Scott Pruitt, Warrior for Science

[DawnODay]

Imagine if the head of a federal agency announced a new policy for its scientific research: from now on, the agency would no longer allow its studies to be reviewed and challenged by independent scientists, and its researchers would not share the data on which their conclusions were based. The response from scientists and journalists would be outrage. By refusing peer review from outsiders, the agency would be rejecting a fundamental scientific tradition. By not sharing data with other researchers, it would be violating a standard transparency requirement at leading scientific journals. If a Republican official did such a thing, you’d expect to hear denunciations of this latest offensive in the “Republican war on science.”

That’s the accusation being hurled at Scott Pruitt, the Republican who heads the Environmental Protection Agency. But Pruitt hasn’t done anything to discourage peer review. In fact, he’s done the opposite: he has called for the use of more independent experts to review the EPA’s research and has just announced that the agency would rely only on studies for which data are available to be shared. Yet Democratic officials and liberal journalists have denounced these moves as an “attack on science,” and Democrats have cited them (along with accusations of ethical violations) in their campaign to force Pruitt out of his job.

How could “the party of science,” as Democrats like to call themselves, be opposed to transparency and peer review? Because better scientific oversight would make it tougher for the EPA to justify its costly regulations. To environmentalists, rigorous scientific protocols are fine in theory, but not in practice if they interfere with the green political agenda. As usual, the real war on science is the one waged from the left....​

J. Tierney, Scott Pruitt, Warrior for Science: Democrats and liberal journalists attack the EPA head for insisting on transparency, shared research, and rigorous peer review, City Journal (Apr. 11, 2018).

 

[phrodeau]

There is no OSTP director or science adviser, and the agency has dropped from 135 people to 45, or a third of the staff under Obama. This isn't because the Senate has failed to approve a nominee. Trump has not nominated anyone. Apparently he prefers to let Fox and Friends advise him on science and technology.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Here is the real news (NYTimes article) the fake news is responding to:

The EPA Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See an Attack on Science

Read it for yourself to understand what Nutjob Pruitt is really up to.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Here is the real news (NYTimes article) the fake news is responding to:

The EPA Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See an Attack on Science

Read it for yourself to understand what Nutjob Pruitt is really up to.

^^ can't explain in her own words what's wrong with EPA research transparency.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Dawn's Post is merely cut and paste (not in her own words), why don't you attack her?

Oh, "transparency," that sounds nice doesn't, open and free, let it all in, let the light shine.

But by "transparency" Pruitt actually means the opposite: restriction and limitation.

He's trying to institute a law pushed by the Koch Brothers about what kind of scientific research the EPA will accept, or not. That's not "transparency." That's not being "open." He's trying to censor and delegitimize scientific studies which he doesn't like. The fuel industry has been trying to push this law for years, ever since 1993 when major studies came out linking air pollution to cancer deaths. It's repackaging the same old shit with a buzzword that tries to make it sound wonderful.

In my own words? They're trying to suppress the scientific evidence of global warming in the same way tobacco companies tried to suppress the evidence of smoking = lung cancer. (I'm guessing he thinks that's crap, too)

Go read the article yourself.

^^ can't explain in her own words what's wrong with EPA research transparency.

 

[DawnODay]

President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous. How could the science be settled when there have been dozens of computer models of how carbon dioxide affects the climate? And when most of the models overestimated how much warming should have occurred by now? These failed predictions, as well as recent research into the effects of water vapor on temperatures, have caused many scientists to lower their projections of future warming. Some “luke-warmists” suggest that future temperature increases will be relatively modest and prove to be a net benefit, at least in the short term.​

J. Tierney, The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress, City Journal (Autumn, 2016).

 

[jaF0]

Real question.....

Is DuhOhDuh really as stupid as they pretend to be on Lit?

 

[Stephen_Coyle]

Scott Pruitt is NOT some sort of "warrior for science".

Scott Pruitt has no background in science. His background is in law, and as Oklahoma’s Attorney General described himself as “a leading advocate against the E.P.A.’s activist agenda”. He has spent years arguing AGAINST peer reviewed science, however, he now asserts that HE ALONE will decide what is and isn’t acceptable science for the agency to use when developing policies that affect your health and the environment.

AND a leaked memo reveals that Scott Pruitt sent out instructions to E.P.A. employees, instructing them to lie about the scientific consensus about climate change.

The internal EPA memo includes a set of eight “approved talking points” sent to EPA staffers.

The talking points instruct employees to highlight scientific uncertainty and lack of evidence linking human activity to climate change — statements that are contradicted by the 2017 federal climate assessment, which concluded that “it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

One of the talking points in the memo encourages EPA staffers to question whether fossil fuel emissions directly contribute to climate change, stating incorrectly that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”

The memo also casts doubt on the scientific consensus surrounding climate change, claiming that the “degree and extent” of human impact on climate change “are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”

In reality, 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the warming trends observed over the past century “are extremely likely due to human activities.”

And in his latest effort to cripple the Environmental Protection Agency, Pruitt said that he would no longer allow the agency to use studies that include nonpublic scientific data to develop rules to safeguard public health and prevent pollution.



Pruitt's Republican accomplices and opponents of mainstream climate science call these studies “secret science.” But that’s simply not true. Peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency are sound.



Some of those studies, particularly those that determine the effects of exposure to chemicals and pollution on health, rely on medical records that by law are confidential because of patient privacy policies. These studies summarize the analysis of raw data and draw conclusions based on that analysis. Other government agencies also use studies like these to develop policy and regulations, and to buttress and defend rules against legal challenges. They are, in fact, essential to making sound public policy.



The agency also relies on industry data to develop rules on chemical safety that is often kept confidential for business reasons.



Pruitt and his Republican co-conspirators are not scientists, and they are not even remotely concerned about defending peer-reviewed scientific studies. He and some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the E.P.A. from using the best available science.



So why would he want to prohibit his own agency from using these studies? It’s not a mystery. Time and again the Trump administration has put the profits of regulated industries over the health of the American people. Fundamental research on the effects of air pollution on public health has long been a target of those who oppose the E.P.A.’s air quality regulations, like the rule that requires power plants to reduce their mercury emissions.



Mr. Pruitt’s goal is simple: No studies, no data, no rules. No climate science, for instance, means no climate policy.



If a tree falls in the forest, we know it makes a sound, even if people aren’t there to hear it. When people are exposed to mercury, lead or other air- and waterborne pollutants, we know their health is affected, whether or not E.P.A. is allowed to use the scientific studies that confirm those health impacts.



Representative Bill Foster, a physicist and Democrat from Illinois, has argued that “scientists should set the standards for research, not politicians.”

Foster is right. Scientists should set the standards for scientific research, not a lawyer who spent years arguing AGAINST peer reviewed science!

 

[DawnODay]

As is typical of the Left, they want the state to impose draconian measures that will destroy jobs and increase economic need, but they can't be bothered to do anything to help address a problem as individuals. V. Richardson, Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study, Washington Times (May 7, 2018).

 

[Blue]

As is typical of the Left, they want the state to impose draconian measures that will destroy jobs and increase economic need, but they can't be bothered to do anything to help address a problem as individuals. V. Richardson, Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study, Washington Times (May 7, 2018).

Personally I think we should be treating climate change like it's a World War 3-level threat and that sacrificing a few hundred thousand jobs in oil & gas extraction/refining in the short term is a much better alternative to continuing to pollute our atmosphere and exponentially increase the millions that will die every year in the present and near future due to the effects of doing so.

E.g. Already, right now, about 2%-4% of annual deaths worldwide are caused by illness directly linked to air pollution.

But hey that's just me being a hippie dippie save-the-whales libtard who, like, cares about peoples wellbeing or something.

 

[Hypoxia]

Denial of human-induced climate change threatens human survival and is thus a crime against humanity.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Personally I think we should be treating climate change like it's a World War 3-level threat and that sacrificing a few hundred thousand jobs in oil & gas extraction/refining in the short term is a much better alternative to continuing to pollute our atmosphere and exponentially increase the millions that will die every year in the present and near future due to the effects of doing so.

I teach Business and study Economics quite closely. The problem is that it is more than just "a few hundred thousand jobs in oil & gas extraction/refining." Because alternative energy sources are currently less efficient than fossil fuels, there would be an economic cost that would slow economies worldwide, costing at least tens of millions of jobs, many of them in subsistence level households. Further, higher energy prices disproportionately harm the poorest members of any society. For example, if gas prices go up a couple of dollars per gallon, it's an annoyance for me, but it's a serious hardship for the West's working class, and devastating to the working poor, especially those in developing nations. Add to this the fact that higher energy prices also mean not just less jobs, but higher prices on everything that requires mechanized production and transport i.e., pretty much everything, especially food.

Should we take the possibility of global warming seriously? Most definitely. Everything we know about carbon dioxide says we need to minimize as much as practicable carbon dioxide emissions. We have to do it, however, in a gradual way that won't wreck economies on which the poor depend for their livelihood.

E.g. Already, right now, about 2%-4% of annual deaths worldwide are caused by illness directly linked to air pollution.

Air pollution and global warming are connected but different issues. The deaths caused currently by "air pollution" are not caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they are caused mostly by the sulfur and nitrogen compounds that come from the burning of coal. The West has pretty much eliminated these pollutants by using scrubbers and other technologies on power plants. It is developing nations like China and India that pollute in this way. China, I know, is starting to address this issue but, again, please understand that any such progress will be made on the backs of the less affluent citizens of developing nations.

 

[Blue]

[...]

Thought provoking read!

Though I wasn't meaning to say we should wind down fossil fuel plants worldwide overnight. With China, the US and EU being the top 3 largest producers of greenhouse gasses (making up I think almost half the worlds total production), my thinking goes that we in the west are being far too slow in converting our own domestic electrical production to renewable sources since ultimately we have the resources and technology, and are in the best economic position to do so.

Like in the UK, we just recently had a few full days with no energy generated from coal! yay!
Oh wait, a huge bulk of the energy supply that made up for the lack of coal came from gas, better but not exactly as good as we could be doing. Even just the US alone drastically reducing their GG emissions would be a major boon to humanity in the future.

 

[Lansdown12]

[QUOTE We have to do it, however, in a gradual way that won't wreck economies on which the poor depend for their livelihood.
[/COLOR][/B]

[/QUOTE]

The problem is that it feels as though the pace of the transition away from fossil fuel dependency is being dictated by the vested interests of the oil companies and not the need to resolve a very real and immediate problem.

 

[dan_c00000]

President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,”​

Because it is.

Ruined.​

 

[Hypoxia]

Ignore the environment and it will go away.

 

[dan_c00000]

I teach Business and study Economics quite closely.

No you don't. If you did you'd know countries like German (around 30%) and Iceland (around 85%) of their energy comes from renewable resources.

You'd also know that solar in the U.S. is responsible for more jobs than oil, coal, and gas combined. A recent report also found that renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020.

If you were in my class you just earned yourself an F.

 

[someoneyouknow]

^^ can't explain in her own words what's wrong with EPA research transparency.

Because it has nothing to do with transparency and everything to do with going after people whose studies demolish the bullshit coming out of Pruitt's mouth.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Thought provoking read!

Thank you!

The problem is that it feels as though the pace of the transition away from fossil fuel dependency is being dictated by the vested interests of the oil companies and not the need to resolve a very real and immediate problem.

Well, as I tell my students: "What you 'feel' doesn't matter," followed by either: "Tell me what you think"; or "What matters are the facts."

The fact is that by a combination of governmental action (mostly at the state level currently, such as California's recent solar panel mandate) and market forces, the USA is moving toward green energy at a pace on par with Europe and well ahead of much of the rest of the world.

No you don't. If you did you'd know countries like German (around 30%) and Iceland (around 85%) of their energy comes from renewable resources.

You'd also know that solar in the U.S. is responsible for more jobs than oil, coal, and gas combined. A recent report also found that renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020.

Alright... How is any of that contrary to what I wrote?

Only 65% of the USA's energy currently comes from fossil fuels, comparable to the figures you cite for Germany.

