Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Bill To Force Public Release of EPA Science (ap.org)
schwit1 quotes a report from Associated Press: House Republicans are taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, targeting the way officials use science to develop new regulations. A bill approved Wednesday by the GOP-controlled House would require that data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment be released to the public. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said "the days of 'trust me' science are over," adding that the House bill would restore confidence in the EPA's decision-making process. Connecticut Rep. Elizabeth Esty and other Democrats said the bill would cripple EPA's ability to conduct scientific research based on confidential medical information and risks privacy violations by exposing sensitive patient data. The bill was approved 228-194 and now goes to the Senate. According to The Hill, "The bill would also require that any scientific studies be replicable, and allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data."
Or should people be opposed to this because its a Republican administration?
... with it.
Good science withstands close scrutiny and is dam hard to deny.
As for personal information, it can be redacted.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
More transparency in public policy. Good, right? Wait, the Republicans are pushing it. There clearly has to be something bad going on.
I'm confused. Could somebody tell me if I am supposed to be for or against this?
We need communism now!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
the most recent disastrous trumpcare bill was done in secret. I guess "trust me" legislation is still in force, huh science denier?
While they are at it, how about all tax payer funded research be open to US citizens and allies.
Ooh, does this mean House Republicans will start reading the science now? And having confidence in the EPA decision-making process? Yay for transparency!
cripple EPA's ability to conduct scientific research based on confidential medical information
Did the EPA obtain permission to acquire this information?
More transparency in public policy. Good, right? Wait, the Republicans are pushing it. There clearly has to be something bad going on.
I'm confused. Could somebody tell me if I am supposed to be for or against this?
Sadly that's not a ridiculous assumption, when Republicans get involved with science it's generally not on friendly terms. Lamar Smith in specific is a dedicated AGW skeptic who really wants the EPA to stop regulating fossil fuels and discredits scientists to do so. To think he's actually trying to improve the quality of science at the EPA is naive.
As for the bill itself, one issue is what is meant by "replicable". Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
The basic function of the bill is that it makes it really tough for the EPA to cite research, and if the EPA can't cite research it has a much more difficult time justifying regulations.
I stole this Sig
That will destroy science. Last I heard when I was working on my PhD, less than 10% of the studies in my field were able to be replicated. Republicans really are anti-science if they think science can be replicated.
I hope the released science info is validated and that politicians actually believe the EPA's claims.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
On paper, maybe. Reality was quite different. Sure women had equal rights: equal right to the same nothing men had. Famine was common, civil rights nonexistent, while the party elite feasted on what little they did produce, living the lap of luxury at their expense.
I'll pass.
So you want to replicate the Chernobyl experiment?
AC
You're being trolled. Literally _nothing_ in the GPs post is true.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
No, it's not ridiculous. The problem is that the Left has bastardized "science"...and now it will be forced to have the "conclusions" survive in the sunlight.
"Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce."
All of those are replicable - simply hand over your raw data, explain your methodology, and allow other scientists to confirm your conclusions. That's how science works.
I, for one, have no faith in this new version of the EPA. Do they think the average congressman would ever read or comprehend scientific data?
clancey
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said "the days of 'trust me' science are over," adding that the House bill would restore confidence in the EPA's decision-making process.
While I agree with the idea that any science conducted should be available to the public that pays for it, it seems like the current proposal is a stepping stone to (a) Allow lay persons (or even entire industries with paid "scientists") to challenge the results, and (b) delay the process of making new regulations by requiring the agency to jump through hoops (both in responsible releasing of confidential data, and providing enough evidence to justify their conclusions).
Science isn't a democracy, and this proposal will only make it harder for any regulations to be implemented. Even with a majority of scientists on one side of the fence, lawmakers are fighting environmental regulations tooth and nail. So this clearly isn't about improving regulations through good science, it is about creating more noise that allows a politician to justify their (pre-selected) bad position on scientific issues. I can just see a politician saying that he read 100 facebook posts by citizen-scientists disproving the EPA experts' conclusions, and that is why a ban on setting up oil refineries in national parks should be repealed.
I guess they will have to post their data to show exactly how they are disproving the EPA's examples, and then an independant party can verify each side
The people at Slashdot responsible to the new pages janking up and down should be gutted with a dull butter knife, lit on fire, and then fed to the nearest pig,farm.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Not all scholarly works are "science". Science is a method for testing ideas to determine which ones are good and which ones are bad. Very few studies report on testing beyond made up assumptions, aka the author's opinions.
See that "Preview" button?
1) The EPA's science is already released publicly.
2) This bill requires the data to be released publicly.
3) The EPA's data is already released publicly.
February 22, 2013.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, it's not ridiculous. The problem is that the Left has bastardized "science"...and now it will be forced to have the "conclusions" survive in the sunlight.
"Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce."
