power to the EPA or even bypass constitutional process demanded of them.
All Court Judgements are conditional.
The Judgement against OJ for beating those memorabilia collectors up was conditional on there not being new evidence that Prosecutors made the whole thing up.
Given the evidence available in 2007, the Courts ruled global warming was real and CO32 was a pollutant. Since then the evidence has just grown. Temperature's spiking (9 of the hottest 10 years are within the past decade), the ice caps are melting, and the counter-points you're talking about are all fantasy from a Think Tank of wannabe social scientists. From their website, they seem to have a couple actual Education experts, a couple guys with bachelors degrees, and a Philosopher.
And if this was not the case, don't you think every coal plant in the country would be appealing Massachusetts vs. EPA for all they're worth?
It is your reading comprehension that needs adjusting. The departments don't create the law. They enforce it. That is what I said. It was Congress that created the department as the Constitution allows.
Again, it isn't the EPA creating the regulations. It is Congress. The EPA is merely enforcing the regulations that Congress created. If you want to know the specific act it is NEPA. I leave it as an exercise for you to look it up.
The rest of your post is totally nonsense repeating the same line you refused to understand... Namely that Congress created the EPA and Congress has the power to destroy it. But know the consequences when you do. Things like the Gulf spill will go unaddressed. The Freedom Enterprises MCHM spill would have no legal recourse. The impoundment failure in Tennessee would be common place. Not to mention Love Canal...
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Your reading implies that Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants if it deems it to be for the General Welfare. That pretty much flied in the face of the idea of limited government, which is the central pillar of our Constitution.
Depends on how limited you want the limits to be. If you want the government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub, then yes, it flies in your personal idea of a limited government.
OTOH, the Founders were explicitly creating a less limited government. They said flat-out it needed to be more powerful the the Articles of Confederation government because it had to be strong enough to keep the Brits out.
If there'd been pollution in their day they almost certainly would have added inter-state pollution to the list of things the Feds had the right to regulate, because part of the point of their Constitution was keeping the states from fighting each-other over trivial shit. And you can bet your ass that if Pennsylvania had been able to have all the benefits of coal power, with none of the pollution, simply by siting the plants upwind from the rest of the state they'd have done that shit; New York would have responded by calling out the militia...
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Note this is a controversy as old as the country itself, and is not likely to go away any time soon.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This point was rebutted by the people who wrote the general welfare clause, in Federalist 41.
To paraphrase: But what color can your objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
Essentially, if the "general welfare" clause included things like a militia to defend the homeland, and post offices, as you presumably maintain, why even bother listing them separately?
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Judicial decisions do affect how things are interpreted when they are vague and when different parts of the law and constitution conflict with each other. And a great many things in the constitution are vague.
The civil war was entirely about slavery, because the primary reason the union was in danger of breaking up was because of slavery. Most other issues for the war ultimately led back to slavery as the origin as well. It is true that many in the north were content to just continue being conciliatory and many weren't even concerned that much with slavery. But there was a rising tide as well and many were sick and tired of letting the south get their way out of fear of a union breakup (for example, the fugitive slave act). The fight over whether or not the new western states could have slavery was the hot issue that caused various pro-secession states to mobilize and start taking over union forts. The leaders of the confederacy made it clear in their speeches that the fight was about the right to own slaves, even if in the north the view was to maintain the union.
The Marshall court allowed that the executive was allowed to have regulatory powers in order to implement the law (ie, the law is broad and the executive fills in the details). Later courts have refined this in various ways. The EPA was created by an act of congress, and it was not the first agency to have regulatory duties. If congress disapproves then they can create more restrictive laws, dictate the fines, etc.
As a lifetime Michigan resident, I recall rivers on fire and the toxic lakes. Our waters were the butt of the jokes in the 1970s:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5378456/bill_murray_snl_classic_commercial/
Now we have just shipped much of the problem overseas.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You have repeatedly stated things that are simply wrong when it comes to the Constitution. Either you're intentionally lying, or a complete fucking idiot. I understand.. you have your head buried so far up your conservative dogma's ass you can see it's tonsils, but you're just fucking wrong. It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.
IF the EPA was unconstitutional, it'd already be gone with all the fucking raving sociopathic conservatives in office today. It's not, therefor even the complete fucking idiot conservative republicans in office have a better understanding of things than you do.... and that says volumes about the level of your head-up-ass dogma worship. The fucking conservative idiots in office yell and scream and whine like little bitches about government overreach and authority, but at the end of the day they get their nuts kicked by the reality that all they're doing, and all the can do, is con a bunch of idiots that are even stupider than they are into believing their lies and tantrums.
What it ultimately comes down to is: uneducated, ignorant, propaganda filled bullshit opinions mean absolutely nothing because the people with them choose to be stupid than a fucking rock and live outside reality. Maybe you should quit being part of the problem.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Science: systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
For observations you need data. You will also need something to test your experiments against... Data. You can either collect it yourself or purchase it if it is already available. Are the republicans offering to purchase the data or are they rent seekers?
"penalties that will attack our energy production with absolutely no input from congress or constitutional law being passed by congress"
Maybe producing energy is not protected by the Constitution
US law is based on British Common Law and Common Law in most cases rules for the mutual use and benefit from common resources as opposed to the singular benefit shown in old Spanish Law where shit flowed downhill and people just had to live with it
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Yes, right up to the point that the checks and balances of either the Executive (by refusing to sign the laws or enforce them) or the Judiciary (by invalidating the laws as unconstitutional) act on them
That's Constitutional
Wherever You Go, There You Are
No, secession was entirely about slavery. The war never would have broke out if South Carolina hadn't attacked Fort Sumter. Had that not happened, an entirely different outcome was not only possible, but likely. Lincoln and the north was doing everything possible to remedy the situation without war. That failed when the south attacked a union fort.
And the Supreme Court also struck down several of these regulatory practices declaring the delegation of powers as implemented being excessive and unconstitutional. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). and Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)
The EPA is and has been operating outside the confines of the law in regard to executive authority. BTW, the executive authority and congressional delegation of powers which follow along reach only so far as implementing the laws as passed. What the EPA does is extend and recreate passed laws- especially with the Carbon emissions. Here we have a government agency who suddenly decided something that was never previously considered a pollutant (note, not a newly discovered substance or a derivative or a previously known pollutant) is now a pollutant and expanded their powers and the law to encompass something which it never has before all without any constitutional interaction of congress. Laws have been struck down for less not to mention the constant changing of the regulation being a post facto law in and of itself.
