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."
Ignoring (or otherwise eliminating) the experts and science is pretty much standard operating procedure for this administration.
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.
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
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".
"... 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.
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.
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."
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
That, of course, assumes that you want the board to be effective.
Trump doesn't.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Trump won and Science lost
We lost a lot more than Science.