Repub House passes bill preventing scientific advice to EPA

[Luddly Neddite]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

 

[Conservative65]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".

Reviewing and/or evaluating your own work while sitting on the Board.

What's so fucking difficult to understand about this, brotch?

 

[pismoe]

good reply 'conservative65' !!

 

[Harry Dresden]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

so do you think if they did that,that private industry would take it upon themselves to make sure they dont pollute?.....because i sure as hell dont....as soon as it comes between making a buck or doing something that might cost something but cuts their pollutants.....i dont trust anyone of them to chose to keep their pollutants down...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".

Reviewing and/or evaluating your own work while sitting on the Board.

What's so fucking difficult to understand about this, brotch?

This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

See?

That's what you get when you cherry pick.

Don't worry though. The other knee jerk, reactionary RWs will soon be along to say we should defund the EPA.

Oh wait ^^^ Never mind.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

so do you think if they did that,that private industry would take it upon themselves to make sure they dont pollute?.....because i sure as hell dont....as soon as it comes between making a buck or doing something that might cost something but cuts their pollutants.....i dont trust anyone of them to chose to keep their pollutants down...

As it is, the EPA has no power. Offenders just pay their little fines and go right on polluting our water and air.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And so it begins......

Regression, 2015 gangnam style!

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".

Reviewing and/or evaluating your own work while sitting on the Board.

What's so fucking difficult to understand about this, brotch?

This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

See?

That's what you get when you cherry pick.

Don't worry though. The other knee jerk, reactionary RWs will soon be along to say we should defund the EPA.

Oh wait ^^^ Never mind.

Whut?!?!?!

Nixon's beloved EPA???


No way....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

good reply 'conservative65' !!

Neither of you read the article or links.

Just pile on without thinking.

Its the RW way.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".

Reviewing and/or evaluating your own work while sitting on the Board.

What's so fucking difficult to understand about this, brotch?

This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

See?

That's what you get when you cherry pick.

Don't worry though. The other knee jerk, reactionary RWs will soon be along to say we should defund the EPA.

Oh wait ^^^ Never mind.

I'd say that's a conflict of interest. Brotch.

 

[TheOldSchool]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

Damn right we need to defund the EPA! That'll get us back on equal footing competing with China!

 

[Ringel05]

Is anyone surprised at this? Don'tcha just love politics......... Let's see how much more damage the GOP can do to it's image before the 2016 elections....... Just like the Dems did last year.......

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's a cyclical thing.

 

[martybegan]

"Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their own work".

Reviewing and/or evaluating your own work while sitting on the Board.

What's so fucking difficult to understand about this, brotch?

This means that a scientist who had published a peer-reviewed paper on a particular topic would not be able to advise the EPA on the findings contained within that paper. That is, the very scientists who know the subject matter best would not be able to discuss it.

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

See?

That's what you get when you cherry pick.

Don't worry though. The other knee jerk, reactionary RWs will soon be along to say we should defund the EPA.

Oh wait ^^^ Never mind.

Only when it comes to that specific paper that they wrote. They can still advise the EPA, they just have to recuse themselves if it's their own work.

Supreme Court Justices have to recuse themselves when they get cases they were previously involved in, I don't see this as any different.

The title itself, is also misleading, the bill does not prohibit expert advice, it just prevents the writer of a document from being in on the decision to use said document as a source material.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, the upside of this is that those wascally wepublicans have not yet brought forth articles of impeachment for... uh..... ahhhhh, erm, BENGHAZI!

 

[hortysir]

Shouldn't the EPA consist of scientists anyway, instead of bureaucratic appointees?

 

[Conservative65]

House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA

While everyone’s attention was focused on the Senate and the Keystone XL decision on Tuesday, some pretty shocking stuff was quietly going on in the House of Representatives. The GOP-dominated House passed a bill that effectively prevents scientists who are peer-reviewed experts in their field from providing advice — directly or indirectly — to the EPA, while at the same time allowing industry representatives with financial interests in fossil fuels to have their say. Perversely, all this is being done in the name of “transparency.”

Read more: House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Money talks.

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

If you want to believe certain junk science like global warming, go ahead but that hoax shouldn't be used to make government decisions.

What they need to do is defund the EPA.

Damn right we need to defund the EPA! That'll get us back on equal footing competing with China!

Before I refute what you said, please provide a source for that picture and whatever was taking place at the time. If you think I believe that's what it's like on a normal day, you have discounted any claim you have.

 

[hortysir]

Well, the upside of this is that those wascally wepublicans have not yet brought forth articles of impeachment for... uh..... ahhhhh, erm, BENGHAZI!

And the downside being you completely ignored the previous post

 

[Anathema]

My bet is that RWs will actually agree that science should have no voice in government decisions.

Actually the EPA shouldn't exist to begin with (no Constitutional authority), so nobody should be having a say in what the EPA hears.