The Sound of a Swamp Draining

[Harpy Eagle]

This is what happens when you put a career politician with less of a science background than my 15 year old in charge of science based agency.

This is filling the swamp, not emptying it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Climate change is not science moron.

The EPA does way more than climate change.

**** this board is filled with the stupidest people on the planet


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

Data being used to create law should be secret?

Stalin would be proud of you.

****, you people are so stupid. Go back to flipping burgers, your break time is over.

No business is going to give information about their operations that can be used by a competitor knowing it will be made public for all to see.

The analysis, the methodology and the process for the conclusions are all made public. The individual data points are not and never have been.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Bullshit. You are either clueless, or a liar. The Scientific Method DEMANDS that all aspects of a scientific study be made available to others so that results can be checked. These are government scientists which means the data they create belongs to US you halfwit.

You are full of shit.

As an example...

Right now the USDA is conducting the Census of Agricultural, the findings from this are used by a dozen agencies (to include the EPA) to set policies and laws and will be the basis for the next Farm Bill.

Roughly 2,000,000 operations will respond and provide their data. That data is confidential and nobody outside of those working on the Census will ever see the raw data from each response.

Under the new, stupid EPA rules this data could not be used.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Data used to alter the economy should never be secret, comrade.

But you cockroaches hate the light, that is obvious.

It's not "hidden data" in that everyone has access to the same scientific information. Scientific studies are studied and tested for being verifiable by performing the same tests. The EPA's policy was that it would not identify exactly what information it relied upon because those unhappy with the decision would then attack the basic information for political rather than scientific reasons.

but as usual, you have a partisan agenda that all facts must align with or be ignored.

Only one reason you lefties hate full disclosure.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This is what happens when you put a career politician with less of a science background than my 15 year old in charge of science based agency.

This is filling the swamp, not emptying it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Climate change is not science moron.

The EPA does way more than climate change.

**** this board is filled with the stupidest people on the planet


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yes, the EPA also pollutes rivers.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


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."

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

Scientific American certainly believes it is a bad thing: "This is a move that serves no purpose other than to prevent the EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health and the environment."

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

 

[Flash]

Funny thing is that these stupid global warming scientists admitted themselves that they were using fake data. How dumb was that?

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

The best computer models in the world as of 5PM last night said 100% chance of heavy rain last night into today.

Yet to see a drop as of 10AM.

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

One thing about computer models. Shit in shit out.

If a climate scientist decides to put shit in in order to get shit out because he wants his research funding to continue then who is to know?

That is what was revealed to have happened with the Climategate I & II emails.

 

[bripat9643]

This is what happens when you put a career politician with less of a science background than my 15 year old in charge of science based agency.

This is filling the swamp, not emptying it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Requiring data to be made public is filling the swamp?

You're an imbecile, you understand, don't you?

 

[alang1216]

Funny thing is that these stupid global warming scientists admitted themselves that they were using fake data. How dumb was that?

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

Modelling is NOT data. Or do you not understand that simple fact? Data is OBSERVED, models are created, thus they contain whatever biases are programmed into them. Thus they are NOT valid. And yes, with a PhD in geology I am very competent to judge them, and have even used them in my own work. However, when we use them they are very specific, and extremely focused.

Take a look at every single climatology study and you will see this term used in the Abstract "We use a simple model".....So they are admitting to using simplistic computer models to try and recreate the most complex engine on the planet, namely the climate.

Put another way, climatologists have yet to be able to come up with a model that can recreate what happened yesterday. A model that can't do a hindcast is worthless. That too is a fact.

So we can agree that modelling is valid science? As for the accuracy of models that is another issue. Geologists have modeled the earth's interior. Have they ever been there? No but their models generate data that fits what little information does exist from earthquakes. Scientist will use the best models available even though none are ever going to be 100%.

 

[Leo123]

This is what happens when you put a career politician with less of a science background than my 15 year old in charge of science based agency.

This is filling the swamp, not emptying it


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Climate change is not science moron.

The EPA does way more than climate change.

**** this board is filled with the stupidest people on the planet


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yeah I know, the EPA makes stupid regulations that thwart progress based on unscientific, politically-driven, leftist propaganda that only swells the coffers of neo-Marxist, post modern, fanny-sitting bureaucrats. Your stupidity is only surpassed by your pomposity.

 

[alang1216]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

 

[Leo123]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

There are no climate 'best models'.....

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


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."

