Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, June 07, 2019

Yesterday at the EPA's Science Advisory Board meeting, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler made comments on the agency's proposed Restricting Science Rule that raised eyebrows for anyone who understands the basics of health studies. In his defense of the rule (which the scientific community agrees will severely hamstring the agency's ability to rely on the best available science in its decision-making), Wheeler asserted that the EPA should be more like the FDA in its data transparency. The FDA uses double-blind studies and the EPA should be taking that approach, he suggested. Um, what?

More

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 of the subject matter of one's position is a hallmark of Trump's administration. We're long past finding it breathtaking.

#1 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-06-07 09:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that he isn't just ignorant about what they do at the EPA, he is opposed to it even though he doesn't even know what he is opposed to. Ideology over science.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-07 10:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If I understand the basic premise "science rule" is that if we are going to base regulations on studies, the data the study is based should be available to all.

Its odd, for supposed "pro-scientist", that having to submit your data to scrutiny is somehow bad.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-07 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "

Isaac Asimov

#4 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-06-07 11:47 AM | Reply

- Isaac Asimov

Sounds Russian. shut down his channel.

-Youtube

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-07 11:51 AM | Reply

#3

Andrea, your comment almost reads like you're talking about a completely different subject. Either that or you commented before reading the article. I enthusiastically wait for your clarification.

#6 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-06-07 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So is Wheeler the new term "c-c-conservatives" are calling themselves these days?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2019-06-07 01:21 PM | Reply

Wheeler asserted that the EPA should be more like the FDA in its data transparency. The FDA uses double-blind studies and the EPA should be taking that approach, he suggested.

And WTF is wrong with being transparent and NOT cook the books?

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-07 03:19 PM | Reply

If I understand the basic premise "science rule" is that if we are going to base regulations on studies, the data the study is based should be available to all.
Its odd, for supposed "pro-scientist", that having to submit your data to scrutiny is somehow bad.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-06-07 11:00 AM | FLAG:

Your comment indicates you are against any science.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-06-07 05:04 PM | Reply

"Wheeler asserted that the EPA should be more like the FDA in its data transparency. The FDA uses double-blind studies and the EPA should be taking that approach, he suggested."

This is a ruse for slashing every rule that wasn't arrived at that way.
Andrea, a mattress is surely smart enough to see through the ruse, and actively attempts to foist it on the rest of us.
Stay in school, kids!

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-07 05:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sounds Russian. shut down his channel.

-Youtube

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Careful what you wish for.

If we could shut down the Russians we wouldn't have the pleasure of your nonsense anymore.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-07 06:42 PM | Reply

The FDA uses double-blind studies and the EPA should be taking that approach, he suggested.

And WTF is wrong with being transparent and NOT cook the books?

#8 | Posted by Sniper

So how do you propose having a double blind test for the environment?

Perhaps you can use mars as as the blind? How will we trick the inhabitants into thinking they are on Earth? Who will you get to the breathe dirty air and dirty water here and how do you trick them into thinking it is normal air?

And nothing is wrong with being transparent and honest.

Who said their was? Trump? The most dishonest President ever?

Science is peer reviewed and held accountable.

Unlike Humpy and the Gang of Deplorables.

Now, run a way little snippy. Go play with your gun.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-07 06:50 PM | Reply

--So how do you propose having a double blind test for the environment?

Exactly. You can't do it. You can't falsify hypotheses. And you can't falsify computer-model predictions of catastrophic global warming or mild and moderate global warming at the end of the century except by waiting until the end of the century.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-07 07:16 PM | Reply

If I understand the basic premise "science rule" is that if we are going to base regulations on studies, the data the study is based should be available to all.

Its odd, for supposed "pro-scientist", that having to submit your data to scrutiny is somehow bad.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris

This is a common retort used by deniers. Mackris is arguing that the private information of individual subjects in a given study should be made public if the results are going to be used.

www.nature.com

And just think of what Trump's minions would do with a list of study participants. First you get sick from pollution, then you get harassed or worse because you got sick from pollution.

#14 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-06-07 10:26 PM | Reply

Your comment indicates you are against any science.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner

You could NOT be that stupid. Could you?

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-08 11:52 AM | Reply

So how do you propose having a double blind test for the environment?

If you can have a test for the environment there is no reason you can't do a DBT. If there was NO test it was junk science.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-08 11:54 AM | Reply

Exactly. You can't do it. You can't falsify hypotheses. And you can't falsify computer-model predictions of catastrophic global warming or mild and moderate global warming at the end of the century except by waiting until the end of the century.
#13 | Posted by nullifidian

What went wrong with the computer model that said the glaciers in Glacier Park would all be gone by 2020? Model my a**.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-08 11:57 AM | Reply

Glacier National Park quietly removed a visitor center sign saying its iconic glaciers will disappear by 2020 due to climate change.
Several winters of heavy snowfall threw off climate model projections the glaciers would all disappear by 2020, according to federal officials.
A blogger first noticed the signage change and noted other signs warning of "impending glacier disappearance have been replaced."
The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-08 11:59 AM | Reply

Area covered by glaciers in Glacier National Park has decreased by 68% from 1850 through 2015.

www.usgs.gov

#19 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-06-08 12:32 PM | Reply

"So how do you propose having a double blind test for the environment?"

Exactly.

Now you're getting it!

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-08 01:33 PM | Reply

"You could NOT be that stupid. Could you?"
#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER

The sublime entertainment of having Sniper call absolutely any other Retorter stupid is really one of the best parts of this site.

Name a more iconic piece of Retort irony. I'll wait.

#21 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-06-08 01:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You could NOT be that stupid. Could you?"
#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Self reflection is quite difficult but rewarding. Now what did your inner self say??

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-06-08 04:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort