Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[Fife]

That's an environmental hate crime.

[C-Mag]

That's an environmental hate crime.

I identify as an Environment Hate Crime.

Christie is a loathesome individual, what a tool.

[Speaker to Animals]

Too late. This is as old as he got before global warming took his life in 2011.



https://gurukalehuru.com/2011/03/20/knu ... r-is-dead/

[C-Mag]

Why don't Environmentalists want to transparency of Sceince ?

Scott Pruitt at the EPA is pushing through a new rule that will require the EPA to make publicly available their science behind their decisions. Oddly right now the EPA does not have to provide Scientific documentation to the public, the public just has to follow EPA dictates.

Two different stories on this. One from the perspective of Liberty, one from the perspective of Government protectionism.

The Atlantic
Scott Pruitt’s New Rule Could Completely Transform the EPA
It would not only undermine 30 years of clean-air regulations, but radically restrict what science the agency is allowed to use.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... le/558878/

In one sweeping move, the Trump administration may soon not only destabilize the last three decades of clean air and water rules, but also completely overhaul how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science in its work. If EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s recently-proposed rule gets enacted, it will spark a revolution in environmental regulation. But the question is—will it stand up in court?
Pruitt proposed the regulation on Tuesday, describing it as an effort to increase transparency. It would require the EPA to publish all the underlying scientific data used to support studies which guide clean-air and clean-water rules. It would forbid the use of studies that do not meet this standard, even if they have been peer-reviewed or replicated elsewhere.

Northwest Liberty News
Environmentalists ‘SCARED STIFF’ As Pruitt Plans To Reveal ‘Secret Science’ Tyranny
http://northwestlibertynews.com/environ ... e-tyranny/

Some of the most expansive regulatory initiatives have been undertaken in the name of “secret science”: scientific research unavailable to the public the regulations inhibit. But Scott Pruit now has environmentalists scared stiff as he plans to expose this “science” ending the EPA’s reign on environmental tyranny.
A proposed rule announced a week ago by Scott Pruitt the of the Environmental Protection Agency, and blasted by the mainstream media, is intended to bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making.
The environmental lobby is terrified about the proposal, even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s “right to know” principle.

[Speaker to Animals]

The dirty secret is that most scientific research these days is flawed. There are people who specialize in experimental design and statistics who shred research papers. It's better for careers to not release the raw data but, rather, what you derive from that data.

[C-Mag]

The dirty secret is that most scientific research these days is flawed. There are people who specialize in experimental design and statistics who shred research papers. It's better for careers to not release the raw data but, rather, what you derive from that data.

I agree. IMO, policy and goals and determined and then science is performed to support the conclusion that has already been made.

This is a giant pain in the ass for the Government, having to prove your work and allowing the public to see it. But hey, the IRS definitely wants to see your work when you submit it.

[C-Mag]

Well, I'm loving this, because it's confirmation of what I've been saying.

Climate Skeptics More ‘Eco-Friendly’ than Climate Alarmists

Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... alarmists/

Environmentalist Watermelons, Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

[Montegriffo]

Ah well, if it's in Breitbart it must be true.

[C-Mag]

Ah well, if it's in Breitbart it must be true.

Well, if you can't defend against the information, and don't have a defense, attack the source.

Keep applauding Leonardo and Algore as they jet set around the world to Climate Panic Monkey conferences then retire to one of their many extravagent homes to yutz it up, talking about the rubes in the flyover states; all the while living a life of gluttony.

[ooky]

Why don't Environmentalists want to transparency of Sceince ?

Scott Pruitt at the EPA is pushing through a new rule that will require the EPA to make publicly available their science behind their decisions. Oddly right now the EPA does not have to provide Scientific documentation to the public, the public just has to follow EPA dictates.

Two different stories on this. One from the perspective of Liberty, one from the perspective of Government protectionism.

The Atlantic
Scott Pruitt’s New Rule Could Completely Transform the EPA
It would not only undermine 30 years of clean-air regulations, but radically restrict what science the agency is allowed to use.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... le/558878/

In one sweeping move, the Trump administration may soon not only destabilize the last three decades of clean air and water rules, but also completely overhaul how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science in its work. If EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s recently-proposed rule gets enacted, it will spark a revolution in environmental regulation. But the question is—will it stand up in court?
Pruitt proposed the regulation on Tuesday, describing it as an effort to increase transparency. It would require the EPA to publish all the underlying scientific data used to support studies which guide clean-air and clean-water rules. It would forbid the use of studies that do not meet this standard, even if they have been peer-reviewed or replicated elsewhere.

As the article you've cited explains clearly, this rule would forbid the use of any study with medical data, because it says all underlying data (not the studies themselves, but raw data) has to be published. This is a major issue that does nothing for transparency but would throw out a huge chunk of the studies used to make air and water quality standards and permit decisions. Because medical data is protected for privacy, and as you might imagine a lot of medical data goes into determining what compounds poison us in our air and water (and how much).

From forward to backward this rule is cloaked under base-rousing explanation to hide its true intent, but crafted very incompetently:

"Other legal scholars were unsparing in their criticism of the rule. “There’s so many different issues with it that it’s hard to know where to begin,” said Sean Hecht, a professor of environmental law and policy at UCLA. “Reading the rule, it doesn’t look like a proposal that has been strongly vetted by career lawyers.”

“To anyone who’s looked at a lot of EPA rules, this rulemaking is extraordinary in the lack of reference to any legal authority,” he said.

Betsy Southerland, a former director in the EPA’s Office of Water and a 30-year veteran of the agency, told me that the rule did not legally seem like a rule at all. At one point, the agency asks the public to comment on which Congressional laws give it the greatest authority to issue the rule. “That’s a stunner,” she said.
...
Even though the rule is explicitly about “research data,” the rule does not define that term,[Wagner - one of the main authors of the guidance they are citing to support this rule] said.

She worried that the rule was drafted ambiguously on purpose. “A sinister answer is that the ambiguity gives litigants more points to hold the agency up in court. Every single term is an attachment point,” she said, meaning that a company suing the EPA can seize on the new phrase and attempt to get a court to define it.

Other aspects of the rule “seem to me to be efforts to allow rich stakeholders to ‘data bomb’ the agency,” she said. They seemed designed to force the agency to surrender old data, she said, so that the fossil-fuel and chemical industry can run endless studies reanalyzing it, tweaking their models each time until they get the answers they want."

I encourage you to read the whole article, especially the Six Cities study ramifications and PM 2.5. That study has been revalidated over and over already and would be unable to be used in regulatory decisions if this rule went forward. It explains exactly the type of thing environmentalists are "afraid of", instead of monocle dropping right wing spin that makes it sound like regulatory scientists are simply terrified of having their real data revealed (with the implication being that we're all scared it's wrong).

Northwest Liberty News
Environmentalists ‘SCARED STIFF’ As Pruitt Plans To Reveal ‘Secret Science’ Tyranny
http://northwestlibertynews.com/environ ... e-tyranny/

Some of the most expansive regulatory initiatives have been undertaken in the name of “secret science”: scientific research unavailable to the public the regulations inhibit. But Scott Pruit now has environmentalists scared stiff as he plans to expose this “science” ending the EPA’s reign on environmental tyranny.
A proposed rule announced a week ago by Scott Pruitt the of the Environmental Protection Agency, and blasted by the mainstream media, is intended to bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making.
The environmental lobby is terrified about the proposal, even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s “right to know” principle.