Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire

[Wyatt earp]

So this is how the EPA does it for rules and regulations, they cherry pick the science..

Who would of thought



Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obama administration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.”

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line. Everything else is what you'd expect from the GOP war on science.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Is it any surprise?

Obama and the Democrats gave us "Junk Politics"

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line.

Be careful none gets on you...it'd be the end of you.......

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line.

Be careful none gets on you...it'd be the end of you.......

It could be the end of you, too. Trump's EPA says it doesn't matter.

 

[playtime]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line. Everything else is what you'd expect from the GOP war on science.

Sounds awful.
Any specifics?

 

[playtime]

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line. Everything else is what you'd expect from the GOP war on science.

Sounds awful.
Any specifics?

I’ll just say “evolution” and let’s go ahead and end this pointless conversation

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line. Everything else is what you'd expect from the GOP war on science.

Sounds awful.
Any specifics?

I’ll just say “evolution” and let’s go ahead and end this pointless conversation

I agree, your whining is pointless.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah the pesticide reversal was a huge win for Monsanto. Nobody knows what their chemicals do to you, but it really helps the bottom line. Everything else is what you'd expect from the GOP war on science.

So you decided not to read the link and just spout opinions?


I thought you guys said their was. no war on coal? God damn they tried to destroy an industry based on a study they couldn't release?

Translation ~ Obama's EPA made shit up ..


From.the link ...



Harvard Study

The Obama administration’s EPA used the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study to justify air quality regulations on particulate matter, or particles of pollution in the air. The regulations—linked to devastating the coal industry—also affect automobiles, power plants and factories.

In 2013 the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed the EPA for data from the study, which links particulate air pollution to infant mortality.

'The American people should be confident that when agencies regulate, they rely on up-to-date, accurate, and unbiased information.'

- Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.
But in 2014, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the committee the agency couldn’t produce either the Harvard study or information from a 1994 American Cancer Society study—claiming the EPA didn’t own the information.

 

[evenflow1969]

So this is how the EPA does it for rules and regulations, they cherry pick the science..

Who would of thought



Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obama administration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.”

Ya, and an attorney is the expert. Great evidence. Lets go eat asbestos because Steve Milloy sais no need for EPA.

 

[Wyatt earp]

 

[Wyatt earp]

 

[evenflow1969]

View attachment 168011

If you had seen the Ohio river in the early 1970's you would under stand why there is an EPA you dumb fuck. No, there is no such thing as poison, right? Company owners will not cause physical harm to you in the name of profit right? Wanna tell me that tobacco is good for me?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So this is how the EPA does it for rules and regulations, they cherry pick the science..

Who would of thought



Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obama administration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.”

Ya, and an attorney is the expert. Great evidence. Lets go eat asbestos because Steve Milloy sais no need for EPA.

What does that have anything to do with it ? This proves how Obama and manipulated the EPA for political gain ...




Uhm don't you use real science with multiple sources to make a policy ahh this is why the left was so pissed off by the new rules on studies and can't just fast track junk science rules and regulations on the public..

 

[Wyatt earp]

View attachment 168011

If you had seen the Ohio river in the early 1970's you would under stand why there is an EPA you dumb fuck. No, there is no such thing as poison, right? Company owners will not cause physical harm to you in the name of profit right? Wanna tell me that tobacco is good for me?

Is this 1970 you dumb fuck Obama abused the fuck out of the EPA as a tool to hurt economic growth , to hurt jobs


And did you see Obama's EPA river ?

 

[evenflow1969]

View attachment 168011

If you had seen the Ohio river in the early 1970's you would under stand why there is an EPA you dumb fuck. No, there is no such thing as poison, right? Company owners will not cause physical harm to you in the name of profit right? Wanna tell me that tobacco is good for me?

Is this 1970 you dumb fuck Obama abused the fuck out of the EPA as a tool to hurt economic growth , to hurt jobs


And did you see Obama's EPA river ?



View attachment 168014

Exactly what makes your picture on the right Obamas river. Other than some one labling them so. Do companies make things that are hazardous to our health? No it is not 1970 our rivers are cleaner than they were due to the EPA and regulations. Are you saying we need no regulations to protect us from chemicals made by business. We remove all regulations and what do you suppose will happen to our rivers. You can take your pictures and shove them up your fucking ass. They prove nothing.,

 

[Wyatt earp]

View attachment 168011

If you had seen the Ohio river in the early 1970's you would under stand why there is an EPA you dumb fuck. No, there is no such thing as poison, right? Company owners will not cause physical harm to you in the name of profit right? Wanna tell me that tobacco is good for me?

Is this 1970 you dumb fuck Obama abused the fuck out of the EPA as a tool to hurt economic growth , to hurt jobs


And did you see Obama's EPA river ?



View attachment 168014

Exactly what makes your picture on the right Obamas river. Other than some one labling them so. Do companies make things that are hazardous to our health? No it is not 1970 our rivers are cleaner than they were due to the EPA and regulations. Are you saying we need no regulations to protect us from chemicals made by business. We remove all regulations and what do you suppose will happen to our rivers. You can take your pictures and shove them up your fucking ass. They prove nothing.,

Say what you know about the Ohio River but you play ignorant to the Obama's EPA Animas river mess?
EPA spill turns Animas River in Colorado a toxic orange - CNN

Why do people like you post here you have no desire to learn the truth and facts about something, much less have any knowledge on news and current events .and once again Obama used the EPA as a weapon against jobs ..and company's and you have no problem with him doing it?

He produced a shit load of useless regulations and rules based on cherry picked junk science.

Fact

 

[Wyatt earp]

View attachment 168011

If you had seen the Ohio river in the early 1970's you would under stand why there is an EPA you dumb fuck. No, there is no such thing as poison, right? Company owners will not cause physical harm to you in the name of profit right? Wanna tell me that tobacco is good for me?

Is this 1970 you dumb fuck Obama abused the fuck out of the EPA as a tool to hurt economic growth , to hurt jobs


And did you see Obama's EPA river ?



View attachment 168014

Exactly what makes your picture on the right Obamas river. Other than some one labling them so. Do companies make things that are hazardous to our health? No it is not 1970 our rivers are cleaner than they were due to the EPA and regulations. Are you saying we need no regulations to protect us from chemicals made by business. We remove all regulations and what do you suppose will happen to our rivers. You can take your pictures and shove them up your fucking ass. They prove nothing.,

And who the fuck said anything about removing all the rules and regulations? We can't let presidents use the EPA as a tool to further their political agenda like Obama did and slow down the economy


And my picture proves your an ignorant fool who has no business discussing this topic untill you bother to research it

.