If congress had said, killing puppies was illegal and all the EPA did was ban any way you could kill a puppy, that would fall in line with the executive authority the marshal court saw. But what the EPA is doing is taking a law and saying whatever we can imagine to fall under this umbrella- even if it did not fall there previously or no one ever envisioned it being involve, the EPA can and will regulate it and change those regulations at their own will completely independent of congress or constitutional authority.
"There is ample evidence of Ocean acidification to suggest that CO2 needs to be treated as a pollutant."
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem providing that evidence of this and of any harm..
I can tell you ahead of time corals have genes that switch on to handle heat and co2 and they have survived 7000 ppm CO2 in the past and that this is not affecting reefs which by some miracle are only dying near man where he pollutes; in the open ocean coral is fine.
Tree of life with time scale
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Historic co2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Corals can turn certain genes on and off to cope with heat
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Dr. Bruce Carlson produced a wonderful video demonstrating the resilient capacity of coral reefs if humans would simply stopped interfering with nature.
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification
http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ....
Total reef losses due to climate change are unlikely
http://www.advancedaquarist.co...
For cold water corals, warming is beating acidification to drive a growth spurt
http://arstechnica.com/science...
Need Mercedes parts ?
My god yes, look what it's done to Arctic sea ice in 30 years:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Oh crap, there's no change.
Damn you NASA and your pesky satellites, get with the program here.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why do you assume outside scientists are republican? I'm not but I have a BIG problem with secret scientific data.
In theory all products of government are public domain (since the public paid for it) and this is fundamental "open and transparent 101".
Can you explain why secret data should be used to make public policy?
Need Mercedes parts ?
It doesn't have to be. But our system is designed so that we are free to do as we please until a law prohibits it and there are limits to what laws and where this can be prohibited. In short, the government has to act constitutionally when prohibiting anything.
Look up the term constitution and come back to this.
The constitution was created to create a federal government. Each state was a country in it's own right and surrendered only as much sovereignty to the federal government as outlined within the constitution and with this surrender, the federal government was bound by the articles which constituted it. British Common Law and Common Law allowed the quartering of troops in times of peace, it allows unwarranted searches and seizures, it allowed private property to be taken for public good without compensation. That is bared in the US by the constitution.
So to say that if British Common Law and Common Law were superior to the US constitution despite the constitution actually saying it's the supreme law of the land, is like saying the first amendment can be void at will, that the 13th or even 14th amendment can be voided because common law allows it. And of course, this is just completely wrong. The government is bound by the constitution. Their actions can be separate and for or against the the mutual use and benefit from common resources as long as they do those actions constitutionally. Who benefits is ancillary to the point of whether or not congress did things correctly.
You can only discredit science with facts, verifiable facts. If it was discredited then it was garbage. It cannot be discredited with falsehoods.
Do you even logic?
"Science of course is always correcting mistakes. That's what it's all about." Freeman Dyson
Need Mercedes parts ?
Guess where all the material that built giant limestone (high pH) cliffs precipitated out of?
I'm certainly not a geologist, and no, I'm not going to do particularly much research, but I'm going to go mostly with what I found at Wikipedia: It "precipitated" (if you insist on that term) from the crushed skeletal remains of coral and other prehistoric marine life, since calcium carbonate doesn't dissolve very well in neutral or alkaline water.
I believe you're looking for a biological process, not a simple chemical one.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Another example, though not as heavily environmental is the Colorado River Compact. Its a federally negotiated water sharing agreement. Arizona and California nearly went to war over the Colorado river water, the president was forced to nationalize the Arizona national guard to prevent it. It is completely within the authority of the federal government to prevent the states from going to war by imposing consistent and reasonable standards on all of them.
I'd also note it's not just the general welfare clause. Pollution clearly falls under the commercial clause as well because the pollution is invariably related to interstate commerce either directly through energy exports or indirectly through manufacturing.
Two things. #1 look at the Great Lakes. Yet the ice cap is about the same. 2014 was an outlier with the polar vortex. It took exceptional conditions to meet parity with 30 years ago. #2 It is two-dimensional. What matters is volume, not surface area.
Not superior, but integrated into, enjoy
http://www.libertylawsite.org/...
Wherever You Go, There You Are
That tired old meme that the CO2 emitted by animals matters is past it's due date and needs to be retired. If you're serious it just displays your ignorance.
LOL, the only place Michael Mann's reputation has suffered is climate science deniers eyes. His reputation in scientific circles is doing just fine.
The only real limit to Congress is what voters are willing to put up with. Since they have to get reelected every two or 6 years if we decide we don't like what they're doing we can throw the bums out. It doesn't happen much for a variety of reasons but rest assured it will happen if they get enough voters pissed at them.
Well, people have survived in terrorist captivity, but that doesn't mean that being in terrorist captivity is completely OK with me. It is about the quality of life of the Coral. I'm guessing you aren't about to start ingesting large amounts of it, but somehow you are fine with subjecting the poor innocent coral to it. For shame!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
does that indicate the depth of the ice or just the surface area? take a look at the depletion of glaciers put "glacier melt comparison" into google and check the "Images for glacier melt comparison" - check the dates on the compared images e.g. https://www.google.co.uk/searc...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Right because it's breathing we care about... you do realize that a human needs almost 5 years to produce the CO2 your car produces in a day ?
I am pretty sure that even if we give the EPA an absolute right to control CO2 levels they wouldn't be bothered about regulating breathing for decades to come. There are so many much bigger much lower hanging fruit.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A new field of study ? Geologists had confirmed this decades ago. In fact, it's the ONLY possible explanation for why the sea is salty. CO2 from the early atmosphere was dissolved in the ocean, which turned it acidic, which then reacted with metals in rocks releasing minerals like salt into the ocean. If Ocean acidification from CO2 in the atmosphere is not as fact as anything in science can ever be - then the oceans water is fresh. Go taste some. I'll wait.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
It's hilarious to watch the radical leftists in here who attack anyone who questions Climate Change (TM) with the argument "It's proven by scientific evidence!" but then vehemently oppose allowing third parties to validate the "scientific" evidence that the EPA uses to make policy. The argument that the bill will require release of medical information is a complete fallacy... Your smoke and mirrors don't cloud the issue here, sorry. If a government agency is using "scientific" data to make policy, it should be made public. There are ways to make data anonymous and don't give me the tinfoil-hat BS about "it can never be anonymous, they'll track you down!". Noone cares enough about your herpes meds to de-anonymize an enormous list of medical subjects used in an EPA study.
