Canceled
Pruitt insists that the EPA only uses data that is public
How shocking Scott Pruitt wants to force the EPA to act in a scientific manner and publish all the data it uses.
In a bombshell, Scott Pruitt is expecting scientists to act scientifically. My God what a dangerous precedent that is, whatever next?
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/pru...ecret-science/In the US the EPA has been making rules that cost billions based on studies from groups that refused to publish their data. Regulations like The Clean Power Plan were estimated to cost $8.4 billion and magically return $14 – $34 billion in “health and climate benefits".. Scott Pruitt plans to pop that bubble.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Verified User
That's ironic, it was only a year ago the Trump Administration called for holding back public release of all EPA studiesOriginally Posted by Havana Moon
So does that mean we are going to go with the likes of West Virginia mining companies "studies" of West Virginia's drinking water?
And what exactly private studies is the EPA supposedly keeping in dark secret?
kudzu (03-21-2018), Mott the Hoople (03-22-2018)
Senior Member
From the link:
Scott Pruitt actually has more of a grip on what science is than the fake scientists of the Union of Concerned Scientists.My only minor, tiny, complaint is that there is no such thing as “secret science”. If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science. What Pruitt is stopping is Fake Science.
The Union of Concerned Scientists immediately leapt to defend the right of certified scientists to issue declarations that no one could test or assess.
“A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released,” Union of Concerned Scientists representative Yogin Kothari told E&E News.
“It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission,” Kothari said.
Evidently, the Union of Concerned Scientists aren’t too concerned about whether “scientists” are acting scientifically. Like all unions, what matters is pay, power and working conditions, never mind about the Scientific Method.
I really like this guy. In fact he's my favorite in Trump's admin.
cancel2 2022 (03-20-2018)
Canceled
Read this and wonder no more!
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/19/ep...secret-scienceEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Pruitt will reverse long-standing EPA policy allowing regulators to rely on non-public scientific data in crafting rules. Such studies have been used to justify tens of billions of dollars worth of regulations.
EPA regulators would only be allowed to consider scientific studies that make their data available for public scrutiny under Pruitt’s new policy. Also, EPA-funded studies would need to make all their data public.
“When we do contract that science out, sometimes the findings are published; we make that part of our rule-making processes, but then we don’t publish the methodology and data that went into those findings because the third party who did the study won’t give it to us,” Pruitt added.
“And we’ve said that’s fine — we’re changing that as well,” Pruitt told TheDCNF.
Conservatives have long criticized EPA for relying on scientific studies that published their findings but not the underlying data. However, Democrats and environmental activists have challenged past attempts to bring transparency to studies used in rule making.
Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith pushed legislation to end the use of what he calls “secret science” at EPA. Pruitt instituted another policy in 2017 backed by Smith against EPA-funded scientists serving on agency advisory boards.
“If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what — rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt explained.
Pruitt’s pending science transparency policy mirrors Smith’s HONEST Act, which passed the House in March 2017. Smith’s office was pleased to hear Pruitt was adopting another policy the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology chairman championed.
“The chairman has long worked toward a more open and transparent rule-making process at EPA, and he looks forward to any announcement from Administrator Pruitt that would achieve that goal,” committee spokeswoman Thea McDonald told TheDCNF.
Junk science crusader Steve Milloy also called on EPA to end its use of “secret science” in rule making, especially when it comes to studies on the toxicity of fine particulates in the air.
EPA has primarily relied on two 1990s studies linking fine particulate pollution to premature death. Neither studies have made their data public, but EPA used their findings to justify sweeping air quality regulations.
Reported benefits from EPA rules are “mostly attributable to the reduction in public exposure to fine particulate matter,” according to the White House Office of Management and Budget report. That’s equivalent to billions of dollars.
In fact, one of EPA’s most expensive regulation on the books, called MATS, derived most of its estimated benefits from reducing particulates not from reducing mercury, which the rule was ostensibly crafted to address.
EPA estimated MATS would cost $8.2 billion but yield between $28 billion to $77 billion in public health benefits. It’s a similar story for the Clean Power Plan, which EPA estimated would cost $8.4 billion and yield from $14 billion to $34 billion in health and climate benefits.
Democrats and environmentalists have largely opposed attempts to require EPA rely on transparent scientific data. Said data would restrict the amount of studies EPA can use, but a major objection is making data public would reveal confidential patient data, opponents argue.
“A lot of the data that EPA uses to protect public health and ensure that we have clean air and clean water relies on data that cannot be publicly released,” Union of Concerned Scientists representative Yogin Kothari told E&E News.
“It really hamstrings the ability of the EPA to do anything, to fulfill its mission,” Kothari said.
Milloy, however, countered and argued it’s a “red herring” to claim that forcing regulators to use public science data would harm patient privacy.
“The availability of such data sets is nothing new,” said Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com and senior fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute.
“The state of California, for example, makes such data available under the moniker, ‘Public Use Death Files,'” Milloy said. “We used such data in the form of over two million anonymized death certificates in our recent California study on particulates and death.”
“Opponents of data transparency are just trying to hide the data from independent scrutiny,” Milloy added. “But the studies that use this data are taxpayer-financed, and they are used to regulate the public.”
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Verified User
Oh, so you don't mind paying for his first class airplane trips solely because he claims he gets harassed outside of first class? And I thought they said "draining the swamp" not paying for it
Senior Member
I would expect most any cabinet member of any administration would fly first class.
cancel2 2022 (03-20-2018)
Canceled
How much do you think he will save just by getting rid of some, if not all, of the lawyers they have on the payroll, despite using the DoJ for prosecutions? He is also clearing out much of the deadwood, combined that ought to save a billion or more!
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Senior Member
How much do you think it used to cost the EPA to arm and train their SWAT teams to check for water regulation compliance?
cancel2 2022 (03-20-2018), Sailor (03-20-2018)
Canceled
That's just bullshit, if you cannot release the methodology and data then it cannot be scrutinised. Of course they are 'concerned', there gravy train has been derailed.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Verified User
Still not seeing where EPA secretly hides studies' data, only example employed is from the 1990's, give us a ballpark figure, you and the article portray it as all EPA studies
So let me see if I got this straight, they want all parts of all studies made public but also want to control what studies are made public, and that doesn't sound a bit suspicious, especially since a Flat Earther is running the department
Canceled
I am under absolutely any obligation to supply you with any information. Especially when you use emotive bullshit phrases like flat Earther. I have learnt that any discourse with you is truly a waste of time, so go catch some fog!
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Verified User
They don't, nor do all politicians, Biden was famous for traveling AmTrack
Verified User
In other words, you can't, shocking
But you still could have responded to my second comment with out providing requested data, which I noticed you also avoided
Canceled
The policy has changed for the better, in my opinion, that you don't agree is hardly surprising and really par for the course.
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
Banned
Really?
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks