It has come to the attention of some members of Congress that data and research used to justify Environmental Protection Agency regulations have been hidden, unavailable for review even by congressional committees with oversight of the EPA.
The Agenda’s foot soldiers are the Stasi (secret police) along with The IRS, the Jackboots are a comin’ for YOU!
The Environmental Protection Agency is for protect the Progressive Agency agenda, not the actual environment. The Political environment is all that matters.
The agency’s refusal to provide this information is simply unacceptable.
But wholly within the SOP of The Obama Administration.
Thousands of pages of new regulations are written each year, imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs upon American households.
And those regulations might all be worthwhile. To the extent they are constitutional (a subject for another column) and save lives or prevent illness, improve product or workplace safety, or prevent fraud or disaster, regulations may be perfectly justified.
But to know whether a regulation actually can achieve such lofty goals, we must be able to evaluate whether the research used to justify it is sound.
When researchers announce a breakthrough or a new study comes out, it is only through the sharing of assumptions, data and methodologies that other scientists can test the claims and verify or falsify the results.
Replicability is the hallmark of science. Trust may be key to interpersonal relationships, and faith is critical to religion, but transparency, replicability and verification are central to science. Studies used by regulatory agencies to impose rules costing millions and sometimes billions of dollars are no exception.
If the government is going to use a rule to restrict peoples’ freedom and cost them money, the public has a right to know that the findings are sound and the savings or public health benefits the study claims the rules would produce are likely to materialize.
Regulatory agencies don’t get to say, “Trust us!” and expect legislators or the public to do so.
Secrecy in science is especially offensive when one considers that federal and state governments (that is, the public) pay for most of the research used to justify regulations — directly, through grants, scholarships and awards, or indirectly, by funding university science departments and research endeavors.
The rule should be, if the public pays for it, the public has the right to know the study’s methodologies, assumptions and raw data.
This shouldn’t even be controversial, and for most regulatory agencies it isn’t. They adhere to the rule of transparency, testing and replicability. Increasingly, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not do so.
In each of the past few sessions of Congress, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that, in the words of the most recent version, H.R. 4012, would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.”
But fits The Agenda!
The bill requires the EPA to disclose all the science, research, models and data used to justify regulations, and the results would have to be reproducible by independent researchers.
That’ll never happen. The Liberals want what they want when they want it and you’re just a partisan “denier” if you don’t let them do whatever they want to do.
Plus, Trust them, they know what they are doing!
Here’s what the legislation’s sponsor, David Schweikert, R-Ariz., chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s subcommittee on the environment, said when introducing the bill:
“The Secret Science Reform Act ends costly EPA rule making from happening behind closed doors and out of public view. Public policy should come from public data.
The Ministry of Truth disagrees.
“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country without public evidence to justify all their actions.”
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the Democrat caucus never allowed a vote on the bill in the Senate. With Republicans now in control, the bill cleared its first hurdle, passing out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a strict party-line vote of 11 to 9.
No bias there.
President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. Why would Obama, who promised to run the most transparent presidential administration in history, want to hide from scientific scrutiny and public view the science used to justify his environmental agency’s key programs? These aren’t state secrets or issues of national security.
Well, of course he’d veto it, it’s not on his Agenda. Keeping Secrets and “pas before you know what’s in it” is the hallmark of this “most transparent” President. It’s just what he’s transparent about that is disturbing.
The only ones who benefit from keeping science secret are: researchers whose fraudulent, flawed or otherwise unverifiable results were predetermined by the need to make the Obama administration agencies who fund them happy; and the regulatory agencies that are exercising mission creep, who can’t justify their call for increased authority and larger budgets without ginning up fear of a public health threat.
The Agenda Warriors, who call you “deniers”, “racists” aqnd “bigots” for not bowing to their superiority.
They are holier than thou and they are above your petty need to know what they are up to, right?