All of those are replicable - simply hand over your raw data, explain your methodology, and allow other scientists to confirm your conclusions. That's how science works.
Information that can be released should be, after it goes through an appropriate, but reasonable process. For instance you wouldn't release rough drafts, but ones everyone comes to a consensus and everything is tripled checked sure. A person that mentioned that personal information rules may be the ultimate issue, so you just redact all that. (i.e. specific health issues.)
Either way the republicans are a joke when it comes to science and reason. They just established a rule to forbid even mentioning climate change. There was no analysis done where cancelling all those rules has a net benefit for society. They just did it. They regularly cherry pick talking points that ignore the bulk of climate science, if they aren't completely made up. Hell during the election they saw all that fake news too, but did they say this is wrong? No, they helped spread it. Democrats may be not dramatically better, but they at least respect science more often than not and tend to create policies that make more sense more often than not.
Republicans still seem to believe in trickle down nonsense despite all evidence to the contrary. I for one don't want anything to do with any of the Donald and golden showers.
And this new bill doesn't remove restrictions already in place, so when you go "hand over your raw data and explain your methodology", someone else goes "THAT is proprietary information, and includes some personal medical information as well, you CANNOT hand that data over", and the EPA is stopped in its tracks.
This entire bill is setting up a catch-22 to remove what small soft nubs still passed for teeth in the environmental protection agency.
Congressmen don't write their own bills, especially corrupt ones like this, so I'm not going to chalk this up to stupidity. It makes me wonder what bit of nastiness is behind all this...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
I can hardly wait until the Cuyahoga burns again. You need to do a little research to see how far we have come, and how far we still need to go. Anyone up for a glass of coalmine drainage water? Kids love it! I can get a shitload of it about a half hour from here. Looks a little like orange juice. Want some?
You see, if you think you want to get rid of "Trust us we're your Government", your saying you want "Trust us, we're from the industry." That isn't how it works. The short term profit motive demand making the most money possible with the least expense. That's why we have to protect capitaism from itself. Because if they don't have to spend money on cleaning up after themselves, they won't.
Lest you think I'm some sort of tree huggger, that land around here that is ruined, is ruined forever. No lumber company is going to cut the shit timber - if there is any - and make a profit, no real estate company is going to make neighbohoods with families that drive the economy. No Wal Mart is going to build in a place that has been ruined forever, and employ people and make a profit.
Popcorn anyone?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
This bill isn't about forcing the EPA to publish its own data, it's about not letting the EPA cite studies that don't make all of their data publicly available (according to the standards of the bill).
It's telling the EPA that it has to ignore the majority of the scientific research.
I stole this Sig
Probably.. That or he's just insane. Either way, entertaining.
No, it's not ridiculous. The problem is that the Left has bastardized "science"...and now it will be forced to have the "conclusions" survive in the sunlight.
"Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce."
All of those are replicable - simply hand over your raw data, explain your methodology, and allow other scientists to confirm your conclusions. That's how science works.
So 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster I send out my team to a nearby shoreline we've been studying and we find that algae species X is 10x prevalent than any other time we've measured, and within a week the levels are back to normal.
So we write up our findings and publish.
I think that could be very useful research, particularly to the EPA who has to potentially deal with Nuclear accidents. But is that really reproducible science?
I can give you my data, but you can't recreate the conditions that generated the data so you can't properly reproduce the findings.
Under this new law the EPA might be forced to ignore the results of that research.
I stole this Sig
Make it public. And don't stop there, think for a bit about just how much could and should be published.
Heck. What would it hurt, even if it was all just out there, even at the Departments of Justice and of Defense, Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, Joint Special Operations Command, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Agency?
I can't think of a single secret worth keeping.
No. If it is not personally identifiable, you can publish it. EPA could still use a paper, that says, for example, "Of the 5000 people exposed to such-and-such-sulfate, 537 developed such-and-such-iasis." As long as it does not identify the patients.
Indeed, if doing research in the first place and making it available to the EPA was not in violation of HIPAA (or, rather, HITECH) privacy rules, the EPA can publish it further.
To pretend, this is about "privacy" is a gimmick — a spin, employed by people afraid of the sunlight shining on the darker corner of the government.
One is still at fault even if his was an honest mistake...
Whether Global Warming is, indeed, a (grave) threat to humanity remains to be seen. But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...
Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake. Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?
The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
One-particular-disaster is doing history not doing science. By definition. Get it? Science is something you do, not something you explain. That's why biology was called "natural history" before somebody acquisitive discovered it could be sold. Unless you buy Molecular Biology as physics without a Greens function or Hamiltonian.
> a stepping stone to (a) Allow lay persons (or even entire industries with paid "scientists") to challenge the results
That certainly sounds good. Everyone can see the data discuss the analysis, see if it holds up to scrutiny, and often see other, completely unexpected information revealed in the data. Quite often, when I graph data looking for a relationship between X and Y, I'm surprised to find a clear relationship between X and Q, new information I didn't even know to look for.
> and (b) delay the process of making new regulations by requiring the agency to jump through hoops
Regulation - (verb) The process of a few people forcing millions of others to do as the few demand, ultimately enforced by threat of violence.
I, for one, am glad that Trump can't just start announcing new laws whenever he feels like it. Unlike North Korea, making law in United States *is* a slow process, with hoops to jump through. I'm very glad for that. It *should* be difficult for a few guys in Washington to tell you and I what we must do and must do. Because ultimately if you don't do as they say, eventually they'll send an armed squad to get you and make you comply, they *should* have to justify new laws, they *should* have to jump through some hoops (and regulations are laws).
That view of government died with the Articles of Confederation
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes, it's curious, that double standard, isn't it?
Democrats and progressives have been misusing science for more than a century.
Correct. That is why you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such data.
That is indeed the basic function of the bill: the EPA should be forced to rely on reproducible public research, instead of the vague hunches and opinions of its staff. That makes the EPA at the same time more compliant with the scientific method, and it also makes it harder for them to create arbitrary regulations in response to political pressures. Both of those are good things. Unless you're a science-denying leftist, of course.
Your posting is proof again that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from sarcasm.
Really, that's your go to move, the Articles of Confederation?
OK, whatever, AFAIC nobody in the Confederacy would agree with me that all people are actually created equal and have equal rights (as in cannot be unwillingly bought and sold).
Beyond that I actually think the long term future is bright, with the governments having less and less power, less and less reach and less and less influence.
You can't handle the truth.
If this is a screen to neuter the EPA, I bet they win in the end. It won't take too many slam-dunk positive PR episodes to show reasonable doubt in the eye of the voters.
Example- "PROVE this action is science based!!!" "OK, before 1900, this creek was healthy (reference .gov doc). After 1945, -nothing- is alive in it or down stream. It has 10e12 moles of plutonium 69 in it, which can not exist in this Solar System. Man made this mess, and it's here in .gov records. Hence, this is a super fund site and results in further regulations against dumping shit in creeks. ...or, would Congress prefer we inform the Electorate that you Congress are threatening the EPA to allow Pete's Plutonium Plant to open in their backyards? Remember, we know where ALL the nasty crap Congress buried is and NIMBY's ---always--- win motherfsckers!"
Wrong "Confederacy," bub.
Cite the portions of the bill you believe make the EPA have to jump through a lot of red tape, then.
The EPA has left harmful regulations in place for decades, which caused 1600 unnecessary deaths at Fukushima, and countless more by helping suppress the most effective source of clean energy. While renewables may capture the limelight, the leading source of new energy worldwide is coal, and it is growing far faster.
Present radiation regulations are based on bad science. The linear no threshold hypothesis is provably false today, and counter evidence already existed even at the time of its adoption. Since then, a growing body of evidence and scientific understanding show that low levels of radiation are harmless and potentially beneficial. Aside from providing a basis for fear-mongering, misinformed regulations also prevent promising research into the use of low level radiation for medical applications.
Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information have recently petitioned the EPA for scientific/risk-based radiation regulations. There are also other areas where the EPA adopts the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle for regulation, which is fundamentally misguided. Such regulation carries an opportunity cost, and the extensive effort to eliminate infinitesimal perceived damage is wasted when it could achieve a much greater positive effect if applied to other more serious risks.
Scientific research that does not contain the data necessary to support any claims is not science.
I, actually, didn't say, somebody should be. What I said was, since no one was, there is nothing to hold the EPA in check...
Not according to Guardian:
Stipulating for a second, the scientists were innocent and it were all the politicians at fault at the FDA, how is the EPA different? That is, what did happen at the FDA, that does not and will not happen at the EPA?
Wrong. First of all, your link describes (with the weaselese "may have" rather than firm "has") such efforts, which ended in 1967 — USDA's "dietary guidelines" denouncing fat were published only in 1980ies. And second, the "sugar industry", according to your link, didn't lobby the politicians — instead, they paid scientists. And it was hardly a massive bribe — the three scientists from Harvard were paid an equivalent of today's $50,000 to publish a paper, which the believed to be valid.
In other words, the smart assholes at NYTimes realized what massive egg is on the Big Government's face and wanted to create some smokescreen for it to shift the blame towards the Greedy KKKapitali$t$, but failed. Well, almost failed — you fell for it...
You aren't citing any sources and I call bullshit. Why would industry lobby — heavily! — for a major overhaul of its production lines? The "fat free" stuff is not any cheaper, the margins on it aren't specifically higher, while developing it requires work and brings about uncertainty. No. Once the demand was there, the industry responded to satisfy it — praise be to Capitalism — but it made no sense for anyone to lobby for it...
