EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations

[Sunsettommy]

I KNOW you are wrong since the published science papers right there in front of you says you are.

If these are such unimpeachable references, what do you believe is wrong with the thousands of published science papers that say AGW is real?

Ha ha, you have many separate published research papers from diverse publications that comes to similar conclusions sitting there in front of you. Meanwhile you have not once showed any of those papers are wrong, not once!

AGW is mostly a product of climate models, with a lot of well documented prediction/projection failures in them. I have posted several times the failed Per Decade warming rates as published in the IPCC reports.

There are two parts of the AGW conjecture, can you tell us what they are?

 

[evenflow1969]

It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.

Daily Caller

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations

Michael Bastasch

3/19/2018

Excerpt:

"Environmental 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."

LINK

Looks like scott pruit will end his job right now. He is NFL not for long right now.

 

[SSDD]

The scientific literature is filled to overflowing with evidence supporting AGW. The amount of evidence supporting your contentions is what is lacking and that in the extreme.

And yet....when asked to provide a single piece of that supposed deluge of evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, you don't seem to be able to find any at all. are you bright enough to wonder why?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah. Tell us what data the EPA could not reveal.

I asked before skidmark...what personal data would be necessary in the claimed evidence that CO2 is a pollutant...you didn't answer?

 

[SSDD]

From your Fox News example:

"The Obama administration’s EPA had originally justified the ban based on a study by the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, which said the insecticide was linked to childhood developmental delays."

My charge still stands. The data that could not be revealed was HIPAA protected data.

Try again.

Only the personal data of the subjects is HIPPA protected...that findings of the study, the methods, methodology, and data that supposedly support the conclusions are not.

 

[Crick]

What is not blocked by HIPAA or by specific agreements of other sorts, is available.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What is not blocked by HIPAA or by specific agreements of other sorts, is available.

Already addressed at post 49

Already addressed at post 55

The relevant QUOTE:

"De-Identified Health Information. There are no restrictions on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information.14 De-identified health information neither identifies nor provides a reasonable basis to identify an individual. There are two ways to de-identify information; either: (1) a formal determination by a qualified statistician; or (2) the removal of specified identifiers of the individual and of the individual’s relatives, household members, and employers is required, and is adequate only if the covered entity has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could be used to identify the individual."

Ignoring what the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services states is a bad idea.

 

[Crick]

You have not shown that the wittheld data falls into such a classification.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You have not shown that the wittheld data falls into such a classification.

You are the one who pushed HIPPA claims over and over which I addressed several times as being easily addressed by redacting the sensitive personal and family information.

You have yet to show that ending the "secret Science" policy is endangering anyone. That it is harming science research, which you have yet to show. Nor have you showed that it is illegal either.

You are plainly running on nothing here.

 

[Crick]

I have neither heard, read or seen any data withheld by EPA researchers that involved anything other than personal health data (including what you have mentioned here) blocked either by HIPAA or by pre-existing agreements with the data subjects. Neither you nor anyone else here has presented a single instance of withheld data that was NOT personal health data.

Pointing out that HIPAA has waivers and does not protect all data is interesting, but it neither supports your argument or refutes ours.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have neither heard, read or seen any data withheld by EPA researchers that involved anything other than personal health data (including what you have mentioned here) blocked either by HIPAA or by pre-existing agreements with the data subjects. Neither you nor anyone else here has presented a single instance of withheld data that was NOT personal health data.

Pointing out that HIPAA has waivers and does not protect all data is interesting, but it neither supports your argument or refutes ours.

It is clear you don't even know what the bill was about back in 2015:

FoxNews

Published March 18, 2015

Excerpt:

"The House has passed two Republican-backed bills that would place new restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency.

A bill approved Wednesday would require the EPA to disclose scientific data behind proposed regulations, while a measure passed Tuesday would prohibit the agency from appointing registered lobbyists to the EPA's Science Advisory Board.

Both were approved largely along party lines. The scientific data bill was approved 241-175, while the advisory board measure was approved 236-181.

Republicans said the bills would increase transparency at the EPA and make it more accountable to the public.

"Right now, the EPA is trying to impose harmful regulations based on scientific studies that no one can check -- not the public, not independent scientists, not even the United States Congress,' said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "It's called `secret science' and it's wrong."

If the EPA or any other agency proposes a rule that adds costs to businesses or infringes on private property, "the people have every right to know why," McCarthy said.

The White House has threatened to veto the measures, saying they could delay or prevent environmental decisions and hurt the ability of the science board to advise the agency.

If adopted into law, the bill on scientific data could be used to prevent EPA from proposing or finalizing a regulation until legal challenges about the legitimate withholding of certain scientific and technical information are resolved, the White House said in a statement. Releasing data underlying some scientifically important studies could violate the privacy of test subjects or compromise confidential business information, the White House said.

