Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is poised to make wholesale changes to the agency's key advisory group, jettisoning scientists who have received grants from the EPA and replacing them with industry experts and state government officials. The move represents a fundamental shift, one that could change the scientific and technical advice that historically has guided the EPA as the agency crafts environmental regulations. The decision to bar any researcher who receives EPA grant money from serving as an adviser to the agency appears to be unprecedented.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Terry F. Yosie, who served as director of the advisory board during the Reagan administration, said the changes "represent a major purge of independent scientists and a decision to sideline the SAB from major EPA decision-making in the future."

The EPA could not immediately be reached for comment, but Pruitt suggested in a speech this month at the Heritage Foundation that he planned to rid the agency's scientific advisory boards of researchers who receive EPA grants. He argued that the current structure raises questions about their independence, though he did not voice similar objections to industry-funded scientists.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


Ignorance appears to be the science that the Trump administration prefers.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-10-30 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

In related news:

Dogs will now be sent to pick up orders at the butcher shop.

#2 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2017-10-31 12:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

And the road to the destruction of the country's natural resources continue. Ten years from now when the first superfund sites start popping up we should be allowed to find Mr. Pruitt and drown him in a drum of oil.

#3 | Posted by rukiddin at 2017-11-01 10:57 AM | Reply

Thanks Republicans. Please leave the country you apparently hate so much.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-01 11:07 AM | Reply


From the cited article...

...A list of expected appointees to the EPA's Science Advisory Board, obtained by The Washington Post from multiple individuals familiar with the appointments, include several categories of experts -- voices from regulated industries, academics and environmental regulators from conservative states, and researchers who have a history of critiquing the science and economics underpinning tighter environmental regulations. They would replace a number of scientists who currently have agency grants and whose terms are expiring....

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-01 11:10 AM | Reply

Next lets remove anyone who has worked for a business from the commerce department.

We should also follow this path and remove anyone who has fired a weapon from the military too

#6 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-01 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm sure hillary's EPA would be doing the same thing, right SHEEPLESTILTSKIN? Right NULLI? Right LAURA?

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 12:01 PM | Reply

Thanks Republicans. Please leave the country you apparently hate so much.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant

More like please leave the PLANET you clearly hate so much.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 12:02 PM | Reply

Good news! Americans everywhere will soon get to live their lives drinking water with that refreshing flavor of chemicals and heavy metals. With increased lead and fracking waste in the water supply we will not have to worry about education--impairments suffered by American students will place them beyond help by then...

#9 | Posted by catdog at 2017-11-01 12:04 PM | Reply


@#9 ... Americans everywhere will soon get to live their lives drinking water with that refreshing flavor of chemicals and heavy metals.

I guess I'm getting old...

I remember going outside when I was a kid and having my eyes burn from the air pollution.

I also remember in the 70's when the local newspaper printing the pH of each rainfall, with one hitting a low of 3.3 pH. On the satellite weather photos, you could see an Ohio coal-fired power plant's high-sulfur smoke drifting over Connecticut.

I can wait to return to those days...

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-01 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

CERF Condemns EPA Prohibition of Talks By Member Scientists
Silenced Scientists Will Present Their Work at CERF 2017 Biennial Conference

SEATTLE, Wa. (October 25, 2017) ‐
The Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) strongly condemns the actions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit three EPA scientists, who are also CERF members, from presenting their research at "The State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed" workshop in Providence, Rhode Island, on October 23,
2017.

Such censorship compromises the fundamental role of science to understand and report
on our natural world, and goes against the EPA's long history of being an important partner in
coastal research.

"The action by EPA to censor scientists sends a chilling message to science societies that our
nation does not protect the freedom of information exchange vital for an informed public to
solve real and important coastal issues," said CERF President Robert Twilley.

"CERF condemns such action by a federal agency and strives to support scientists of all professions to engage in public discourse for the public good."

more

cerf.memberclicks.net

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-01 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advocacy should be paid for with the advocate's dime and not the general public.

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 12:24 PM | Reply

#12 those words make a sentence but there is no thought there. Complete buffoon.

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-01 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 Retorting retort.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 01:23 PM | Reply

Advocacy should be paid for with the advocate's dime and not the general public.

#12 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Then why do you vote Republican?

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-01 01:52 PM | Reply

Maybe they just intend to replace with scientists with no set agenda, now that would be refreshing.

#16 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-01 02:48 PM | Reply

Oh I'm sure they will still have a set agenda, it just won't be protecting the environment.

#17 | Posted by rukiddin at 2017-11-01 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It was amazing how, since '05 the scientific advisers to the EPA also received grant money from the EPA.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-01 03:07 PM | Reply

Advocacy should be paid for with the advocate's dime and not the general public.

#12 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2017-11-01 12:24 PM |

They are advocating for the general public so yes the general public should pay for it

#19 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-01 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advocacy should be paid for with the advocate's dime and not the general public.

#12 | Posted by visitor_

I agree. Pollution advocates should pay for pollution themselves.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by JeffJ

What's amazing about that? Are you sure on your date BTW?

What's amazing to me is bringing industry people as the advisors. To paraphrase one oh-so eloquent NFL franchise owner - "It's like letting the inmates run the prison." Talk about people with motives that don't match the purpose of the agency - that would be the people being regulated by it.

People who receive funding from the agency to do research have far less motive to affect EPA policy in a way that is negative to the interest of the people of this country.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-01 04:40 PM | Reply

People who receive funding from the agency to do research have far less motive to affect EPA policy in a way that is negative to the interest of the people who receive the funding to do research.

#21 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

FT

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-01 04:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pete,

Surely you recognize the ---------- nature of EPA advisers being paid to conduct research, no?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-01 04:44 PM | Reply

www.businessinsider.com

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-01 04:50 PM | Reply

Surely you recognize the ---------- nature of EPA advisers being paid to conduct research, no?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ

What is ---------- about paying scientists to do science?

Why are you suspicious of scientists but not of exxon? Who has more motivation to lie?

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 05:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Pete,
Surely you recognize the ---------- nature of EPA advisers being paid to conduct research, no?

#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I understand that sounds good, but seriously, anyone who puts thought into knows you just made one of your most idiotic statements yet.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-01 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The air and water in this country are the cleanest they've been in more than a century and midwest needs jobs. Why not let us develop without the burdens that may make sense in more densely developed areas?

#27 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 05:41 PM | Reply

The air and water in this country are the cleanest they've been in more than a century and midwest needs jobs. Why not let us develop without the burdens that may make sense in more densely developed areas?

Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 05:41 PM | Reply

Dummmkopt if it weasn't for the EPA we would have dirty air and water. It is BECAUSE of the EPA that we have those things.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-01 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I won't insult you back because I would get banned. Entertain the idea that the easiest and most cost effective reforms are responsible for most of the improvement in air and water and that further improvement will be very expensive and only marginally improve the environment.

#29 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 06:01 PM | Reply

Why don't you refute it then, Sycophant?

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-01 06:07 PM | Reply

So strange how so many people that don't fluff democrats have to temper their responses around here. It's as if some people are free from moderation. Strange, because we are repeatedly told that's not the case.

#31 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-01 06:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

Why don't you refute it then, Sycophant?

#30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-11-01 06:07 PM

Because it is much easier to call you an idiot and then declare victory!

-Syco

#32 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-01 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The air and water in this country are the cleanest they've been in more than a century and midwest needs jobs. Why not let us develop without the burdens that may make sense in more densely developed areas?

#27 | Posted by visitor_

Are you honestly suggesting that because we've cleaned our air and water, it's now time to trash them so we can compete with third world countries?

Do you have kids?

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 06:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly, I would not suggest reversing our progress in cleaning the air and water. I would suggest that further gains will be smaller and come at greater cost. Less developed areas may not be economically able to support as much regulation as the more densely populated areas of the highly developed East and West coasts.

#34 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 07:32 PM | Reply

Less developed areas may not be economically able to support as much regulation as the more densely populated areas of the highly developed East and West coasts.

#34 | Posted by visitor_

Really? Are people in less developed areas more resistent to cancer and toxins?

Or are their lives just worth less to you?

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think we're talking past each other because you're not recognizing my argument of diminishing returns and less populated areas don't have the same concerns as densely concentrated cites.

#36 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 07:41 PM | Reply

Unfortunately this is not about smaller gains or I would agree with you. This is about rolling back regs that have been in place for a while. It is already ok to put coal waste into rivers, how long before we decide to kill the great lakes? Again!!

#37 | Posted by rukiddin at 2017-11-01 07:43 PM | Reply

I think we're talking past each other because you're not recognizing my argument of diminishing returns and less populated areas don't have the same concerns as densely concentrated cites.

#36 | Posted by visitor_

The fact that red state people dont care about the environment doesn't mean they can't destroy it for everyone.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 07:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think we're talking past each other because you're not recognizing my argument of diminishing returns and less populated areas don't have the same concerns as densely concentrated cites.

Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 07:41 PM | Reply

Treece Kansas and one mile south in Picher Oklahoma says you'e DEAD wrong.

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-01 07:58 PM | Reply

Do you think the same wood burning stove regulations are appropriate in LA California and rural Michigan?

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-01 08:27 PM | Reply

Do you think the same wood burning stove regulations are appropriate in LA California and rural Michigan?