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

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

The EPA agency and everything they do is a racketeering shitstorm.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

Only a moron has faith in manmade models created by people with an agenda and have 0.00000000001% knowledge of the variables.

 

[koshergrl]

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

Only a moron would disregard what the best models say in favor of...?

There are no climate 'best models'.....

There are just those that have been exposed as frauds..and more that have been exposed as frauds.

 

[BluesLegend]

The EPA has been corrupted by the lawless left to do its bidding, as have many government agencies.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny thing is that these stupid global warming scientists admitted themselves that they were using fake data. How dumb was that?

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

The best computer models in the world as of 5PM last night said 100% chance of heavy rain last night into today.

Yet to see a drop as of 10AM.

So if models are wrong just hours into the future, only a moron wants to use manmade models for altering the economy because of what predict years from now.

One thing about computer models. Shit in shit out.

If a climate scientist decides to put shit in in order to get shit out because he wants his research funding to continue then who is to know?

That is what was revealed to have happened with the Climategate I & II emails.

It’s why they require secrecy.
Cockroaches hate light.

 

[bripat9643]

Funny thing is that these stupid global warming scientists admitted themselves that they were using fake data. How dumb was that?

Fake or interpolated?

Are computer models data?

Modeling is valid science, for example, we'd never have developed nuclear weapons without them. The real question is are these models valid and I'm not competent to judge that (are you?), so I trust science to learn, test, and refine them.

Modelling is NOT data. Or do you not understand that simple fact? Data is OBSERVED, models are created, thus they contain whatever biases are programmed into them. Thus they are NOT valid. And yes, with a PhD in geology I am very competent to judge them, and have even used them in my own work. However, when we use them they are very specific, and extremely focused.

Take a look at every single climatology study and you will see this term used in the Abstract "We use a simple model".....So they are admitting to using simplistic computer models to try and recreate the most complex engine on the planet, namely the climate.

Put another way, climatologists have yet to be able to come up with a model that can recreate what happened yesterday. A model that can't do a hindcast is worthless. That too is a fact.

So we can agree that modelling is valid science? As for the accuracy of models that is another issue. Geologists have modeled the earth's interior. Have they ever been there? No but their models generate data that fits what little information does exist from earthquakes. Scientist will use the best models available even though none are ever going to be 100%.

No, we can't agree that climate models are "valid science." As has already been explained thousands of times in this forum, 99% of computer models have turned out to be wrong. How is that "valid?"

 

[Slade3200]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


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."

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

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

House passes bill to ban EPA 'secret science'

Thanks, I read that one too after I saw the OP was sourcing the bias daily caller. Sad that now a days we gotta Read multiple accounts of the same report to get a sense of what the facts are.

yeah, I have sort of mixed feelings on the science thing. On one hand, there are people funding solely by industries that want to pollute more and cheaper, so the EPA is a target. But on the other hand, it does seem like the EPA attracts employees who are elitist tree hugger types.

The best is to have the majority be honest actors that are not going to lie to push a political agenda. I think most people have integrity enough to do that. Also good to have industry people mixed with environmentalists so we are protecting both our businesses and our environment

 

[alang1216]

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

I can't speak for other leftist turds but I'd put my faith in PEER REVIEWED science before I'd trust any non-scientist who brings paranoid politics into a scientific discussion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm sure somehow science using full disclosure is a bad thing somehow.


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."

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

How is this draining the swamp? Also this bill was put up in he past... Why didn’t it pass the senate when they had a Republican majority? Maybe there’s more to the story than the dailycaller presents?

House passes bill to ban EPA 'secret science'

Thanks, I read that one too after I saw the OP was sourcing the bias daily caller. Sad that now a days we gotta Read multiple accounts of the same report to get a sense of what the facts are.

yeah, I have sort of mixed feelings on the science thing. On one hand, there are people funding solely by industries that want to pollute more and cheaper, so the EPA is a target. But on the other hand, it does seem like the EPA attracts employees who are elitist tree hugger types.

The best is to have the majority be honest actors that are not going to lie to push a political agenda. I think most people have integrity enough to do that. Also good to have industry people mixed with environmentalists so we are protecting both our businesses and our environment

Honesty in government.

 

[Leo123]

It's mission must be nefarious if the public isn't allowed to know the basis for it. I thought all you leftist turds believed in transparency.

I can't speak for other leftist turds but I'd put my faith in PEER REVIEWED science before I'd trust any non-scientist who brings paranoid politics into a scientific discussion.

'PEER REVIEWED' by other pro climate change peers is not science.