My argument is, the EPA does not "benefit society". If only for this reason — they can ban and banish anything they please willy-nilly... We already have toilets, that don't flush (even the EPA themselves admit such problems "in earlier models") and dishwashing machines, that do not wash dishes. In a rush for "renewable energy", we
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1 publish your data
2 get epa to use it in a regulation, but now they have to publish it
3 sue epa for copyright infringement
(inspired by the state of georgia)
Tell that to Nixon.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Another issue is the open data requirement. It's a nice idea, but a lot of studies are done with proprietary data, and even for the ones with open data the EPA is going to have to jump through a lot of red tape to satisfy the requirements.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government." Are we really willing to go there? We're forced into that situation with our spy agencies. How well has that worked out for us?
This bill isn't about forcing the EPA to publish its own data, it's about not letting the EPA cite studies that don't make all of their data publicly available (according to the standards of the bill).
It's telling the EPA that it has to ignore the majority of the scientific research.
If the majority of scientific research fails to make its data public then the majority of scientific research should be ignored when it comes to making public policy. Otherwise, it would be all too easy for fraudulent science to be cited to justify bad regulations.
If they publish their research for public scrutiny I don't see that they are prevented from using it.
That's the deal here - since the hockey stick failure there's a large mistrust of what's published on environmental research.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Really, that's your go to move, the Articles of Confederation?
OK, whatever, AFAIC nobody in the Confederacy would agree with me that all people are actually created equal and have equal rights (as in cannot be unwillingly bought and sold).
Beyond that I actually think the long term future is bright, with the governments having less and less power, less and less reach and less and less influence.
I doubt you could find many people today that believe that all people have equal rights. Consider all the people that believe in affirmative action laws or progressive taxes. Today its all about equality of outcomes, not rights.
This bill isn't about forcing the EPA to publish its own data, it's about not letting the EPA cite studies that don't make all of their data publicly available (according to the standards of the bill).
*pling* (sound of coin dropping). So, in effect the EPA will not be allowed to publish any findings about what goes on in private companies, I suspect, thus granting big polluters more secrecy and protection.
EPA shouldn't exist in the first place. Neither should 99.9999 of what government is doing today, all its agencies and departments, none of it should exist. I suppose de-clawing the agencies, de-funding them as well is a good start in that direction. There shouldn't be such a concept as an income or a property tax, there shouldn't be such a concept as government funded anything.
So, with government reduced to .0001%, or 1 ppm, I assume you would throw away things like public roads, elementary education for all, fundamental, scientific research, etc etc, and with these things also the things that depend on them, like manufaturing, IT, agriculture, trade and all other things that depend on infrastructure, government regulations and international agreements? Not to mention police, military, rescue services, health care and so on. Yeah. let's go back to living in caves, having a life expectancy of 25 and childhood mortality of 75%.
Absolutely. Government is bad.
Those kids orphaned in a factory explosion and forced to drink arsenic laden water should hire a private army to extract justice and force the company to stop polluting. I mean if they can't do that, it's their fault for not being richer.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hopefully you are being sarcastic. It's really pathetic that people feel such a need to be politically correct that they subrogate their opinions to internet troll sites.
Yeah, because we are going to instantly revert to some state of dumping 55 gallon drums of oil right onto all the waterways now that there is some transparency in the system.
That certainly sounds good. Everyone can see the data discuss the analysis, see if it holds up to scrutiny, and often see other, completely unexpected information revealed in the data
Lol no. Sure it's designed to look like that on the surface, but Rep Lamarr is hardly going to have a bill called "Rep Lamarr is a cunt bill". Rep Lamarr is a flat-out denialist and he's been trying to hamstring the EPA for ages because he doesn't believe science. The climate is (a) changing and (b) we're the primary cause. Science showing this result have already been replicated numerous times with many sources of data and you personally getting access to the exact set that the EPA uses is not going to change a thing.
Rep Lamarr is deeply anti science, and if he's put this forward as a good thing then you should bee deeply suspicious of it because it's not designed to promote science, it's designed to suppress scientific results that he personally wishes were otherwise.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
spoken like somebody who has never gone through peer review to get published
What do you expect when being poor is effectively the worst crime there is? Because morality = economics.
. . . . paid for by taxpayers, released to the public ??
I can hardly wait until the Cuyahoga burns again. You need to do a little research to see how far we have come, and how far we still need to go. Anyone up for a glass of coalmine drainage water? Kids love it! I can get a shitload of it about a half hour from here. Looks a little like orange juice. Want some?
This reminds me strongly of the "But - the terr'rists!" that was used to justify blind faith in our intelligence agencies about 15 years ago.
Getting poisoned by groundwater is bad. Getting blown up by crashing airplanes is bad. But neither is as bad as what our own government can do to us if we trust it too much.