#40 | Posted by visitor_

You're talking about the effects of burning something on a small scale. That doesn't travel far or have a large scale effect.

But for industrial scale waste, or CO2 emissions from cars, those effects are long lasting and wide spread.
If texas' carbon dioxide and pollution stayed in texas, I wouldn't care what they do. I'd say Let those ignorant bible thumpers trash god's creation til jesus comes home.
But it doesn't work that way.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-01 08:32 PM | Reply

They are advocating for the general public so yes the general public should pay for it

#19 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-11-01 03:10 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

#42 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-01 09:57 PM | Reply

So.. long story short, a mostly false headline. Scientists can serve, they just can't get grants from the agency they're serving.

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-02 08:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think we're talking past each other because you're not recognizing my argument of diminishing returns and less populated areas don't have the same concerns as densely concentrated cites."

Rural states don't need clean water. What a stupid thought.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-02 08:35 AM | Reply

I burn more than 30 twenty-pound bags of charcoal per year and I'm proud of it.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 10:16 AM | Reply

I'm running one of my smokers when I get home from work. I'll be burning charcoal for 8 hours or so and I can't wait!

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 10:17 AM | Reply

"I burn more than 30 twenty-pound bags of charcoal per year and I'm proud of it."

you don't make your own? what a poser!

#47 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-11-02 10:27 AM | Reply

Surely you recognize the ---------- nature of EPA advisers being paid to conduct research, no?
#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Why don't you refute it then, Sycophant?
#30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Because it is much easier to call you an idiot and then declare victory!
-Syco
#32 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Speaking of morons... You are literally saying that the EPA shouldn't use as advisers the very people it pays to study the things they need advisers on. Instead, they should hire people who don't study these topics but who do represent special interests who benefit from axing regulations.

Next thing you know we won't let the FDA take advice from doctors studying the effects of various drugs because that's just as ----------. Instead, they should only take advice from pharmaceutical reps.

#48 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-02 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Substitute Halliburton, Big corporation special interests and Trump cronies into your argument and see if you still don't have a problem with a conflict of interest.

#49 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-02 11:18 AM | Reply

Danni - Rural states don't need clean water. What a stupid thought. That was rude.

And it wasn't my argument at all.

#50 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-02 11:22 AM | Reply

You are literally saying that the EPA shouldn't use as advisers the very people it pays to study the things they need advisers on. Instead, they should hire people who don't study these topics but who do represent special interests who benefit from axing regulations.
Next thing you know we won't let the FDA take advice from doctors studying the effects of various drugs because that's just as ----------. Instead, they should only take advice from pharmaceutical reps.

#48 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

If some scientists employed by Exxon were paid to perform some studies and were also advisers I'd be willing to bet you'd have a big problem with it.

If you respond to this post at all I can 100% guarantee your response will have some form of ad hominem in it.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-02 12:03 PM | Reply

Substitute Halliburton, Big corporation special interests and Trump cronies into your argument and see if you still don't have a problem with a conflict of interest.

#49 | Posted by visitor_

But the polluter and chemical corp lobbyists he's hiring to run the EPA don't have a conflict of interest?

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 01:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Less so than if they were the same entity.

#53 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-02 01:19 PM | Reply

Less so than if they were the same entity.

#53 | Posted by visitor_

MORE so because they are paid to benefit the polluters and produce results that the polluters want.

Scientists are paid to find the truth. Lobbyists are paid to sell lies.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-02 01:33 PM | Reply

Thanks Republicans. Please leave the country you apparently hate so much.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant

No, we are going to change it, just like you liberals did. It's our turn now. Sit down and shut up.

#55 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-03 08:51 AM | Reply

#55

No.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-03 09:04 AM | Reply

You are literally saying that the EPA shouldn't use as advisers the very people it pays to study the things they need advisers on. Instead, they should hire people who don't study these topics but who do represent special interests who benefit from axing regulations.
Next thing you know we won't let the FDA take advice from doctors studying the effects of various drugs because that's just as ----------. Instead, they should only take advice from pharmaceutical reps.
#48 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
If some scientists employed by Exxon were paid to perform some studies and were also advisers I'd be willing to bet you'd have a big problem with it.
If you respond to this post at all I can 100% guarantee your response will have some form of ad hominem in it.
#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes. Because they are beholden to Exxon. These scientists are paid by the EPA. The EPA doesn't make money depending how the research comes out. Exxon does.

It's only an ad hominem if its true. But seriously, you should REALLY think through these things before posting. If you can't tell the difference between a scientists working for the EPA advising and a scientist working for Exxon advising, you aren't smart enough to be posting.

#57 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-03 09:57 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort