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."
This is not governance in any political affiliation. This is treason and abdication of duty. Prison can't come soon enough for these fools.
Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.
Prison time usually requires the commission of a crime. At this point, we have no direct evidence Trump committed any crimes here. We have a lot of theories about possible crimes being investigated, but being investigated isn't evidence of a crime. No crimes are in evidence and Treason isn't really possible at this point so I think you are rattling on about nothing but wild conspiracy theories for now..
Can we at least wait until the evidence comes out before we make wildly unlikely charges like Treason?
No? Ok.. Then stay with the partisan political craziness that drives all this pointless wrangling...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As it states in the linked Scientific American article;
The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy.
I can't comment on treating a 'farm drainage ditch be treated like a "navigable waterway"', as you don't cite any reference (and, as I say, I'm a foregner so if it is commonly cited in the US National News I wouldn't be aware of it), but if there is dodgy science behind it, then I would expect the Advisory Board to have an opinion (i.e. 'evaluate').
But then I suppose in a way you're correct when you say 'The EPA has had little to do with science in a long time.'. Well, at least six months according to the article!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
I've been on them. They are always for show and politically correct. One member from this place. One member from there. One Black. One Hispanic. Equality for women. One union rep, one from academia, one from the public sector. And every single person there has a political agenda to push, something they want done in the name of "justice" for their cause. Everyone tries one upmanship and grandstanding and thinks they can control the agency from their chair around the table. Advisory committees are not worth the cost the agency must pay for their lunches. It looks good on a resume and is a great excuse for a junket away from work so your employer thinks you're "contributing to the public good." and putting a feather in your oranization's cap as well as your own. It's a waste of time.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.