The takeaway here is that the leftists on Slashdot (and in the White House/EPA) know the data the EPA uses for policy is complete BS and are absolutely terrified they'll be exposed for what they are: bullies who pretend to use science to avoid scrutiny.
>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?
Nobody has ANY problem with that. Including senate democrats and the president and almost every scientific organisation in the USA who ALL oppose this bill... So why do they oppose the bill then ? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bill isn't about what the republicans say it's about ?
What it's ACTUALLY about is that the reps are desperate to prevent regulations around air pollution and climate change. The trouble is the scientific data to support such regulations are overwhelming. So they are trying to exclude huge swaths of completely legitimate science from consideration. Specifically any science that has any part of it's data covered by patient privilege. That would be just about every large public health study ever done.
What they want to do is to stop the EPA from using the exact same, perfectly legitimate, science that is used daily by biologists, pharmaceutical companies and more.
Don't you find it odd that this is limited to the EPA while so many others use the same studies, including the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry ? Surely if the EPA cannot regulate something based on these studies then big pharma shouldn't be able to get a drug approved based on them, and the FDA shouldn't be allowing approvals based on studies like this.
Studies which are ALSO covered by patient privilege make up almost the entirety of biomedical research, it's just a fact of life when you're dealing with studies involving people.
Why are they legitimate science when Bayer uses them but NOT when the EPA uses them ?
I'll tell you why: because Bayer is a campaign contributor and the EPA is somebody that pisses campaign contributors off.
The science involved is all perfectly legitimate and in line with the scientific method. The "secret science" name is a propaganda term with no real truth to it intended to disguise what wall street's representatives are trying to really do.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>It's people like you who are the reason these reports come out saying people in the US have an abysmal knowledge of history.
What did you expect. Republicans support republican politicians -even AFTER they recently proved that the foreign minister of Iran knows the US constitution (and it's definition of treason and the laws passed based on that definition) better than the republicans in the Senate do.
And if ever you needed proof that congress is now a law unto themselves... had ANY citizens written that letter about the Iran negotiations they would have been sent to jail for three years for treason. The SOLE reason the writers of THIS letter aren't being prosecuted right now is that they are senators - the law does not make an exception for Senators (in fact - exactly the opposite), they just (correctly) assumed that the police and prosecutors would.
So are you surprized when Republican voters who shout constitution all the time turn out to have no idea what is in it or what it means ? Of course not, the senators they elect don't even know it !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And if anybody doubts it you can point out that with the establishment of the confederacy all states joining it had to sign the declaration of confederacy, an agreement under which it would operate. The declaration of confederacy does in fact explicitly mention slavery, in fact it's mention of it makes up most of the damn document.
What does it say about slavery ?
That if you join the confederacy you must promise that you will never in any way, shape or form ban slavery, regulate slavery or interfere with people's slave-owning in any way by passing any laws except those that protect slave-owners. With a long list of things you can and cannot legislate around slavery. In short, you weren't ALLOWED to join the confederacy unless your state was willing to promise that it would never, in all eternity, end slavery.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>So then, forcing the EPA to base that decision on publicly available science (actual peer reviewed papers and such), is fine then, right?
Which is what they are doing.
This law doesn't say what you think it says. You're an idiot for believing what republicans tell you their laws say.
If this law was saying that, and that wasn't ALREADY what was happening, then the scientists of America would be applauding the law. But instead all of the science organisations who have spoken out have DENOUNCED the law. They call it stifling research and banning perfectly legitimate science from consideration.
They are telling you the law does NOT say that. Republicans are telling VOTERS it says that, but it's NOT what it says and what you think it demands is the law already, RIGHT NOW.
What this law is about has nothing to do with what you think it is about.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Right... let's see how hard the republican senators fight the fight when the effect would be to bankrupt and big pharma, and indeed, make it completely impossible to ever again develop or sell a drug in the United States.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
That isn't happening. It's not happening now. It's never happened with the EPA and this law won't make what isn't happening not happen in future because this law has fuck-all to do with that.
What you just quoted is the propaganda story republicans are telling to justify this completely insane law. It has fuck-all to do with the actual purpose or content of the law.
You've been lied to.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And showing his ignorance further - most of the ice-sheet growth in the arctic is BAD news - and being caused BY global warming. Ant-arctic melt is adding fresh water to the ocean. Fresh water freezes more easily than salt water. The "growth" in the artic is a tiny fraction of the fresh water from ant-arctic ice-melt freezing over when it gets to the other pole. Most of it doesn't get that far, and it's a tiny thin layer of ice, the total ice volume is still massively down on both ends.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'm wondering what a molecule of CO32 would look like. A long chain of Os?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Remember the hole in the ozone layer? If you had your way, it never would have been regulated (It's new!) and we'd barely have an ozone layer now. Your way would literally be killing us right now.
Just to nitpick...the polar vortex pulled cold air out of the polar regions and into most of the eastern US. This caused more warm air to be pushed into the polar regions, not colder air to somehow appear at the poles.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Being true to your name again.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Maybe you should think a bit before posting. Perhaps study a bit on what you are posting about.
And you really need to start taking your own advice.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And he pulled the "The Civil War was not about slavery" myth card.
It was about preserving the union huh?
Q: Why did the union need preserving?
A: Because the South wanted to leave it.
Q: Why did the South want to leave?
A: Because they felt their State's Rights were being violated.
Q: Why did they feel their State's Rights were being violated?
A: Because the Government was pushing to abolish slavery and prevent slavery in the new territories and states.
Ergo: IT WAS BLOODY ABOUT SLAVERY YOU IDIOT.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
LOL, the only place Michael Mann's reputation has suffered is climate science deniers eyes. His reputation in scientific circles is doing just fine.
Nope. Here's a quote from Wallace Broecker who is a professor of Environmental science at Columbia University:
"The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won't listen to anyone else," one of climate science's most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. "I don't trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do.... If anyone deserves to get hit it is goddam Mann."
Here's Michael Liebreich, a clean energy executive, activist, and engineer:
@MichaelEMann I've read #HSCW, #WUWT, #McIntyre and #Climategate emails. I think you were sloppy and unethical. I also think #AGW is real.
Here's Michael Hulme, prof of Climate Change at U. East Anglia addressing Mann's use of unproven statistical methods, i.e. leading to circular reasoning:
"I don't think it was seminal for scientists. To me that was never a decisive interventional piece of evidence. The data was absolutely scanty."
