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."

37 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 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Given the current president almost exclusively put people in charge of each department who were vocal opponents of the missions of their respective departments, I don’t think this result should be surprising in the least.

      Except Ben Carson - I’m not sure he even knew HUD existed prior to 2017. Trump probably just figured he needed a black guy in charge of HUD, given the clientele.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. 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 Sesostris+III · · Score: 2

      I'm curious. As the summary quotes a biogeochemist, how exactly does hyper-leftist/Marxist biogeochemistry differ from (say) rightist/Conservative biogeochemistry?

      Actually, if we want to go beyond biogeochemist, I would love to know how hyper-leftist/Marxist physics differs from rightist/Conservative physics, or if we really get down to basics, how hyper-leftist/Marxist mathematics differs from rightist/Conservative mathematics.

      And is there a centrist biogeochemistry/physics/mathematics that differs to these two for those of us in the wishy-washy centre?

      As I said, just curious.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    4. 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.

    5. Re:The US is sleeping. by Sesostris+III · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I know I'm a foreigner, but it is clear even to me that the EPA Science Advisory Board != The EPA.

      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
    6. 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
    7. Re:The US is sleeping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I really do enjoy how eagerly you guys offer yourselves up as examples of just how stupid the posters here have become.
       
       

      I suppose we should let you appoint the 'scientists' to be the rulers under this new -ism.

      GP said we should listen to the people who study these things for a living because our actions have consequences and ignoring them doesn't make them disappear. This is a profoundly basic lesson that many of our children grasp early on, but still somehow manages to elude you. You should really be embarrassed signing your name to such retarded arguments, lord knows I'm embarrassed for you.

    8. 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.
    9. Re:The US is sleeping. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I suspect I have more knowledge of science in my left testicle that you do in your entire body.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:The US is sleeping. by jandjmh · · Score: 2

      Some scientists and engineers in government would be a great idea. That's not some made up boogeyman called scienceism. That is common sense. And if those domain experts aren't in office, second best is to have a formal procedure in place to get some input from them.

    11. Re:The US is sleeping. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      'Science' is not a political ratchet to tighten around people whose actions you oppose.

      Who is tightening what? In the some areas like climate change, warning the world that polluting the air with emissions is having a disastrous effect might trigger you but that's your problem if you can't handle someone telling you the truth.

      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.

      And which rulers are those? How many of the world leaders are scientists again? Very few. Most of them are lawyers. Does that destroy your world view?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re: The US is sleeping. by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      Well.... for those people who think that Fox News really is fair and balanced, somebody like Obama must seem like Stalin reincarnated. Remember, there are people out there like my dad, who stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because he got too liberal. Back before YouTube channels, you had to find your crazy on AM talk radio or short wave. It was there, but the barrier to entry was higher. You had to be committed. See the other article on the front page about YouTube as radicalizing agent.

    13. Re:The US is sleeping. by losfromla · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but unfortunately we are living in an alternate reality that closely mirrors Idiocracy and/or Back to the Future 2.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  4. Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. 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".

  6. 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'
  7. 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.
  8. Re: Donald Trump is a pure traitor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Letâ(TM)s see.

    - Many of Trumpâ(TM)s campaign associates have either admitted to or are being prosecuted for crimes
    - He gave classified information to Russians
    - he ask the FBI Director to go easy on the associate that has admitted to a crime. Then fired him when he did not comply.
    - He canâ(TM)t criticize Putin or enforce sanctions that a both Republicans and Democrats think are necessary.
    - he wonâ(TM)t taking any action to protect the mid-term election
    - He brought his son-in-law in the WH thought he is in debt to foreign and canâ(TM)t hold a clearance because he lied on his questionnaire.
    - He endorsed a pedophile for Senate. He was accused of sexual assault. He admitted to sexual assault.
    - He had his lawyer payoff a porn star during the election in violation of election.
    - He has bankrupted his company 6 times. No American bank will lend to him. He has not provided any financial disclosure. Who is he indebted to?

    You are right. He hasnâ(TM)t been convicted of anything. However, it isnâ(TM)t partisan to see this spectacular and be worried for our country. He is bad but Americans saw that and still voted for him. Letâ(TM)s hope someone throws him in jail before we all pay the price for their mistake.

  9. 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.

  10. 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."
  11. Re:Easy fix... just meet! by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

    If only it were that easy! No, they can't just get together on their own. That is not an official meeting of the scientific advisory board. They can't officially consider any EPA business or issue any official advice.

    Notice the agency's excuse. "Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork." And a bit later in the article. "He blamed the delay on the government's bureaucratic human resources process and said the official start date for many new members was Feb. 18. He expects to have a meeting at the end of May or in June." Right. It's all about paperwork. But this is a bureaucracy, and without the right paperwork, nothing is allowed to happen. And when you're in charge of the agency, it's easy to take advantage of that to prevent things from happening.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  12. 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
  13. Re:Get over it by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump won and Science lost

    We lost a lot more than Science.

  14. 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.

  15. Re:More Regulatory Capture or Hostility? by careysub · · Score: 2

    We are way beyond "regulatory capture" now. It is a full-on hostile takeover.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  16. These boards are a pain in the ass by mschuyler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:These boards are a pain in the ass by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Lots of hate, no evidence. Sounds familiar.

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

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

  18. Re:Donald Trump is a pure traitor. by tbannist · · Score: 2

    At this point, attacking Trump relentlessly about unproven theories will only strengthen his ability to defend himself during the campaign... "They've been attacking me on this since day one, where is their proof after 4 years? There isn't any. This is all they got, but I've got these results..." The only reason for keeping this up now is to stymie Trump's efforts to make things better because you are afraid they might actually work..

    Trump's a born liar, he's going to make the argument that everything bad that anyone says about him is lies no matter what anyone does. It'll either be "they've been complaining for years about me" or "suddenly they have complaints about me because it's election time". Knowing Trump, he might actually say both of those in the same sentence. How about we just try to offer and accept honest criticism where it's due? Not everything Trump does is bad, but I'm hard pressed to come up with many examples where he did something good that he didn't immediately reverse course on.

    Americans are definitely getting the best government that money can buy... for those with the money to buy it.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  19. Re:Carpenters Like Hammers by mixed_signal · · Score: 2

    ?? Feudal states were rather decentralized.

  20. Re:Science, eh? by losfromla · · Score: 2

    You're right. Conditions are necessary as they are in any real-life case. All humans require adequate, food, water, and safety for survival. Love seems to be more necessary for the newborns for healthy development though it should be there for optimality at any age.

    You're right of course that one doesn't have to be religious to have a moral objection to abortion. One does have to be religious to be batshit insane loco crazy against abortion to the point of being willing to murder or wish death and all sorts of evil on people who make choices that disagree with their religious zealotry. More often than not, their religious fervor doesn't allow them to see the perversion they've made of their religion in the name of following their misinterpreted and misapplied doctrine.

    --
    Only I can judge you.