Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 12, 2018

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."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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.

Comments

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

More transparency, more debate and far more careful study subjected to robust peer review.

Yet, this is somehow a bad thing?

I'm hoping some of this site's more thoughtful liberals weigh in on this. Maybe there is something I'm not seeing because, to me, this sure looks like a welcome change to how the EPA operates.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 09:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're so full of caca it's not even funny. Thread is garbage as per the usual.

thehill.com

Sabotaging EPA: Scott Pruitt has muzzled science and his dissenters

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Google+

Sabotaging EPA: Scott Pruitt has muzzled science and his dissenters
© Getty Images

Late last week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hired Definers Public Affairs to scrutinize federal regulators, track news and manipulate press coverage.

Definers is a front for conservative operatives who run America Rising PAC. That is of profound concern to EPA employees who oppose Administrator Scott Pruitt's anti-science agenda and his "back-to-basics" mandate benefitting fossil fuel polluting industries.

For the last year, America Rising has targeted scientists, engineers, attorneys and others who work at EPA and disagree with Pruitt, many of whom are members of AFGE National Council of EPA Locals #238 (AFGE Council 238).

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-12 09:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

thinkprogress.org

John Tierney always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through ... . With your help, he's using TierneyLab to check out new research and rethink conventional wisdom about science and society. The Lab's work is guided by two founding principles:

Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong.
But that's a good working theory.

Huh? These "founding principles" are the clearest anti-scientific statement you will ever find by anybody claiming to be covering science [  --  if they are supposed to be partly humorous, then he should be writing a column for the Onion, or the NYT should file his posts under "humor" not "science"]. Democracy appeals to a lot of people. So does freedom. They must be wrong. Oh, wait, this is a science column. Okay. Gravity appeals to a lot of people. So does thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease ... .

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-12 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Got it Jeff, now go smoke a pack of cigarettes in your car with your kids in the back seat.

Absolute garbage.

Hey, want to burn some coal and inhale the fumes and particles just to prove the EPA wrong. Hey, you won't die immediately. China must be ignoring science too because they are trying to get rid of coal fired energy too.
I'm old enough to remember S. California, where I lived at the time, before the EPA and California's own efforts to clean up the environment. No thanks, if I want to smoke I'll buy cigarettes.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 10:11 AM | Reply

Jesus H Christ, Laura. Could your sources even be more partisan?

#4 You didn't even remotely address the crux of this thread, Danni.

Pruitt has made the EPA far more transparent. I fail to see how that is anything other than a good thing.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:13 AM | Reply

Jesus H Christ, Laura. Could your sources even be more partisan?

#4 You didn't even remotely address the crux of this thread, Danni.

Pruitt has made the EPA far more transparent. I fail to see how that is anything other than a good thing.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:13 AM | Reply

Yeah transparently bad for the environment I'll give you that.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-04-12 10:15 AM | Reply

"I'm hoping some of this site's more thoughtful liberals weigh in on this. Maybe there is something I'm not seeing because, to me, this sure looks like a welcome change to how the EPA operates."

Yeah Jeff, because protecting the environment is a "liberal concept." You have become more and more disturbed in your years of posting here and less and less actually concerned about the world you will leave for your children.

If the EPA errs, let it err on the side of protecting our environment, when in doubt, protect our environment first, commerce (profit) second.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 10:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 | POSTED BY DANNI

You are so far off topic it's not even funny.

#6 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

So, you're opposed to transparency? You'd prefer that the EPA keep it's data secret when using it to justify a regulation?

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:22 AM | Reply

Blatant lies.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-12 10:27 AM | Reply

Blatant lies.

#9 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

Please expound.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:34 AM | Reply

Here's a link: www.google.com

Another: www.google.com

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-12 11:34 AM | Reply

As usual, the real war on science is the one waged from the left.

Stopped reading when I got to this gem.

Politicized science is bad. Period. This guy isn't doing anything to decrease that and is only feeding the flames.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-12 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Corrupt science is bad too. He can't be an unbiased person if he is taking bribes.

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-12 08:51 PM | Reply

Environmental studies related to human health require medical records of thousands of participants. Those medical records would need to be publicly available for studies to be reproducible, which is not feasible due to obvious confidentiality issues. Who would willingly participate in a study where their medical records are made public? This is why turning over such sensitive data is not required during the peer review process.

So, the EPA can basically ignore said studies because they are not reproducible and the data is not publicly available. It works out well for the oil, chemical, and other polluting industries. Warrior for science...nice try =D

#14 | Posted by horstngraben at 2018-04-13 09:54 AM | Reply

Coal industry lobbyist now #2 at EPA.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-13 10:26 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