Err... no, of course if you find a coelocanth alive, you needn't find a second one in order to conclude that they aren't yet extinct. Reproducing a result can be done for LABORATORY findings, but not for observations in nature.
There's no logical requirement to ignore what data we DO have, and it would be odd indeed to create a legal requirement.
The "jumping to conclusions" phrase is an attempt to introduce loaded language into the discussion. Disregard the phrase, that's NOT in the proposed law, and certainly doesn't describe any real event.
The rub there, is not only the EPA work, but all the cited prior work, becomes subject to formal challenge. An objection without merit could waste years: courts would have no alternative but to hear it all out.
Replication of results is key to determining if something is true or not. What sense does it make to force massive expensive changes based on studies that have often proven to not be replicable. There is a replication crisis in science where a massive number of published studies have results that cannot be verified by other researchers. Just because many/most scientists believe something does not make it necessarily true. Most scientists only know what they read in journals about subjects they do not personally study. (from Wikipedia) "According to a 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported in the journal Nature, 70% of them failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments (50% failed to reproduce their own experiment). These numbers differ among disciplines:chemistry: 90% (60%),biology: 80% (60%), physics and engineering: 70% (50%),medicine: 70% (60%),Earth and environment science: 60% (40%)". When half the people cannot reproduce their own results something is very wrong. We need to take a step back to understand and verify so we know whats really true before we make decisions that will need to be implemented by force which is what we do for all laws.
They think there is a conspiracy due to the amount of insanity they have listened over the years of culture wars. The summary addresses the privacy issue, but the question is if the protection of proprietary information is sufficient with a confidentiality agreement. The EPA is trusted beyond such agreements, a random member of the public is not.
Yeah, that's about what sums it up: "Hey, I saw a _____ in your pond, an animal that was thought to be extinct. The federal government should cease your property immediately! No, I don't have any physical proof for you to examine, why do you think that matters?" The EPA is ruling about taking away people's private property, and the standard for that should be higher than "scientists believe".
And the sad thing is that a lot of the EPA rulings are exactly about that kind of unscientific anecdotal reporting, with no scientific proof and no reason to believe that the observer didn't make a mistake.
I note that the same attitude you show here was the basis for forced sterilizations and segregation in the US: progressive policies based on the scientific beliefs of the day, promoted by people who are still heroes of the Democrats and progressives today. It is fundamentally wrong for government to operate that way.
And that is a problem... why? If it is about something where lives are at stake, courts can issue short term orders until the matter is resolved. And if there is any doubt, the courts should kick it over to Congress. Your fascination with having the executive branch just issuer decisions quickly is the typical progressive and fascist view of government.
The alternative is that you publish your conclusions without any supporting data. Do you really think that's better?
Forcing publicly financed science to be made ... public.
Demanding that results be replicable?
In what universe are these things wrong? Finally some measure of a move to try to ensure that any policies that are spawned are actually based on real science.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government."
The issue is not about "Trust us, we're your government." strawman.
Raised by the clown crew of a government, with only 21 executive nominations confirmed (out of 553), multiple ongoing scandals, not the least of which is appointment of an anti-EPA loon as the head of the agency, who then promptly ignores science anyway.
Trust us, WE are your government indeed.
It's about little facts like exposing patient data, various privacy concerns, various patent laws and rules, copyright...
In order to "release to the public... data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment" EPA would literally have to either be given godlike power to expose anything and anyone, regardless of laws, regulations or any kind of legal or physical protection...
OR... much more likely, simply NOT create regulations anymore... regulations "to protect human health and the environment".
Right now they can simply CITE data used in their science, like with any other scientific study.
Not release everything cited to public, or even be forced to replicate other people's science.
I'm all for replicable science but this is not about science.
It's about gagging the mouths and tying the hands of those who rely on science in order to "protect human health and the environment" by people who abhor science.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So the bill for supplying it will come from taxpayers.
Either your tax money is more important than seeing all the data (which you could anyway, it just was effort to search) or easy access is worth paying for.
Now ask them to approve their open evidence for economics or terror threat reactions.
What YOU can't do is replicate it. At least until you invent a time machine to go back in time.
Because nobody can see the event, no event that doesn't leave replicable evidence behind can be used in a court of law.
So either the EPA can just use the courts to bypass this and sue in court with their expert witness testimony, or testimony is not acceptable in court. Even police reports: not replicable.
Should the EPA be stymied like this because they could take you to court for a coelocanth in your pond? Because unless you throw out all testimony in courts as evidence, your scenario is still just as capable of happening. And if you just make the EPA have to do that, WHY?
When you cite another paper, you see the method.You can repeat the method. Or investigate it for possible problems (remember complaints about the PCA used by MBH98? Nobody needed the raw data, or even the adjusted data to see that it wasn't state of the art). All that the raw data allows is you to demand yottabytes of data then ignore it and claim it's still wrong.
If the paper cited has problems, you can see the paper and see the problems.
If you can't find the problem unless you have the raw data, collect your own, using the same method.If you can't do that, you can't find the problem no matter what is given you.
So he's not using "PC" words, he's using "Non-PC" words.
If you don't fucking like it, then stop complaining about PC culture making you not say certain words. Or is only YOUR PC correct language to use? Who made you the fucking emperor?
And if you don't get the same data then you either disproved the conclusion (to a certain confidence level) or your method was incorrect.
If YOU replicate, what is the point unless I do too? And now instead of 1 paper, it requires at least three. And if it's at the 95% confidence limits, there's a one in six change that there will be at least one disagreement there. So we need a half-dozen more. Care to pay for all that extra research?
Lastly, I'll make this bet: if YOU replicate, for example, the measurements of the ice sheet loss in Greenland, THEN I'll accept you're genuine rather than a moron who'd prefer science not happen so you can just make believe what you prefer to be "true".
All research that is publicly funded should be public.
Why is it more complicated than that? The taxpayers paid for it - the taxpayers should own it.
> Rep Lamarr is hardly going to have a bill called "Rep ...
> Lamarr is a cunt bill". Rep Lamarr is a flat-out denialist
>
> Rep Lamarr is deeply anti science
It seems you know all about this "Representative Lamarr" guy. Well except anything, like his name, for example. Congressman Smith's first name is Lamar; he's not Lamarr, and certainly not "Representative Lamarr".
You need to do a little research to see how far we have come, and how far we still need to go. Anyone up for a glass of coalmine drainage water?
This comment struck me as amusing since the EPA is trying to shut down facilitates that process coal waste and turn that waste into something useful (e.g. ingredients of portland cement). The Obama administration's all out war on coal has a hidden cost, which includes more slurry ponds, more pollutants being stored there than are necessary, and increased risk of ecological disasters.
Your example assumes no one else sends a team to look at algae species within that week. Seems unlikely as I would assume one of your first tasks would be to call up other teams and ask if they see similar increases.
Yeah, because we are going to instantly revert to some state of dumping 55 gallon drums of oil right onto all the waterways now that there is some transparency in the system.
Never underestimate the profit motive.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's now effectively impossible for the EPA to conduct research with HIPAA controlled data without individual releases. Pehaps even blind experiments of any sort become impossible. The unmasking portion of the law is the egregious bit.
You need to do a little research to see how far we have come, and how far we still need to go. Anyone up for a glass of coalmine drainage water?
This comment struck me as amusing since the EPA is trying to shut down facilitates that process coal waste and turn that waste into something useful (e.g. ingredients of portland cement). The Obama administration's all out war on coal has a hidden cost, which includes more slurry ponds, more pollutants being stored there than are necessary, and increased risk of ecological disasters.
So what you're saying is that we need to mine more coal so we have to make more ways of treating the effluent.
Got it. You want a gallon of that mine drainage orangewater? I have a special going now You pay for shipping, and I'll send you all you want.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Rep Lamarr is deeply anti science, and if he's put this forward as a good thing then you should bee deeply suspicious of it because it's not designed to promote science, it's designed to suppress scientific results that he personally wishes were otherwise.
It does not matter WHY this bill is being presented, it should be examined on it merits, or lack thereof.
For myself, setting policy and such based on information that is not freely examinable (not a word? Why not?) by anyone is ludicrous. "Trust us" is not ever the proper response to a query concerning public policy.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It's telling the EPA that it has to ignore the majority of the scientific research.
Scientific research that is imprisoned or shackled is not useful (to the public) scientific research and should not be used for public policies. Research all you want, but until you are willing to share the results of that research with the public, it should not be used to guide government policy.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
So 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster I send out my team to a nearby shoreline we've been studying and we find that algae species X is 10x prevalent than any other time we've measured, and within a week the levels are back to normal. ...
Under this new law the EPA might be forced to ignore the results of that research.
As it should. Who is to say your measurements were correct? Who is to say you are not falsifying your data? Who is to say your instruments were not malfunctioning?
Sure, the EPA *might* want to keep a record of a one-off as a lead in to a full investigation of a follow-on disaster, but to set policy or create regulation based on a non-reproducible incident? Sheer insanity.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
But reading the actual text of the bill, it seems to me that it only requires that enough information be publicly available so that the research being used *can* be reproduced, not that it *shall* be reproduced. I don't think it is making it mandatory to replicate the research before it is used in rule-making, but that the information be available in case someone wants to try to reproduce it at any future date.
And if a Democrat were president right now, this story would be hailed as a victory for freedom of information, open access to taxpayer-funded research, and so on.
Yet it's a Republican president and congress now, so this law is a bad, terrible thing, "attacking" science, blah blah blah.
Particularly amusing since less than a page down is a story about open access to Georgia's laws, with the exact opposite slant on it.
To be fair, it might also help with this kind of thing
Well except anything, like his name, for example
I'm bad with names. It's not that I forget people: I can connect the abstract notion of the person with information about them, but I don't seem to have a good memory for names.
And you know what? It doesn't make me wrong. He's denialist scum.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is a study based on a particular disaster replicable? What about a study based on historical climate data? Or a long term health study? There is a lot of legitimate research that is difficult to reproduce.
Those are all easily reproducible because you do not have to replicate the event that you are studying. You didn't perform an experiment to create that event. So if i wanted to study tornadoes, and I could choose to study existing tornadoes. I would then need to cite the data I used or how I gathered data, and the techniques I used to come to my conclusions. On the other hand, if I chose to create tornadoes, then I would have the additional burden of documenting my system for creating tornadoes well enough that someone could replicate it.
??? Confederacy ???
The Articles of Confederation were the United States' first constitution, and created just the kind of federal government you seem to want; one that was largely impotent, couldn't really raise money and really couldn't impose any kind of order on the union at all. It was quickly recognized to be a constitution that was sure to doom the young union entirely, which is why a new constitution was produced, one that very much created a strong centralized federal government. Yes, we can debate just how strong the Framers intended it to be, but considering even the kind of Federal government one of its authors, Jefferson, ran, I'd say while he certainly wouldn't be considered Lincolnian or Rooseveltian, neither was he some sort of minimalist Libertarian, and he certainly viewed Federal power as a useful club.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Gee... and here I was under the impression unless it contained classified or PII or HIPAA data, research done under public funding already *was* openly available.
Orwell approves of your post.
Correct, you are assuming correctly. There shouldn't be any public roads or any form of subsidised public education for anybody under any circumstances. There shouldn't be any government money at all, yes, this means no government money for any form of scientific research either.
Every single thing must be completely private, there shouldn't be any 'government' to make agreements, all agreements need to be private. There shouldn't be government police of military or rescue services.
And of-course there shouldn't be any government ever even closely related to any form of health insurance or health care.
All these things need to be completely private and this does not mean going back to 'living in caves', it means not being oppressed by any legitimized outside force, it means being a free person living among other free people.
You can't handle the truth.
Ross Perot used to say the devil is in the details. I completely agree considering the source, GOP Rep Lamar, this must have some dire consequences. Either, it is a stepping stone, or somewhere in the bill are some nefarious details that will cause EPA trouble. Like they won't fund the EPA's publishing of the data, so now since the EPA is required to publish the data, but they aren't allowed to spend money to publish it, the EPA can no longer conduct business.
This is similar to rule that the GOP implemented about cutting off funding of organizations that were under investigation by congress. They then started an investigation into Planned Parenthood, which cut off their funding by the previous rule change.
Science showing this result have already been replicated numerous times with many sources of data and you personally getting access to the exact set that the EPA uses is not going to change a thing.
Oh, since this "is not going to change a thing" except that the public gets more scientific data, then this law can be nothing but good. I'm sure you agree and are in no way partisan enough to claim that a more informed public with greater exposure to science is a bad thing.
Thank God we don't have to worry about the Cuyahoga river burning or 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill now that the EPA is protecting us!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Science that isn't reproducible is not science. That process can be called data analysis if you like, but in the end it is glorified stamp collecting.
Hopefully if you went to Fukushima, 24 hours after the Fukushima disaster, you took some water samples, you tested some of the water, sent a sample to an independent lab for testing to you know verify your testing, so you don't publish something stupid based a a miss-calibrated instrument and embarrass yourself and your sponsoring institution publicly. Maybe take some pictures of the algae, possibly culture some of the algae for future study, you know things real Scientists typically do.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This all sounds good on the surface, but I sense a trap waiting to be sprung. I have a feeling that the "best available science" and "reproducible" requirements are specifically designed to eliminate any policies related to climate change. "It's not the best science available because I can find one guy with a science degree who disagrees with it. And you can't prove that global warming is real or is caused by anthropogenic sources, either. Even if you could, you'd need another planet to reproduce such claims! Ha! Suck it, libtards! Drilling starts tomorrow!"
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Thank God we don't have to worry about the Cuyahoga river burning or 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill now that the EPA is protecting us!
The EPA didn't exist when the Cuyahoga burnt. Or I should say when it burned in 1969. There have been at least 13 fires on the river. The first one was in 1868. The fire in 1969 helped spur the creation of the EPA.
As for protecting us, its difficult. Your logic is complling however - it appears you are saying that we'd be safer from things like the fire and any harm if the EPA didn't exist. Perhaps we shall find out.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Isn't blaming the EPA for ecological disasters like blaming the police when crimes are committed?
As long as they are compensated for their property what is the problem? Here is another example, the government wants to take away people'e private property to build a wall along the southern border. What is the proof it will be effective? There is none, you just have to trust the politicians.
They are generally not compensated.
Border security is the sole responsibility of the federal government and there is no way to handle border security through the courts in our system. Furthermore, the federal government already controls that land. Whether specific policies it wants to adopt today are effective or not is irrelevant, it needs control of that land because controlling it is its job. It's a long time oversight that it doesn't. The government can use eminent domain and it should compensate the current owners adequately.
where did you read that I want a government at all? I want no government whatsoever. The only thing that I am for is a mechanism for preventing so called 'legitimate' governments from appearing, funded by voluntary donations, nothing more than that.
You can't handle the truth.
I look forward to seeing all of the research and data behind the politicians claims about climate change not happening and everything else that comes out of their mouths. After all if they are writing the laws based on those claims then we should be able to see how the politicians arrived at them. Laws are much more important than regulations so the burden of proof should be much higher than they are demanding for the EPA and other departments.
If only the law said something to the effect that it does not take precedence over nondiscretionary statutory requirements, like medical privacy laws and HIPAA requirements, then this matter would be cleared right up!
Oh wait, I just looked at the single-page law, and it does state that the law does not supersede nondiscretionary statutory requirements!
Now I'm confused - you claimed that there's no way to tell, but the law actually specifically states that the EPA MAY NOT contravene existing requirements - such as HIPAA. Why would you say that, when you so clearly read the bill before offering you're informed opinion here on Slashdot?
No, they couldn't, because that would be in contravention of the medical information privacy laws that already exist - darn those existing nondiscretionary statutory requirements that are explicitly NOT reversed as part of this law! The existence of that clause really undermines your argument, how inconvenient!
False Dilemma.
Getting rid of "Trust us, we're the government" is not saying that we are accepting "Trust us, we're from the industry". It is exactly the opposite. It will expose the fact that the government relies on a great deal of data from the industry because the industry(any and all that lobby) is our government and we all know it.
The industry already writes our laws, what makes you think they don't conduct our science as well?
In four years the US will be the has been nation in hard science. There is already a brain drain and it is accelerating. You folks elected. Orion's into power and you will pay the piper for it. To hear these half sorted born again dogs talking about climate change and anything else is much like what I heard in small towns where the books in class were twenty years out of date. You get what you put in and the Trumpists put in a bunch of yahoos and climate deniers. The earth will not wait patiently for some intelligence in govern,e t bit luckily there is profit to be made with green tech so the coal industry will not suddenly wake up. It is dead as spam in the sun...technology will not be replaced with big hands and a strong back. The lack of good education that is affordable will push the US towards throw wold status from which it will not recover. Sped off g billions on war materiel instead of schools, hospitals and universities will stunt and defeat all the good ideas that have in the past come from those institutions. The lack of universal healthcare will drive those who can get out..to get out...
We already have the causation. We've had the causation since 1896, and you could argue that it was evident since Tyndal 1856. The action of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well understood and has nothing to do with statistical data. Do you know how we can tell you know nothing about the science?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The bill specifically states,
.
"(b)(1) The administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is-- "(A) the best available science:" ". .
My obvious question is who is the arbiter of what whether it is the "best available science"? Folks who are actual scientists, or member of Lamar's committee, who are so deeply and philosophically scientific?
... that this should come up at the same time as the federal gov't is deleting previously-public data archives.
Citation.
Which makes me kinda suspicious about the motivations behind this bill.
Isn't blaming the EPA for ecological disasters like blaming the police when crimes are committed?
Yes it is, despite the AC below calling it a false dilemma.
The people who think that keeping our ecosystem productive and allowing for muultiple generations to make a gaddamed profit off the lands largess is some sort of evil thing want to have it all ways. They want single company to be able to do whatever the hell they please, and destroy the land for future generations, or even ten years down the road. Then they want to starve off any attempts to make for sustainable profit and enjoyment. Then the stupidly evil asses want to blame the agency when something happens. And it's funny. These same peopel want to punish a d get tougher punishments on any other crime.
I never get the answer to why one single company is entitled to destroy land that can be productive for millenia. Seems kind of commielike to me. Personally, I think they all need a drink of that orangewater.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That particular ecological disaster was unleashed by the EPA, who took actions that were advised against by engineers on site.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Republicans who support it do so for three reasons, 1) a firm belief that God is on their side (stated, probably not truly believed) 2) They are being paid off in the form of campaign contributions (at least) by companies that do not want to have to follow rules. 3) a stupid belief that the earth is sooooooooo big that humans can't really have an effect on it.
Number 2 is the "reason." One and three are rationalizations aimed at distracting the people from the reason.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.