Similarly, the White House said the measure restricting service on the EPA's Science Advisory Board could preclude the nomination of scientists with significant expertise in their fields."

bolding mine

LINK

Since the Senate never passed it using bogus reasons as stated in the above article. The EPA Administrator is doing it himself, to make it easier for the public to get the information that were used to support a regulatory decision. The stupid privacy excuses the democrats and YOU brayed on and on were easily addressed by existing HIPPA and other privacy laws already in place.

Research itself are NOT being regulated at all, just the availability of the published research data and methodology. The new EPA rule doesn't even try to tell science researchers how to do their research at all, which is something stupid liberals never seen to understand.

Here is the actual proposed rule,

Excerpt:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 30 [EPA–HQ–OA–2018–0259; FRL–9977–40– ORD] RIN 2080–AA14

EXCERPT:

"Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes a regulation intended to strengthen the transparency of EPA regulatory science. The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure those underlying data are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. In this notice, EPA solicits comment on this proposal and how it can best be promulgated and implemented in light of existing law and prior Federal policies that already require increasing public access to data and influential scientific information used to inform federal regulation. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2018."

 

[gtopa1]

It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.

Daily Caller

EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations

Michael Bastasch

3/19/2018

Excerpt:

"Environmental 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."

LINK

HALLEBLOODYLULIAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg

 

[Crick]

It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.

news: US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant
In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

It looks as if the Supreme Court found the EPA to be correct and within its powers. Let's hear some peer reviewed references describing the action as "blatantly stupid crap". Or, simply remain silent as you usually do.

 

[SSDD]

news: US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant
In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

It looks as if the Supreme Court found the EPA to be correct and within its powers. Let's hear some peer reviewed references describing the action as "blatantly stupid crap". Or, simply remain silent as you usually do.

Moron....the court made that decision based on the EPA's own secret, terribly flawed science. The stupidity just never stops with you does it skidmark?

 

[Sunsettommy]

news: US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant
In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

It looks as if the Supreme Court found the EPA to be correct and within its powers. Let's hear some peer reviewed references describing the action as "blatantly stupid crap". Or, simply remain silent as you usually do.

Moron....the court made that decision based on the EPA's own secret, terribly flawed science. The stupidity just never stops with you does it skidmark?

He is that stupid since anyone with rational thinking can see that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is no threat to human health or to the planets biota. It is part of the Photosynthesis process that drives life on the planet.

Crick and others of his tribe are stupid as hell for falling for this pollution absurdity.

 

[Crick]

I don't see any peer reviewed references describing the Supreme Court's Action or that of the EPA as "blatantly stupid crap". What I do see is the Supreme Court independently concluding that the EPA acted appropriately and within its legal powers.

 

[SSDD]

I don't see any peer reviewed references describing the Supreme Court's Action or that of the EPA as "blatantly stupid crap". What I do see is the Supreme Court independently concluding that the EPA acted appropriately and within its legal powers.

Based on what skidmark? You think the supreme court is qualified to make such a decision based on their own "research"? You really are that stupid aren't you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's about time they did this, it should prevent any more blatantly stupid crap from flowing out of the EPA, like they did with the idiotic CO2 is a pollutant claim. It was classified for POLITICAL purpose only that is soooo dumb because it is a critical molecule for life and not harmful even at the 2500 ppm level.

news: US Supreme Court decides CO2 is a pollutant
In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

It looks as if the Supreme Court found the EPA to be correct and within its powers. Let's hear some peer reviewed references describing the action as "blatantly stupid crap". Or, simply remain silent as you usually do.

What a fucking retard.. The SCOTUS only ruled that the rule making was within the agencies realm of authority. It MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION ABOUT CO2 or its scientific veracity..


Skidmark is such a lying sack of crap..

"But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting."

Your own link shows you a liar... And its from a left wing socialist web site...

 

[Crick]

You're a retired cop who tried to take a class in meteorology. Based on that you have claimed to be a degreed meteorologist and an atmospheric physicist. You have referred to the scientists at UAH as your colleagues. You've got some big fucking balls to call anyone else here a liar, asshole.

Scott Pruitt's decision to reject science protected by the HIPAA act will eliminate large amounts of human health data that has been critical in working to improve environmental quality - the core mission of the EPA. Pruitt's goal and that of his idiot master is quite obviously to destroy the EPA and undo everything it has ever done.

 

[SSDD]

You're a retired cop who tried to take a class in meteorology. Based on that you have claimed to be a degreed meteorologist and an atmospheric physicist. You have referred to the scientists at UAH as your colleagues. You've got some big fucking balls to call anyone else here a liar, asshole.

Sling that pooh skidmark. Sling it like your life depends on it. It isn't as if you have any credibility to defend at this point.

Scott Pruitt's decision to reject science protected by the HIPAA act will eliminate large amounts of human health data that has been critical in working to improve environmental quality - the core mission of the EPA. Pruitt's goal and that of his idiot master is quite obviously to destroy the EPA and undo everything it has ever done.

By large amounts...you mean names and personal information? So what? Who needs names and personal information to deal with the research data anyway? You really are clueless.