• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Someone Please Explain Banning Scientists From Advising the EPA

pour's own link damns this bill harder than most of the other summaries out there.

looking forward to more #hotpourtakes
 
pourdeac said:
Here is a much better description of what the bill does and does not do....from AAAS. Notice it does not say "ban".

http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/03/house-approves-epa-secret-science-bills-despite-white-house-veto-threat
Click to expand...

From the link above:


"Today, the House voted 241 to 175, mostly along party lines, to approve H.R. 1030, the EPA Secret Science Reform Act. It would bar EPA from issuing regulations that draw on data that have not been made public in a way that allows independent scientists to analyze it.

Yesterday, the House approved, on a 236 to 181 vote, H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. It would change the membership and procedural requirements for the agency’s federally chartered advisory panels of scientists and economists."



pourdeac said:
H.R. 1422 doesn't ban anyone, it's actually intended to make things more balanced and transparent. I don't even get how anyone can construe it as "effectively banning" scientists. Maybe you can explain that one.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422
Click to expand...

Facepalm

Edit: It appears H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1422 are different versions of the same bill. Pour's article doesn't discuss the bill at all though, simply noting that it passed.
 
Last edited:
pourdeac said:
Once again, that type of activity is still allowed, the conflict arises when they are doing that and making policy citing their work. Can you guys not read what the bill actually says???

It's about time they do something. Maybe we won't get incredibly idiotic policy like CO2 = a toxin. That'll be looked at historically as the "flat earth" moment of this entire saga. We know CO2 is a nutrient. We knew the earth was round. Only an idiot would call it a toxin or the earth flat.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? What government agency has called CO2 a toxin?
 
RChildress107 said:
WTF are you even talking about. This bill has nothing to do with "panel making a decision about the work." The Advisory Board gives (wait for it) advice to the EPA who then makes policy decisions based on that advice.

This bill makes a mockery of the term "conflict of interest" by suggesting that scientists are too conflicted to give advice on any issue that indirectly involves their previous peer reviewed work

all while allowing industry representatives with an actual conflict of interest to participate: "persons with substantial and relevant expertise are not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or representation of entities that may have a potential interest in the Board’s advisory activities,so long as that interest is fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18, United States Code;"

Making a sewer cover transparent doesn't change what's flowing underneath.
Click to expand...
The EPA Advisory Board defines the policy. Administrative approval is a rubber stamp so the decisions are made in the Advisory panel.

Non-members of the board can still advise the board and say whatever they want to say about their peer reviewed work, they just can't be a member of the board.

You are also advocating that the folks being regulated should have zero say in what happens. That's ridiculous. Non-representation is how a lot of f'd up policy is created in the first place.

If you don't think academics benefit from stuff like this and thus don't have a conflict of interest, you are clueless about how all of this works. The conflict of interest from their POV is just as bad as the industry POV.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
pour's own link damns this bill harder than most of the other summaries out there.

looking forward to more #hotpourtakes
Click to expand...
I'm not the one having problems with real criticisms/positive opinions of the proposed policy.
 
pourdeac said:
It was actually called a toxic pollutant that needed to be regulated, not necessarily a human toxin. It's flat earth thinking. Even the Greenpeace dude gets it.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Click to expand...

Patrick Moore has been a paid lobbyist for over 20 years who briefly worked for Greenpeace and is certainly not one of its founders.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
What the fuck are you talking about? What government agency has called CO2 a toxin?
Click to expand...
The EPA did. The EPA claimed regulatory powers over CO2 as a pollutant and those powers were upheld in court. A pollutant is defined as toxic or harmful. Did you no know that?
 
pourdeac said:
The EPA Advisory Board defines the policy. Administrative approval is a rubber stamp so the decisions are made in the Advisory panel.

Non-members of the board can still advise the board and say whatever they want to say about their peer reviewed work, they just can't be a member of the board.

You are also advocating that the folks being regulated should have zero say in what happens. That's ridiculous. Non-representation is how a lot of f'd up policy is created in the first place.

If you don't think academics benefit from stuff like this and thus don't have a conflict of interest, you are clueless about how all of this works. The conflict of interest from their POV is just as bad as the industry POV.
Click to expand...

As you pointed out above there is a big difference between having zero say and sitting on the board. I promise you that the folks being regulated already have plenty of say.
 
pourdeac said:
The EPA did. The EPA claimed regulatory powers over CO2 as a pollutant and those powers were upheld in court. A pollutant is defined as toxic or harmful. Did you no know that?
Click to expand...

so i guess the EPA was right and you're being obtuse for no reason. again.
 
pourdeac said:
ROFLOL....the bill forbids someone from advising the EPA AND being on the panel making a decision about the work. That's standard conflict of interest. They can still ALL advise the EPA about their work. No one is banned.

As it stands now, what happens is the equivalent of letting a drug maker testify to the FDA about their drug and be on the approval panel for said drug. I guess everyone believing in the 'EPA ban' would be on board with that eh??????
Click to expand...

Synonyms for forbid
verb outlaw, prohibit an action
ban
block
cancel
censor
check
debar
declare illegal
deny
deprive
disallow
embargo
enjoin
exclude
forestall
forfend
freeze
More Synonyms
 
RChildress107 said:
As you pointed out above there is a big difference between having zero say and sitting on the board. I promise you that the folks being regulated already have plenty of say.
Click to expand...
With a board entirely stacked against them? LOL.

Balance the board...a little. Allow critics to make their case too. Have the "deciders" be as objective as possible. Be as transparent as possible. Do you seriously think that's a bad way to do things and build policy? Seriously? Amazing.
 
RChildress107 said:
97% of people would say that's a ban.
Click to expand...
OK, they are banned from being a voting member. They are not banned from presenting their work which is the concern in the OP. How about that. Does that make you happy?

If you guys don't see the difference, then this really is pointless. You guys are clueless about the process.
 
pourdeac said:
With a board entirely stacked against them? LOL.

Balance the board...a little. Allow critics to make their case too. Have the "deciders" be as objective as possible. Be as transparent as possible. Do you seriously think that's a bad way to do things and build policy? Seriously? Amazing.
Click to expand...

If you think industries should be able to police themselves on environmental issues just go ahead and say so. I'd rather get rid of the EPA and require corporations to publicly disclose their environmental impact than have the industry involved in setting government policy favorable to the industry. The latter is just inefficient.

On the other hand, if you accept that industries are incapable of regulating themselves on environmental issues (which they aren't because the market doesn't account for environmental costs), then it makes sense to have a regulatory agency that is insulated from the industry.
 
pourdeac said:
OK, they are banned from being a voting member. They are not banned from presenting their work which is the concern in the OP. How about that. Does that make you happy?

If you guys don't see the difference, then this really is pointless. You guys are clueless about the process.
Click to expand...

There is no voting on the SAB. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
pourdeac said:
OK, they are banned from being a voting member. They are not banned from presenting their work which is the concern in the OP. How about that. Does that make you happy?

If you guys don't see the difference, then this really is pointless. You guys are clueless about the process.
Click to expand...

OH, so some people were/are banned!

Thanks for the get a clue neg rep btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top