You seem to be unaware that many rank and file climate scientists today are actually angry at Mann and what he has done to their field of study. If you are an honest and open minded person, go read the ClimateGate emails yourself. See where Mann's (then) boss at UVa said in an email that he felt like barfing in response to the way Mann insisted on hijacking the peer review process at Nature. Read about Mann and Jones's privately expressed worries over The Pause. Read about the efforts taken by Mann and Co. to deny auditors like M&M access to their raw data.
If you're an honest and open minded person, reading some of that stuff will make you mad.
Congratulations, you apparently passed the class titled "How to lie with accurate data."
Specifically the chapter titled "Cherry Picking your comparison points".
Meanwhile the actual facts about the Arctic include tidbits like "volume of ice is only 29% of what it was in 1979", "average age of ice is only 1-2 years, where it used to be 10+", and other fun factoids that prove you to be an idiot.
Here's a buncha graphs which all show a downward trend:
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Here's some actual science and analysis on Arctic Ice:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The point is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well then you're in luck!
Because it is that it is a MYTH that there even is any "secret data" in the first place.
There is no secret data.
Here, let me google that for you .
Oh there it is, on the very first page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...
http://berkeleyearth.org/sourc...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So, let me get this straight. Right-wing government employees are saying the bill is good, while left-wing government employees say it's bad? So, by my model, the bill must either reduce government spending, or reduce government power over people. Given the current GOP, the former is right out, and it's the latter. How am I doing so far?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There are really some "-1 (Disagree)" moderators out in full force today, which is disappointing for people looking to have a substantive debate. :(
This gets modded to 0?
It starts out at 0 for being posted by an AC. Likely no one has modded it one way or another.
Right... let's see how hard the republican senators fight the fight when the effect would be to bankrupt and big pharma, and indeed, make it completely impossible to ever again develop or sell a drug in the United States.
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet today, but I'm not sure I see the connection between basing decisions on real published peer reviewed science and bankrupting big pharma.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Nope. Here's a quote from Wallace Broecker who is a professor of Environmental science at Columbia University:
You left out the line after that quote that didn't fit your narrative:
It should be said that Broecker has a reputation among some scientists for bad-mouthing young researchers.
I wouldn't expect 100% of scientists to have a positive view of Michael Mann. My impression of him is that he has a prickly personality and isn't afraid to stand his ground. As far as his original hockey stick graph being wrong, ok, throw it out. But you still have to contend with over a dozen studies since that show substantially the same thing using different proxies and different techniques. If Mann got it wrong he lucked out and got very close to the right answer anyway.
I would say your examples are the exception that proves the rule. If Mann's reputation was in tatters wouldn't he be having trouble getting published or get fired from his current position at Penn State University?
I have read a few of the Climategate emails and to me it just looks like an exercise in quote mining and much ado about nothing. The quotes like "Hide the decline" and "Mike's nature trick" were taken completely out of context and only people determined to find something wrong would consider them incriminating.
I have read a few of the Climategate emails and to me it just looks like an exercise in quote mining and much ado about nothing. The quotes like "Hide the decline" and "Mike's nature trick" were taken completely out of context and only people determined to find something wrong would consider them incriminating.
It sounds like you read either Mike Mann's or one of his close allies' commentary on the emails. Regardless, I refuted your earlier claim that Mann's reputation is fine in scientific circles.
But according to some nuts, under the constitution the feds can't do anything except manage wars.
I'm NOT one of the "nuts" you mention -- I don't think we really want to go back to the "original meaning" and forget everything that happened since.
But your post is full of a lot of inaccuracies. For one, most of those "nuts" want to restrict the Constitution to the enumerated powers, which include a lot of things other than wars. They just have a more strict interpretation of certain clauses there, like "regulating commerce."
The constitution as it existed in 1781 is not the same as it is today.
The Constitution didn't exist in 1781. It was drafted in 1787 and enacted in 1789.
People forget all the amendments, all the judicial decisions,
Here's where the "nuts" differ from you. They do NOT forget the amendments, since the amendment process is specifically authorized in the Constitution itself. The various court decisions you refer to have often "reinterpreted" the Constitution to mean very different things than it originally did, though. You may think those "reinterpretations" are important, but it is a somewhat different thing from a formal amendment process.
and the great big massive war we had that overturned the constitution so that slavery could finally be abolished which resulted in a strong centralized federal government no matter what the hell the founding fathers who owned slaves would have wanted.
This is where you go off your rocker completely. Nobody "overturned the Constitution" with the Civil War. The Constitution after the Civil War was in effect after the Civil War the same way it was before the Civil War.
So how was slavery ended? A formal amendment process to the Constitution resulting in the 13th Amendment. The 14th and 15th Amendments provided further clarification about rights after abolition.
Once again, nobody "overturned the Constitution" -- it was amended using the exact process described explicitly in Article V of the original Constitution enacted in 1789.
As for your claim about a "strong centralized federal government," you have to wait until the 20th century really. The Supreme Court kept reining in the federal government according to fairly traditional interpretations of enumerated powers well into the early 20th century.
Think about it this way -- you remember Prohibition? It required a Constitutional amendment to enact, and then another to repeal.
Now, compare that to the prohibition of other drugs that occurred later, e.g., marijuana, etc. No Constitutional amendment required. Amazing! Why not? The Constitution was fundamentally changed in the late 1930s due to a series of Supreme Court decisions that rapidly and greatly expanded the powers of the federal government (arguably due to pressure from the Executive), allowing things like the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause to be used for just about anything... from Social Security and Medicare to workers' rights acts, non-discrimination, etc. All of this could have been (and WAS) ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the early 20th century... but then they just stopped.
Effectively, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Constitution went from a system of "enumerated powers" and limited government to one where "anything goes" for the federal governm
Which part of "has genes it can switch on to handle this" did you not understand?
Coral doesn't "suffer" the very delicate animal either keeps growing or dies.
Bad analogy.
Need Mercedes parts ?
"What matters is volume, not surface area."
Newsflash: if it's white it reflect back sunlight regardless of the thickness.
It all grew back in a "warming world" with rising Co2 in five years and isn't a mile thick. No shit. It'll thicken, don't you worry about it.
Gore said it would be gone by now. The opposite happened.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Need Mercedes parts ?
"Oct. 7, 2014 Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum"
http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...
