Slashdot Mirror
EPA Dismisses Half the Scientists on Its Major Review Board (nymag.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: A few weeks after the election, pro-Trump commentator Scottie Nell Hughes heralded the dawn of a new era when she declared, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts." In the age of Trump there's little need for people who've devoted their lives to studying scientific facts, and over the weekend the administration finally got around to dismissing some of them. According to the Washington Post, about half of the 18 members on the Environmental Protection Agency's Board of Scientific Counselors have been informed that their terms will not be renewed. The academics who sit on the board advise the EPA's scientific board on whether its research is sound. The academics usually serve two three-year stints, and they were told by Obama administration officials and career EPA staffers that they would stay on for another term. But on Friday some received emails from the agency informing them that their first three-year term was up and they would not be renominated. Republican members of Congress have complained for some time that the Board of Scientific Counselors, as well as the 47-member Science Advisory Board, just rubber-stamp new EPA regulations. A spokesman for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt confirmed that he's thinking of replacing the academics with industry experts (though the EPA is supposed to be regulating those companies). Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Center for Science and Democracy, expressed her disappointment and asked, "What's the scientific reason for removing these individuals from this EPA science review board? It is rare to see such a large scale dismissal even in a presidential transition. The EPA is treating this scientific advisory board like its members are political appointees when these committees are not political positions. The individuals on these boards are appointed based on scientific expertise not politics. This move by the EPA is inserting politics into science."
The academics who sit on the board advise the EPA's scientific board on whether its research is sound.
Ok, then if you are producing a bunch of faulty research that is getting past these advisors, why should they not be fired? They obviously are not working out.
I mean the EPA actually CAUSED more pollution than they have prevented in recent years, without any consequence - so there is some major house cleaning to be done there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Simply get rid of anyone with an education.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
50% reduction in size of government? I'M IN. We have to stop spending so much money as a country, and this sort of thing is exactly what needs to happen. Cut government in half.
Do you think the universe gives a flying fuck about a fucking election? Either you're among the most arrogant creatures to exist, or you are well and truly a fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The law requires all EPA regulations to be reviewed by its science board. During the Obama administration, this requirement was flauted for the decision that CO2 emissions could be regulated.
At least Trump, unlike Obama, is acting within the law.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
... when the settled science of climate change ...
"settled science" is an oxymoron.
If you're using it, you already drank the kool aid.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way