Slashdot Mirror


EPA's Science Advisory Board Has Not Met in 6 Months (scientificamerican.com)

The U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board has not met in at least six months, and some of its members say it's being sidelined to avoid getting in the way of agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's anti-regulatory agenda, Scientific American reported this week. From the report: Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork. That has prevented the group from meeting because there weren't enough members to make a quorum. The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy. The full board has not met since August, nor has it had any conference calls or votes. In the past, members would have had multiple interactions during that time period, said William Schlesinger, a board member who is an emeritus professor of biogeochemistry at Duke University. "I guess the Science Advisory Board still exists; I guess I'm still on it," he said. "I think the answer is maybe they're giving it what we used to call the 'pocket veto': If you don't meet, then the scientists are not a pain, because they don't have a forum."

19 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. The science is settled by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    n/t

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:The science is settled by tbannist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That, of course, assumes that you want the board to be effective.

      Trump doesn't.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  2. SOP by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignoring (or otherwise eliminating) the experts and science is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration.

    1. Re:SOP by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's hardly the worst he's done. He hasn't even nominated someone for the post of White House science advisor. More than a year into his administration, it's still vacant.

      But why would he want advice from scientists? If God had meant us to think rationally, he would have given us wings!

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  3. The US is sleeping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 'woke' metaphor is appropriate.

    Government is what you get when people get together and decide how they want to live together, beyond just tribal rules.

    Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence.

    Here's the Extra History take on it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Science now holds no place at the table with this latest administration. Liberal or conservative, this should not be accepted in ANY form of governance.

    Indeed - it shouldn't even be called an actual government anymore. What we have is a largely sleeping body where representation of the United States, it's scientific community, and its ideas should be.

    But our current administration has no interest in sharing space of any kind, in communicating ideas, of advancing any but their own narrowest of interests. They'll lavishly communicate with dictators of any kind, but never offer a second to science.

    Which is a shame - because they're largely the last place of noteworthy power that baby boomers will hold in this world. This will be their legacy, more than most things.

    It's such a shame they spend that power sleeping, while being robbed of everything they used to care about.

    1. Re:The US is sleeping. by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a hyper-leftist/Marxist former president

      Whoa, buddy. Take your meds.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:The US is sleeping. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do understand that the laws of physics don't give a flying shit about your particular political ideology, right? You do understand that whether the Trump Administration accepts or ignores science, the physical laws of nature will continue to do what they do. The best any government can do is create policies based upon the best understanding of how the universe functions, and it does not matter even the tiniest bit what that government, the experts it employs, or yes, even the fucking voters think of it. The universe does not care. It doesn't care about socialism, capitalism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, or any other fucking -ism. It doesn't care about Federalism, Localism, or any idea great or small.

      If something is toxic, it's fucking toxic. If something causes the waters to rise, it causes the waters to rise. If it causes surface temperatures to increase, it causes surface temperatures to increase. Everything you care about is fucking irrelevant at the end of the day. What counts is only what the physical laws of the universe will inevitably cause. If a stream gets poisoned, cutting back on the number of scientists isn't going to make the poisons go away.

      Somewhere in your fucking head there must be some neurons that fundamentally can cope with the notion that actually listening to what an expert panel says, as imperfect as that may be, is better than just doing whatever the fuck is profitable at the moment. If not, then why bother having government at all? I dump shit in your water supply, mercury in your food chain, and it won't matter, because somehow magically your political ideology apparently can morph the very laws of nature.

      Fuck me, there some intensely stupid people out there, and a lot of them seem to post here.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re: The US is sleeping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy shit if you think Obama was hyper leftist or Marxist you are like maximum level retard.

    4. Re:The US is sleeping. by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice work. You've defined a new -ism. Scienceism. I suppose we should let you appoint the 'scientists' to be the rulers under this new -ism.

      I suppose you think what you've written is somehow intelligent? You're wrong. You can't argue with science like you can't argue with a bullet flying in your direction. He's not saying you have to do what the scientists say. He's saying that ignoring a scientific problem won't make it go away. The new conservatives believe in denying reality because it would inconvenience their opinions, and that is exactly why I stopped being a conservative. Reality just doesn't care about your ideology.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    5. Re:The US is sleeping. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, that isn't the scientific process. That sort of describes peer review, but science is not a debate society. Debate .at be part of it, but it isn't by ant measure the entirety of the methodology. What you're describing is modern conservatism's strawman of science.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:And economics? by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignoring established economics? When it comes to trade tariffs on steel and aluminum, absolutely. He has protectionist attitudes toward trade that are laughable if the consequences weren't likely to be so serious. Most economists say that such tariffs are not going to help domestic producer, just cause an extra burden on the rest of the economy. And at the same it could set of at trade war undermining the global trading system. But Trump thinks that "Trade wars are good, and easy to win".

  5. Re:And economics? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump realizes that the trade war has been on for _decades_, wants to start fighting back.

    The two biggest up and coming economies (China and India) are both very protectionist. It's time for that to change.

    China and India can't retaliate by imposing tariffs of their own, because those tariffs have been there forever. Apparently having low cost labor isn't enough for them, they also need local ownership rules, high import tariffs and currency pegs. All protectionist laws.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. FTFY by sfled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "... it's being sidelined to avoid getting in the way of agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's anti-science agenda..."

    --
    I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
  7. Re:Carpenters Like Hammers by prefec2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your metaphor is wrong. The advisory board is full of scientists. They apply science to issues. Science is not a single instrument, but it is a way to address issues methodically and rational to avoid anecdotal "facts" which can lead you in the wrong way. Presently, you are losing your government. You will end up in feudalism.

  8. Re:And economics? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're trying to change the subject. The EPA is supposed to get advice on both science and economics, and take both of them into account when issuing regulations. The science advisory board is there to advise them about science. But the administration doesn't like the science, so they shut down the advisory board so they don't have to listen to advice about it. You speak as if taking economic effects into account was somehow a replacement for taking science into account. It isn't. You need both, and they're ignoring the science.

    But as for your question about the "science" of economics (believe me, it's not a science), yes, they're doing a pretty good job of ignoring that too. If they actually cared about long term economic effects, they'd be seriously worried about the massive costs of not addressing climate change. But their idea of "economics" is doing whatever's best for the companies that donate to their campaigns.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  9. Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.

    Trump's action may not amount to the legal definition of treason, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that Trump has betrayed the trust of the American people, and has been negligent in his duties as president...

    Some people get fired up and claim it's treason, but it's really what Trump denounced to get elected, good old corruption.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  10. Re:Get over it by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump won and Science lost

    We lost a lot more than Science.

  11. Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By plenty of evidence, you mean anonymously sourced or unsourced media stories that cannot be corroborated, and are quickly forgotten even when the facts eventually come to light because the media is on to the next faux scandal they cannot support. This is what we have accused Fox News of for years, and now that all media outlets are culpable you become credulous of their claims.

    So no, there is no evidence of treason, no evidence of corruption, no evidence of negligence. You are living in a fantasy land if you seriously believe this. It does not matter if you are a fan of Trump or not, these are facts as we know them today. It is time for Democrats and their supporters to grow up and realize they lost an election. Win the next one. Win back Congress. But stop bitching about things that did not happen and start focusing on how to actually win.

    If Democrats show up this Fall or in 2020 with an anti-America anti-Trump message based on zero facts they will get slaughtered in those elections. Figure out a winning strategy that coopts the voters and doesn't disdain them. If you think calling people names is workable it is over and Trump and the Republicans will win out, for a long time.

  12. HIllary lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hillary lost because she was worse then the guy who beat her. Get over it.