That's the problem with you alarmists, you're familiar with the headlines but have never seen the actual data. Stop reading opinions on blogs.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Look how much it's grown:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
It did melt, because it was warmer. It grew back because it was colder, not still warming.
NOAA graph showing cooling not warming:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
And another:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
Who expects it to grow back all thick? Give it time, now that it's reflecting back sunlight it'll happen.
As this point "Skeptical science" has the credibility of "Natural News".
Not one prediction by the IPCC ever came true.
Need Mercedes parts ?
As for the great lakes, they froze early, thawed late and had 100 year record levels of ice; some froze completely which is nearly unprecedented and niagara falls froze twice in 2 years.
All signs of a warming world no doubt.
But please drag out the weasel words and explain this. Extra points or quoting "Skeptical science".
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
https://www.facebook.com/video...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Need Mercedes parts ?
"So, basically a bunch of luddites on the payroll of major corporations are trying to ensure those corporations have access to whatever private data they need to discredit the science?"
That's right. So does the smartest man in the world. And the second smartest man in the world and so on.
If it's correct, it gains traction.
If it's wrong, we'll know.
This is how science works. It is the very definition of it.
Secret rules is how churches work not science.
Need Mercedes parts ?
If there is no secret data why are they fighting to keep it secret?
A good way to route around calls for openness and transparency to to be open and transparent, not to claim there's no secrets.
But thank you for the pointers to marketing information, I've read them all thanks.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Good point. I missed that. Thanks.
Need Mercedes parts ?
And it sounds to me like you are determined to find fault with the emails rather than taking what the authors said about them at face value.
You showed me a few negative quotes about Michael Mann. You didn't show me in any way that his reputation has suffered or that he isn't getting grants or getting published in scientific journals. The real test of Mann's reputation would be how often his work is being cited by other scientists in their work. If you can show me that he isn't getting cited by others then I might agree that his reputation is poor but that hasn't happened.
And it sounds to me like you are determined to find fault with the emails rather than taking what the authors said about them at face value.
In the case of emails that are unambiguously embarrassing as they reveal scientific improprieties, "taking what the authors said about them at face value" is a uniquely sycophantic reaction.
You showed me a few negative quotes about Michael Mann. You didn't show me in any way that his reputation has suffered or that he isn't getting grants or getting published in scientific journals.
I don't see the need to get into that stuff. I concisely demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate. You may proceed to move the goal posts and play your own game of football as you see fit.
You don't seem very interested in details, but I'll just point out here that within climate science, there are lots of groups of researchers researching lots of things, and there is disagreement about how much different parts really matter. For example, Mann's work in paleoclimate proxies is regarded by many people as a poorly supported exercise in fudging data. Some other paleoclimate researchers swear by his work and cite it extensively.
For more information you probably would rather not know, read about Mann's problematic use of Bristlecone pine proxies. You can also learn about how he uses data series upside down sometimes, and about the discarding of large swathes of data that didn't work toward his desired result (truncation of the Briffa series).
But be careful! Your opinion of Mann as a scientist may decline. Be careful to "hide that decline", or Slashdot mods will regard you as a heretic and down-mod you with a "-1 (Disagree)".
I've never seen text of the bill that says it's about anything different. Do you have a secret copy that you could make publicly available so we all can share in this knowledge?
So in short, secret science should be supported because you support the policies being made due to this secrete science? BTW, can you explain to me how something is still science if you or I cannot apply the scientific principle to it and recreate it? I mean it doesn't matter if the data doesn't exist or is patented or completely made up, repeatability is one of the most important and key parts of the scientific principle and without it, I'm not sure it's any better than a discussion of intelligent design.
And how is this possible if the science is sound? You do not need all the science to make the case do you? I mean if joe's patented weather numbers and algorithm is not present, does the entire science fall apart?
No, I do not find it odd at all. The FDA and other agencies are not currently reinterpreting things as pollutants and purposing to install draconian regulations over principles congress has already rejected for various reasons. I guess we could say this is more of an attempt to stop a government agency from doing an end run around congress and defeating congress's will as demonstrated several times by refusing to install similar regulations or bind the country to treaties of the same.
Bayer is not a government agency imposing sweeping regulations that will impact not only the economy but personal income. But nonetheless, Bayer has to justify their products being marketed to the public before they can which means they will have to make something scientific available. But you do understand that you as a private person or private company is not the same thing as a government agency with the ability to arbitrarily make things illegal complete with penalties and taxes.
This isn't about the science so much as about government accountability. I do not think anyone is suggesting the science is illegitimate, just that having access to prove real science is being used to create po
And because you say so is not a valid reason. Do you have anything of worth to offer or are you just offended because one of your shrines was attacked?
Who said the EPA was unconstitutional? Do you often build strawmen just to punch down and pretend to insult people? I said there is no constitutional basis for it, there isn't. I did not say it violated anything in the constitution other than making law outside of constitutional process.
Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? Because it seems like you had yourself in mind.
I'm game with a constitutional amendment. I don't have any issue with agencies existing without one either. I do have issues with them creating law that was not passed by congress though.
If congress made a law saying that blue onions were illegal and the EPA was empowered to make regulations to enforce it, I have absolutely no problem with the EPA making regulations in order to faithfully execute the law. But when the EPA all the sudden decides white onions should be illegal also, they need congress to pass a law instead of pulling some inter agency manipulations and declaring them covered all the sudden under the blue onion law.
Not to mention that the food I eat for those five years is directly or indirectly derived from flora doing photosynthesis, so the carbon in it comes from the air. When I breathe the CO2 back out, I'm not increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, net.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sorry, but they wouldn't have been sentenced for treason. That has a specific Constitutional definition. There are laws against making private foreign policy, but there is also some immunity for members of Congress. I don't know how that would play out.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If there's no constitutional basis for a department of the Federal government, it's unconstitutional. The Federal government cannot do anything that isn't allowed by the Constitution. The limits have been stretched now and then (including what I consider some really big overreaches on interstate commerce), but they're enforced.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Lol.. Someone has filled your head with all sorts of bullshit it isn't even funny.
First, no- the foreign minister of Iran does not know the US constitution (and it's definition of treason and the laws passed based on that definition) better than the republicans in the Senate do. The president can only enter into a treaty if the senate consents. This is elementary school civics. The administration can come to some executive agreement, but any future administration can nullify it at will because it is not a treaty. What the foreign minister referenced was a misinterpretation of international law which has a principle that agreements between the head of state are treated treaties in dispute resolution. However, this is not binding to the US because we are both not members of the international court of justice and we have an established process declaring what a valid treaty is.
Second, the treason crap you spewed is wrong on so many levels. First, treason is specifically defined by the Constitution so violations of the Logan act (a law) which do not involve levying war against the united states, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. will not be treason by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the logan act specifically involves unauthorized persons which members of the government are authorized. Further, the advice and consent portions of the constitution imply the senate has a specific right to give advice in foreign relations.
The sole reason no one is not being prosecuted for the letter is because violations of the law only exist in partisan political minds and not in reality or matters of law. Several of the president's strongest detractors could be taken out in one swoop if they were prosecuted for this but the justice department knows any attempts to prosecute will fail.
I'm simply amazed at how ignorant people are about the constitution. Do they not teach this in school any more? When I was in school, we had government and civics coursed in a couple of different years (starting in 8th grade) and the last two runs (11th and 12th grades) were actually requirements to graduate.
Congress can pretty much tax and spend as it wants because of the General Welfare clause. It has no other powers under it. You will notice that Congress sometimes extends its authority by making Federal grants contingent on certain legal actions, since it wouldn't have that authority on its own.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Federalist papers are not in any sense law. They're propaganda written by three people, on their own, for the purpose of getting states to ratify the Constitution. They're very interesting, but they aren't the only political commentary of the time.
As far as raising an army, the Federal government has the power to pass laws concerning the Army, such as conscription. Under the General Welfare clause, they would have the ability to tax and spend for an army that was a standard Federal department without conscription or any other special Federal laws.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Utter Rubbish. Nothing would prevent the EPA from going to congress and getting laws made to protect the Ozone layer. Oh wait, they did go to congress and get laws passed. Treaties were even made and ratified and laws were passed for them too.
Check out title 40, part 82 when you get bored sometime. You will fine laws and references to treaties and specific mentions you are looking for.
The Civil War was about a lot of things, not just slavery. Just fighting a war to free slaves was not going to be popular enough in the North. It was more popular to preserve the Union. The South was also trying to get out from the increasing Northern financial power.
Secession was all about slavery. The war started when a secessionist state attacked a Union installation. At that point, it was about all sorts of things.
Lincoln did want to abolish slavery, but it wasn't his number one priority. However, fighting a war against slavery was extremely useful diplomatically, as Britain in particular could not enter a war on the side of slavery, and people there who benefited from the South couldn't push hard for the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves, but did ensure that Britain would stay out of the war.
A war against slavery was also very handy as the typical black and white single cause that popular versions of history tend to go for.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sigh.. The slavery issue as well as the secession issues would have been decided without war. Lincoln was begging the south to come back/not leave and jumping through hoops to proclaim they were not going to ban slavery. The WAR broke out because the south attacked a union fort. Had that not have happened, there most likely never would have been any war. All the other issues like slavery or secession, would have either been settled otherwise or still on going today. It's not a simple concept, just follow along and pay attention.
What it would mean is that food and drugs couldn't be approved based on unpublished tests. This would probably apply more to food than to drugs. It would basically be an additional regulatory burden, and would suppress the ability of food and drug companies to keep details confidential while in the regulatory process.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're not doing well. GP referred to scientists and Republicans. Neither are necessarily government employees, and although Republicans form a semi-coherent political group scientists do not.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fortunately for your argument, there is no land around the South Pole, so there's just sea ice.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, there is a constitutional basis for a federal government department. It would simply be an office under the executive with a head of the office as in "principal Officer in each of the executive Departments" as mentioned in Article II, Section 2 - otherwise known today as the cabinet. In fact, most federal agencies started that way and George Washington even had them.
A constitutional department would not be one that makes laws/regulations though. It/they could carry out the executive's duty to see the laws are faithfully executed in the name of the president. So in the manner they are present today, I completely agree, but a department that advises the president and offers laws to congress in the name of the president for consideration would be just as constitutional as his cabinet posts. In fact, it would more or less just be the secretarial and resource pool of his cabinet posts allowed by law.
In the case of emails that are unambiguously embarrassing as they reveal scientific improprieties, "taking what the authors said about them at face value" is a uniquely sycophantic reaction.
You're going to have to explicitly point out to me what scientific improprieties you found because I'm not aware of any.
Regarding truncation of the Briffa series, it was Briffa that said that data should not be used and Mann simply followed his advice.
But in the end you could throw out all of the paleoclimate data and everything that Michael Mann and Phil Jones have done but it wouldn't make a difference to the finding of anthropogenic climate change which is based on physics. Paleo data is merely corroborating evidence.
You're going to have to explicitly point out to me what scientific improprieties you found because I'm not aware of any.
Since you are claiming unfamiliarity with the whole hockey stick fraud situation, here's a nice, short and sweet treatment of Mann and the hockey stick controversy. It's just an internet blog, but then so is Slashdot. I'll quote one paragraph:
In doing this research McIntyre and McKitrick had legitimately accessed Mann’s public college web site server in order to get a lot of the source material, and whilst doing this they found the data that provoked them to look at the bristlecone series in a folder entitled “Censored”. It seems that Mann had done this very experiment himself and discovered that the climate graph loses its hockey stick shape when the bristlecone series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick was not an accurate chart of the recent global climate pattern, it is an artificial creation that hinges on a flawed group of US proxies that are not even valid climate indicators. But Mann did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of McIntyre and McKitrick'’s laborious efforts.
Regarding truncation of the Briffa series, it was Briffa that said that data should not be used and Mann simply followed his advice.
That's not how science works. Each person publishing a paper must be able to explain their own results, not point fingers at others.
But in the end you could throw out all of the paleoclimate data and everything that Michael Mann and Phil Jones have done
(resisting urge to make sarcastic remark here)
but it wouldn't make a difference to the finding of anthropogenic climate change which is based on physics. Paleo data is merely corroborating evidence.
Careful, if you don't know the climate variability of the past, how can you say whether measured 20th century variability is natural or anthropogenic? Paleoclimate studies (reliable or not) are the only way I know to explore that, wouldn't you agree?
Your comment about physics reflects a widely held assumption, but isn't factual. The complex feedback loops and chaotic behavior of our earth's atmosphere and oceans make it a fools errand to attempt to reduce it to a fundamental physics formula.
No one said anything about the Federalist papers being law. It's an argument by logic, which means you have to employ logic if you want to argue against it.
Further, if that's not as good as a dictionary then what is? Surely the Federal government doesn't gain the power to chuck kittens at foreign countries if we googlebombed "militia" to "feline warfare" - the powers don't change just because the language does.
Likewise, "general welfare" has never implied the power to do whatever strikes one's fancy just because someone asserts it's in your best interest. Remember when it was in our best interest to not drink alcohol on Sundays? Remember when it was in our best interest to plain not drink alcohol? (Ok, at least they got a Constitutional amendment for that one... but then it was repealed, and they banned drugs anyways.)
Raising an army doesn't imply conscription. The act of the executive branch doing something hardly means what they're doing is constitutional. It just means they're getting away with it, often with the implicit agreement of Congress and/or the courts.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
So you've (you believe) destroyed Mann's original hockey stick graph. When are you going to start going after the more than 1 dozen similar studies done since then by different researchers using different proxies and different techniques that show substantially the same thing? Like I said you can throw out Mann's work but that doesn't change the fact that others had the same results.
You don't need to know the past to determine if climate variability is natural or anthropogenic, you just need to know the present. Knowing the past is interesting but we can observe all of the major factors we know about in the present and it's clear that the increase in CO2 concentration is the leading factor in current climate change. Maybe there's some factor(s) we don't know about but unless someone finds something and can support it scientifically you can't assume there is.
did you read or watch the video on that page? it doesn't say anything about the depth/thickness of the ice in Antarctica, only the perimeter expanding, it also showed the arctic decreasing at an alarming rate. The scientists in the video mentions those that use this as an excuse to say climate change is not happening
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
How do you know there's no change? Is it because the "secret science" isn't actually secret?
Here's the difference between climate science and political science: Climate science publishes the results and the data, and is open to criticism. Political science goes out of its way to obfuscate or hide unfavourable data or results.
Are you by chance a political scientist?
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
So you've (you believe) destroyed Mann's original hockey stick graph.
I haven't done anything at all. I'm just reading other people's work. Why is this so personal to you? It's weird how you are sticking up for Mann like he's your twin brother or something. I have nothing personal against him, I just happen to have seen some damning evidence of wrongdoing.
When are you going to start going after the more than 1 dozen similar studies done since then by different researchers using different proxies and different techniques that show substantially the same thing?
Such as?
You don't need to know the past to determine if climate variability is natural or anthropogenic, you just need to know the present. Knowing the past is interesting but we can observe all of the major factors we know about in the present and it's clear that the increase in CO2 concentration is the leading factor in current climate change. Maybe there's some factor(s) we don't know about but unless someone finds something and can support it scientifically you can't assume there is.
You've said this before, but it still doesn't make sense to me. CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas on the earth -- not now, and not ever expected to be in the future. Water vapor is the most significant GHG. If we don't understand all the potentially self-balancing feedback cycles, we can't hope to accurately model the resulting temperature change after injecting some extra CO2. And (surprise, surprise), it turns out that all the most highly acclaimed projections as to CO2 sensitivity were in fact at least partially wrong. The Pause has been going on for something like 18 years. I think it will soon be old enough to purchase alcohol.
For example, the study using mice that showed that 10ppb As in drinking water harmed "mothers and their offspring" (mouse mothers and baby mice, not humans) didn't have to list the names of the mice, only aggregate numbers.
Do lab mice even get names? Or is it just the mice on the "outside", like the fictional Elizabeth Brisby?
lol.. The constitution makes reference to common law. I really don't know what your point is if you are not trying to claim common law is superior.
The US constitution was created to constitute a federal government and define its role. In doing so, it put limits on the federal government that common law cannot surmount.
No one is fighting to keep anything secret you fucking idiot.
I just gave you the fucking links to the fucking data.
It's in the fucking open, where anyone who knows how to google can find it.
But now you're pulling the "its all lies" card, and claiming "I already read it".
No you fucking didn't sweetcheeks.
How do I know? Because in those links is the actual measurements recorded around the world by various methods, both satellite and ground station. Data files full of brain dizzying numbers and locations.
Which is EXACTLY the fucking data you asked for.
You havent read actually read it; rather your full of shit and no longer worthy of anyones attention.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You fucking moron. All youre doing is spreading that myth that because there was more in 2013 than 2012, that it is growing. 2012 was the LOWEST EVER, PERIOD, breaking all expectations. 2013's minimum was higher then 2012, BUT IT WAS STILL THE 6TH LOWEST EVER RECORDED.
Here are the real trends:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
It melts and regrows every year.
Minimum is reached in roughly mid-september.
Maximum in about mid-March.
The problem is its melting more, and regrowing less, every year.
Which is its thinner and younger, and lost significant volume.
And here's just a month ago:
2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record (NASA)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
Just fuck off.
Seriously, Skeptical science is actual science backed by actual fucking measurements.
You are just a cherry picking asshole who wished he had as much "legitimacy" as Natural News.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Seriously. There's no way you aren't a paid misinformer.
This image explains you perfectly:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The trend since 1980 is down.
Clearly down, such than even an idiot like you should be able to grasp it.
A small ONE YEAR "recovery" from 2012 to 2013 doesn't reverse the over all 40 year trend.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
While there may be some in the scientific world who dislike Mann several investigations of him have not turned up any damning evidence of wrongdoing.
Regarding similar studies confirming Mann's hockey stick graph here are some:
Huang 2000
Smith 2006
Oerlemans 2005
Here's a book from the National Academies of Science with more details:
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
It's true that water vapor is responsible for the largest chunk of greenhouse warming but it is not a greenhouse gas that can drive warming because the amount of WV in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature (and regionally the availability of water to evaporate). The level of WV is not something humans can have any significant direct effect on therefore it is not something to worry about.
The "Pause" is not something that is statistically significant. Here is a statistical analysis that uses several different techniques to try and find some significance to the "Pause" but fails. There is no reason statistically to say the rate of warming since the 1970's has changed significantly.
While there may be some in the scientific world who dislike Mann several investigations of him have not turned up any damning evidence of wrongdoing.
The studies in question didn't attempt to interact with the damning evidence from the emails, in fact they carefully avoided addressing it.
Regarding similar studies confirming Mann's hockey stick graph here are some:
Huang 2000
Smith 2006
Oerlemans 2005
Here's a book from the National Academies of Science with more details:
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
If you throw out data from measurements are not known to be reliable proxies for global temperature, you are left with very little if anything; and certainly not with a thousand year hockey stick shape. The hockey stick is an artifact of cherry picking data. There are many reasons for an upswing in various physical measurements in the 20th century, including (yes) a warming temperature as we swing up from a low point on the multi-century scale, but also modern agriculture and its effects on things like tree growth.
Case in point, take Figure 6 -- the proxies seem to show a dip which we'd identify as the Little Ice Age of ca. 1300-1870. Not much else is obvious there, except the somewhat misleading superimposition of the instrumental record. It's not really fair to slap instrumental readings on the end of the proxies, since even assuming these proxies reflect global temperature in some way (big assumption), they will flatten out upswings like the instrumental record shows in the late 20th century.
It's true that water vapor is responsible for the largest chunk of greenhouse warming but it is not a greenhouse gas that can drive warming because the amount of WV in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature (and regionally the availability of water to evaporate). The level of WV is not something humans can have any significant direct effect on therefore it is not something to worry about.
Water vapor's status as the number one greenhouse gas makes it a hard problem because of the water cycle. What is the effect of cloud cover? How is the water cycle affected by more CO2? These are the billion dollar questions.
The "Pause" is not something that is statistically significant. Here is a statistical analysis that uses several different techniques to try and find some significance to the "Pause" but fails. There is no reason statistically to say the rate of warming since the 1970's has changed significantly.
The Pause has shown that the most highly vaunted predictions of carbon sensitivity were mistaken. What we do with that from here is a tricky question. Simply changing the fudge factors for aerosol albedo to keep our predictions "accurate" is a pretty lame response (Mann's, if you hadn't guessed).
but it is not a greenhouse gas that can drive warming because the amount of WV in the atmosphere is strictly limited by temperature (and regionally the availability of water to evaporate).
Forgot to mention -- have you forgotten about the ocean?
The level of WV is not something humans can have any significant direct effect on therefore it is not something to worry about.
CO2 is a tiny part of the GHG picture, and it's not clear what effect changes in CO2 have on the planet overall. Since The Pause has shown that our most trusted projections of CO2 sensitivity were wrong, perhaps we should be open minded toward the possibility that this tiny fraction of GHG contribution is just that -- a tiny fraction of GHG contribution. A minuscule shift in cloud cover across the earth, and "poof", all the carbon reduction in the world doesn't make any net difference at all. (Not saying that happens, just that it's a possibility.)
The studies in question didn't attempt to interact with the damning evidence from the emails, in fact they carefully avoided addressing it.
ROTFLMAO. There was no damning evidence in the Climategate emails as several investigations of them found.
If you throw out data from measurements are not known to be reliable proxies for global temperature, you are left with very little if anything; and certainly not with a thousand year hockey stick shape. The hockey stick is an artifact of cherry picking data.
When you have a number of studies approaching the same thing from different angles and they all agree for the most part in increases your confidence that you're on the right track.
Case in point, take Figure 6 ...
What Figure 6 are you referring to?
Water vapor's status as the number one greenhouse gas makes it a hard problem because of the water cycle. What is the effect of cloud cover? How is the water cycle affected by more CO2? These are the billion dollar questions.
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strictly a reaction to the geophysical conditions present. If increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature then water vapor will increase as well as a reaction to the higher temperatures. And no, I haven't forgotten about the oceans. What about them?
Research on clouds has found that the effect on global warming ranges from slightly negative to moderately positive with the most likely value being slightly positive. There is plenty of uncertainty about that and it's an area of active research but unless something is found that radically changes our current knowledge clouds are a minor player in their effect on global warming.
The Pause has shown that the most highly vaunted predictions of carbon sensitivity were mistaken. What we do with that from here is a tricky question. Simply changing the fudge factors for aerosol albedo to keep our predictions "accurate" is a pretty lame response (Mann's, if you hadn't guessed).
Statistically speaking it's a faux pause and warming has continued as expected given the vagaries of natural variation. The pause meme depends on cherry picking 1998, a year that was more than 2 sigmas above the trend.
What Figure 6 are you referring to?
Sorry, from the last link, to nap.edu.
There is plenty of uncertainty about [clouds and their effects] and it's an area of active research
Mmmm hmm.
Statistically speaking it's a faux pause
I think you mean "politically speaking".
and warming has continued as expected given the vagaries of natural variation. The pause meme depends on cherry picking 1998, a year that was more than 2 sigmas above the trend.
No it doesn't. There's a real plateau that throws a wrench in the works for climate projections of carbon sensitivity. Mann and his peers have been scrambling to issue explanations for the slowdown/pause/whatever you want to call it.
Judith Curry rather sarcastically remarked to the effect that "if there's no pause, then how is it possible that there are explanations for it?" Which is, of course, an insightful observation. Science doesn't always give us the results we expected to get, and the thing to do is roll with it, not fight it.
There are still several figures in Chapter 6 so I'm still not sure what you're talking about. But rather than talking about one specific area in that book wouldn't it be better to consider all of the different observations as a whole?
No, I definitely mean statistically speaking. Tamino is a statistician by trade and as he shows in his post the "pause" is meaningless statistically. Perhaps you'd like to try and present evidence to the contrary.
It's true that the rate of warming over the past 15 years is a bit slower than it was during the 1980's and 1990's particularly in the atmosphere. But the ocean where over 90% of the heat energy goes anyway continue to warm. Don't you think it's reasonable that scientists should investigate why that is true? The more we learn the better our understanding will be.
It's true that the rate of warming over the past 15 years is a bit slower than it was during the 1980's and 1990's particularly in the atmosphere. But the ocean where over 90% of the heat energy goes anyway continue to warm. Don't you think it's reasonable that scientists should investigate why that is true? The more we learn the better our understanding will be.
Absolutely, I am completely in support of continued climate science research. Perhaps someday they will understand exactly why pumping huge amounts of CO2 over the last decades didn't crank up the atmospheric temperature as much as they (rather prematurely) predicted. Hoping for understanding here is still a tall order, because the climate is so complex, chaotic, and full of tricky feedback cycles.
I think it's premature to say that CO2 hasn't cranked up the surface temperatures as much as has been predicted. There's a reason why the standard climatological period is 30 years.
I think it's premature to say that CO2 hasn't cranked up the surface temperatures as much as has been predicted. There's a reason why the standard climatological period is 30 years.
No... if they predicted it and it fell short of their prediction, then of course it's OK to point that out. We can speculate that the heat went into the ocean etc., but the predictions of surface temperature change were specific enough to be falsifiable (like all good scientific ideas), and they were duly falsified.
Rule of thumb: pointing out true facts is always OK.