Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders EPA To Produce Science Behind Pruitt's Climate Claims (scientificamerican.com)
EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled. From a report: The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn't exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency. Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world's top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels. Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC's "Squawk Box," where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see." The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested "EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change." On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.
You know... because asking someone to provide proof of a claim is anti-conservative.
OK then, it sounds like you can provide the stack of peer-reviewed papers that Pruitt is being directed to cough up. Links?
You cn label this as a Troll, but do not fool yourselves, it is exactly his "science". P.. There are people who paid a lot of money to buy his opinion. Do not cross them - in Today's America, money determines physics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's a demand for evidence. Perhaps in your world evidence is not scientific? Methinks you haven't the foggiest notion what does or doesn't constitute a scientific demand.
They didn't pin him down. They simply are asking for the research behind his statements. If you're the head of the EPA and make a statement such as he made I think it's totally rational to ask for the research.
Sent from my TARDIS
What is the "other side" to Copernicus' view that the Earth revolves around the Sun? It's been almost half a millennium, so you've had plenty of time to come up with something.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand.
Sure it is. All he has to do is show evidence of what is the primary driver of global warming. If that primary driver isn't humans, then voila, it's done!
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation.
If this is true then there would be evidence of it (which there is not).
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose.
A lot of good research has been done on the topic. No single study shapes the view of the scientific community. Living in denial is fine... as long as you don't stand in the way of people trying to address the issue.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
An organizational leader shouldn't make informed decisions?
What kind of leader do you want?
Oh wait, I think I know.
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If Mr. Pruitt thinks that there is research going on casting serious doubts on the results the IPCC is basing its recommendations on, then he surely is able to point to that research. Because it was Mr. Pruitt who demands that the EPA needs more scientific transparency. This is just the demand to actually cast some light to make the science more transparent for us to judge.
A few minor niggles:
1) science, of any sort, doesn't imply any specific policy - assuming that it does is a fallacy;
2) "scientific research" must be distinguished from "sciencey research", the former requiring a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the latter requiring only lab coats and control over the peer review process;
3) the EPA is a government organization, not a "scientific" one.
I fail to see what is silly about it. The primary goal of the DoD is to protect the country. The primary duty of State is to protect and advocate for American positions and citizens abroad. For Interior, protect our natural resources. IRS, endure we have the income to operate as a government. These are all primary goals. Doing so in a financially efficient way is an expectation put upon them. But in any case, an EPA with lax or removed policies will only increase costs to taxpayers in the long term when the inevitable mess has to be cleaned up and we have to pay for it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
no one ever asked epa to provide "proof" that global warming exists
Conservatives have asked, on numerous occasions. It has been provided as research papers, peer reviewed. And in some cases the data has been collected from multiple sources. And the hypothesis are testable and in some cases independently reproduced.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you weren't given an answer.
tl;dr- climate change is occurring. oceans are warming. global changes in weather is inevitable. these changes is caused, at least partially, by human activity. these are the things we know. ask me in 10 years and I can give you an answer with more detail and be able to predict even more.
I guess the problem is that uncertainty is a thing, and even where we may be certain about specific bits of science, our "science" of economics is notoriously uncertain, and a straight line cannot be drawn between where we know things, like the absorption spectrum of CO2, and to a field where we obviously don't, like economics.
So even if you accept that AGW is real, significant, measurable, and unprecedented, there is no fundamental justification for believing it would be catastrophic, much less what economic policies would be the most efficient in addressing the problem (say, dramatically curtailing energy usage versus funding adaptation strategies).
I'll leave with this - I believe that if any viable economic model existed that could reliably predict the future, we would have found it by now. The entire western world is incentivized towards it, with the base greed inherent in humanity fueling its fire. But there is no possible way that we can predict what 2050 is going to look like economically, just as the people of 1968 had no possible way of predicting what the economies of 2018 would look like. Heck, we've got no reliable model of economics on *any* timescale :)
Now, to really screw with your head, compare world economics to world climate, and ask yourself which is the simpler problem to solve :)
Ocean temperature rise may or may not be human-caused, that's why the research needs to continue. The current administration wants to just say "it's not human caused, case closed", and start burning the research, censuring or outright firing scientists that disagree, and actively discouraging anyone, government or private, from doing any further research. That's the sort of bullshit that needs to be stopped; it smacks of Dominionism, of religious zealots who actually believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that we don't have to give a damn about it because it's all going to end soon anyway. This isn't just about climate change, it's about Real Facts and the neverending search for Real Truth versus dogma.
Real conservatives are, indeed, pro science. That any can call themselves Republican in the face of the current Republican party I doubt. They either qualify what the mean by Republican to explicitly refer to some previous edition of the Republican party, or they are fake conservatives. (I count people who just close their eyes and go la-la-la as fake conservatives.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Mod me down if you want, but it is the truth.