Still, if we suddenly pulled 65% of our energy production offline, it would be a disaster. All I wrote was that it has to be done at a sensible pace. Do you really disagree with that?

 

[dan_c00000]

Because alternative energy sources are currently less efficient than fossil fuels, there would be an economic cost that would slow economies worldwide, costing at least tens of millions of jobs

Alright... How is any of that contrary to what I wrote?

Yeah you shouldn't lie about what you said especially when I can quote you. Another F.

Also, your hero the Orange Nazi just helped raise gas prices so you're concern about the poor is laughable. Another F.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

How could “the party of science,” as Democrats like to call themselves, be opposed to transparency and peer review?​

Have you been schooled on this yet? This is not about transparency and peer review. Pruitt is specifically moving to prevent science and peer review by exposing patient data for study participants, which can't and won't happen, thereby preventing the science from happening. Simultaneously there are studies that cannot be reproduced: Impacts of Deepwater Horizon leaking for months; 10 year smog studies on persons downwind from a coal plant; the effect of lead in the drinking water on kids - for obvious reasons.

This is not difficult to understand. The "transparency" rule he's proposing would in fact limit his own agency's ability to use the best science to make regulations - deliberately.

Has that gotten through yet?​

 

[EmpressJosephine]

Yeah you shouldn't lie about what you said especially when I can quote you. Another F.

Also, your hero the Orange Nazi just helped raise gas prices so you're concern about the poor is laughable. Another F.

You are very confused.

First, let me state the issue clearly: Do you really not think a sudden move away from fossil fuels, which currently supply 65% of the USA's energy, would cause a huge spike in energy prices (that's simple application of the Law of Supply and Demand) and slow the economy?

As for my supposed "hero the Orange Nazi," from where did that come? I didn't vote for him, nor does he have my respect.

 

[dan_c00000]

Do you really not think a sudden move

This is standard right wing bullshit. Nowhere did I use the word sudden. You're quoting yourself. But since we're going to operate on the "sudden" premise we'll talk about that. Let's use an example: the GM EV1. That electric car was "suddenly" taken away from people leasing it by GM to be crushed. GM stopped production on the cars in 1999 and began recalling them in 2003 and crushing them in 2006. How "sudden" was 12 years ago? 15? 19?

Let me state the issue clearly because apparently the world's shittiest teacher hasn't figured out cause and effect: if the U.S. had bothered to properly fund electric vehicles or alternative energy sources 20 years ago we'd be closer to where Germany is today. Another example, back in 2005 Bush II passed the Energy Policy Act which gave tax cuts to fossil fuels (2.8 billion) and "clean" coal (1.6 billion). The Halliburton Loophole is a good example as it allowed them not only continue drilling for fossil fuels but exempted them from various laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act. A final example, the military gets it even though you don't.

I can tell Trump is your hero because I've failed to see you come out against people like the entire Trumpist GOP and white radical terrorists.

 

[DawnODay]

{Various nonsense, irrelevancies, and lies.}

Alright... How is any of that contrary to what I wrote?

{More nonsense, irrelevancies, and lies.}

You are very confused.

Do you really not think a sudden move

{Gratuitous vulgarity.} Nowhere did I use the word sudden. {Even more nonsense, irrelevancies, and lies.}.

You can pretty much ignore dan_c00000, Jo. He's unimportant. No one here takes him seriously.

Further, on other threads he has proven himself a misogynistic bigot. He sees confident and intelligent women as a threat to his limited masculinity. That's surely why he's "arguing" with you, even though he admits he pretty much agrees with what you are saying.

 

[EmpressJosephine]

You can pretty much ignore dan_c00000, Jo. He's unimportant. No one here takes him seriously.

Further, on other threads he has proven himself a misogynistic bigot. He sees confident and intelligent women as a threat to his limited masculinity. That's surely why he's "arguing" with you, even though he admits he pretty much agrees with what you are saying.

Thanks for the "heads up"!

I see what you mean about him being a bigot. He is also homophobic. If you look, he tries to embarrass me by linking to an old post of mine in which I discuss my bisexuality.

I'll probably take your advice and just ignore him.