Science

Democrats in Congress Want to Keep Some Science Secret

Brilliant op-ed on the dangers of secret science

|

EPAlogo
EPA

Over at Nature, Daniel Sarewitz, the co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, has an incredibly important op-ed on the increasingly pervasive misuse of science in ideological debates. Playing off the recent revelations that much reported scientific research cannot be replicated, Sarewitz notes that many researchers—joined by Democrats on Capitol Hill—are actively resisting the release of their data used to justify regulatory decisions. As Sarewitz brilliantly explains:

Consider, for example, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015, a US bill that would "prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible". Passed in March by the House of Representatives essentially along party lines (Republicans in favour, Democrats opposed) and now awaiting action by the Senate, the bill has been vigorously opposed by many scientific and environmental organizations.

They argue, probably correctly, that the bill's intent is to block and even roll back environmental regulations by requiring that all data on which the rules are based be made publicly available for independent replication. One of the main objections is that a lot of the scientific research that informs regulatory decisions is not of the sort that can be replicated. For example, a statement of opposition from numerous scientific societies and universities explains that: "With respect to reproducibility of research, some scientific research, especially in areas of public health, involves longitudinal studies that are so large and of great duration that they could not realistically be reproduced. Rather, these studies are replicated utilizing statistical modeling."

Precisely. Replication of the sort that can be done with tightly controlled laboratory experiments is indeed often impossible when you are studying the behaviour of dynamic, complex systems, for example at the intersection of human health, the natural environment and technological risks. But it is hard to see how this amounts to an argument against mandating open access to the data from these studies. Growing concerns about the quality of published scientific results have often singled out bad statistical practices and modelling assumptions, and have typically focused on the very types of science that often underlie regulations, such as efforts to quantify the population-wide health effects of a single chemical.

Although concerns about the bill's consequences are reasonable, the idea that it would be bad to make public the data underlying environmental regulations seems to contradict science's fundamental claims to objectivity and legitimacy. In June, a commentary in Science by an array of leading voices, including the current and future heads of the National Academies, flagged "increased transparency" and "increased data disclosure" as crucial elements of science's "self-correcting norm" that can help to address "the disconcerting rise in irreproducible findings" (B. Alberts et al. Science 348, 1420–1422; 2015). This is more or less the position taken by the Secret Science bill's sponsor, Representative Lamar Smith (Republican, Texas): "The bill requires the EPA to use data that is available to the public when the Agency writes its regulations. This allows independent researchers to evaluate the studies that the EPA uses to justify its regulations. This is the scientific method."

This battle for the soul of science is almost surreal in its avoidance of the true issue, which is ideological. One side believes that the government should introduce stricter environmental regulations; the other wants fewer restrictions on the marketplace. Science is the battleground, but it cannot adjudicate this dispute. At its core, the disagreement is about values, not facts. But just as importantly, the facts themselves are inevitably incomplete, uncertain, contested and, as we have been learning, often unreliable.

Like a divorced couple bitterly fighting over the custody of their child, both sides in the Secret Science debate insist that they have only the interests of science at heart. Republicans are using a narrow, idealized portrayal of science — that it produces clear and reproducible findings — as a weapon to undercut environmental and public-health regulation of the private sector. But many scientists, environmentalists and Democrats have long used similar portrayals to justify the same regulations, and to bash Republicans as anti-scientific when they did not agree.

There is simply no excuse for not making any data used to justify regulatory action publicly available for independent scrutiny. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack science abuser.

For more background, see my post, "Is Regulatory Science an Oxymorn?"

Advertisement

NEXT: Is College Becoming Too Corporate, or Too Government-Managed?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sarewitz notes that many researchers – joined by Democrats on Capitol Hill – are actively resisting the release of their data used to justify regulatory decisions. As Sarewitz brilliantly explains:

    This is because rat bagging RethugliKKKans hate science!

  2. The Democrats fucking love science!

    1. All of it that appears to prove them right!

      1. No matter how badly they have to manipulate and torture it!

        1. And speaking of abusing science.

          https://goo.gl/dLaQAz

          If this is correct it seems we have actually gained miles of ice in the artic.

          1. It’s true, but only for the past few years. Arctic sea ice is at a low since satellite surveys began. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    2. No, you mean they love fucking science.

  3. The worst regulatory offender?

    Or just the worst logo?

    1. Can’t be worse than any number of the CYBER ARMAGEDDON PREVENTION agencies.

  4. Passed in March by the House of Representatives essentially along party lines (Republicans in favour, Democrats opposed) and now awaiting action by the Senate, the bill has been vigorously opposed by many scientific and environmental organizations.

    There goes the anti-science left again.

  5. One of the main objections is that a lot of the scientific research that informs regulatory decisions is not of the sort that can be replicated.

    There’s a word for scientific research that can’t be replicated.

    1. You know who else did scientific research that can’t be replicated ?.

      1. Andrew Wakefield?

      2. Dr. Mengele?

        1. +1 Dye in the Eyes

        1. Monsanto and other subsidy gorging parasites?

          1. Gee Em Ohhhhhhhhhzzzzzzzzz!

      3. Dr Moreau?

      4. Victor Frankenstein?

      5. Francis Crick figuring out DNA strands because he was driving while high on LSD?

      6. Michael Mann?

      7. Philipp Lenard?

      8. Me in high school lab.

      9. Lysenko

      10. Al Gore

  6. One of the main objections is that a lot of the scientific research that informs regulatory decisions is not of the sort that can be replicated

    Yeah, especially the kind that is based on intentionally modified data in order to arrive at a preferred outcome.

  7. As I read the headline, I assumed that this was referring to DARPA and the DOE. But holy shit, it’s the EPA!!!

    Just get rid of it.

    1. Or turn it into an advisory agency with no power to create de facto law. Make Congress do their damn jobs.

      1. It’s irredeemable it this point. Get rid of it.

  8. If it was just reproducibility that was the problem they’d be pushing to have the bill modified to only require the data be available to the public. This mess stinks of a cover up.

    1. Fake scandal! You leave Hillary alone, hater! Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

      1. She said she’s sorry we’re to stupid to understand what she did,get over it.

        1. My wife is pretty politically ignorant, she just doesn’t care. The other day the Today show had Andrea Mitchell’s interview with Hillary. The first comment my wife makes, “Why won’t she just say sorry?”

          I had to explain to her that saying sorry is an admission that you did something wrong that will be used against you forever.

        2. Well, it’s all been explained to you baggers how you have to put all your emails on one server because you can only receive email from one server on a cell phone. Just imagine if you had 3 email accounts on different servers, you’d need to carry 3 phones! No one does that! You dumb baggers can’t lurn technology. Like how all emails are stored on hard drives and hard drives crash all the time! And then all the emails are gone! Stupid Republicans!

  9. When it rains Ron Bailey, it pours Ron Bailey.

    1. So Ron’s like Morton salt?

  10. Yeah, gee, if it’s a “longitudinal study” that might be difficult or impossible to replicate, THEN TELL US. So at least we know. Doesn’t mean laws can’t be passed (Lord knows) – but the “we’re hiding it because YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!” is sooooooooooo government.

    Fuck ’em. Publish or perish. If ya know what I’m sayin’, and, yes, it does involve woodchippers.

    1. There are a shitload of regulations and laws based on one non-reproduced study, things like that. Second-hand smoking laws are a perfect example. They absolutely do not want people scrutinizing the hand-waving they use to make more laws and regulations. They really don’t want it.

      1. Are you saying they don’t want it?

        1. I totally missed that. You think he’s trying to say they don’t want it?

        2. I’m not ruling it out.

    2. Whether research is experimental or observational should be obvious.

  11. the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 ? would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from … regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible”.

    1) What a stupid name for a bill! I propose “Richard Windsor’s Law”.

    2) What’s magic about *environmental* regulations? Prohibit *anything* economic or political based on stuff that is not transparent or reproducible.

    1. Easier to pass in one area and then go back for the others after the sky doesn’t fall. If you try to take on all the regulatory institutes at once you’ll be crushed.

    2. Wait… are you telling me that the most transparent administration in history has not already done made that change?

      1. Yup. The bill will pass and we will get an EPA that drags it’s feet, engages in petty bickering, cherry picks input, and does what it pleases… transparently.

  12. OT: Coverage in Affordable Care Act health plans wanes since winter

    Nearly 1 in 4 of the Americans who picked a health plan this year through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces have dropped or lost their coverage, according to new federal data.

    A report, released Tuesday by federal health officials, shows that 9.9 million people were paying, as of the end of June, for health plans they had gotten through the federal and state-run insurance exchanges created under the health-care law.

    Those people reflect a decline from the roughly 12.7 million consumers who signed up for a 2015 health plan. The vast majority signed up during an open enrollment period that ended in February and the rest through special enrollment circumstances since then.

    1. Can we just repeal this thing already. It’s a mess. I would be literally better off if my company could just directly give me the tax free money they currently give to insurance companies.

      1. I’m waiting for the Vox article explaining how good this is because, er…

        1. Ezra Klein has already drawn a graph to explain this, but you uneducated right wing radicals can’t understand it, duh!

        2. Obviously its good because if they gave it to me directly I’d spend it on boob jobs and tummy tucks as opposed to my ADD meds.

          1. Why would anyone take ADD meds?

            1. People with ADD or anyone?

            2. Because five to ten minute attention spans suck when you’re trying to listen to your boss explain something technical.

              Also, no, I didn’t misspell ADHD. You can have Attention Deficit Disorder without being Hyperactive. As I finally discovered in the senior year of my engineering degree. Turns out normal people don’t zone out without warning for ten minutes every five minutes or so in lectures. (I got by on a combination of religiously reading the text books and chalkboard notes, so fuck off I’ve got discipline)

              1. zoning out after 10 minutes of senior calculus, etc is not a mental illness. jesus christ.

      2. And then who’d make sure you’re making the best decisions with your healthcare dollars? Just give you money, hah, no wonder no one takes you libertarians seriously.

        1. This drives me nuts. I passed Calc 3. I think I can draw up a budget and do a basic risk assessment for health related spending for myself much better than the poli-sci majors, who have trouble passing the pre-algebra test pre-requisite to macro economics, can do for the entire nation. But nooooo, obviously the guys who haven’t ever gone beyond ‘this is a cell’ high school biology, know more than me about how to run my medical finances.

      3. What makes you think anyone in government is interested in efficiency, simplicity, or people being better off?

        1. Oh they want to do all three, and if all of us little people would just follow their wonderful plans as intended everything would work out just fine. They’ve got the best plan ever. If it doesn’t work then obviously we didn’t try hard enough.

          ^ Seriously, we had a guy like this in my office for the first two months I was at my job. Thankfully because we are the private sector, when his plan tanked sales, they didn’t agree with his assessment that it was the engineers sabotaging him perfect business plan. He was reassigned somewhere his pretty chart making and exciting presentation giving skills could do less damage.

    2. Why should anyone bother to buy this non insurance insurance, or any insurance for that matter, until you actually get sick. Simply showing a disconnect notice from the electric company constitutes a life event that makes you exempt from the mandate. I read the other day that no one has been turned down for insurance through the exchange because they applied after the enrollment date window had closed. So wait until you get sick to by it and even if you can’t get it through the exchange you can still buy it direct from the insurance companies.

      IMHO

      1. Just got my disconnect notice today. Going down to the electric company office tomorrow to pay off the entire balance. Barrack, Nancy, and Harry … screw you!

  13. “There is simply no excuse for not making any data used to justify regulatory action publicly available for independent scrutiny. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack science abuser.”

    Hear, hear. You are more of a gentleman than I am Ron. I would have used much harsher language.

    Without scrupulous honesty science cannot exist. Keeping data secret is the scientific equivalent of a high ranking government official setting up their own private email server. They might as well tattoo the word ‘liar’ on their foreheads.

    1. “Keeping data secret is the scientific equivalent of a high ranking government official setting up their own private email server.”

      So you mean, it’s perfectly ok, as long as it’s the correct people doing it?

      1. “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?”

        -Phil Jones, CRU

        1. Exactly how Einstein and Feynman did it.

  14. Our system of government is not based on the theory of Just Trust Us.

    1. They are your betters. Report for reeducation. It’s for Science.

  15. TONY

  16. typical of the left to avoid scrutiny of their policies and ideas. Just like they depend on silencing their political opponents to win arguments, they depend on keeping their “scientific data” from view.

  17. I liked the Sarewitz article pretty much until the final paragraph:

    More and more, science is tackling questions that are relevant to society and politics. The reliability of such science is often not testable with textbook methods of replication. This means that quality assurance will increasingly become a matter of political interpretation.

    I rather doubt that scientists from Bacon to Feynman would agree. Nullius in fucking verba. If it isn’t testable, it isn’t science. Also, if the proposition is vague or unquantifiable, it isn’t science. And political interpretation isn’t science.

  18. Sigh. Okay, obviously this bill is another cynical Orwellian attempt by Republicans to hobble an agency that their industry puppeteers don’t like. The “secret information” consists of private health information used in medical research or confidential business information. The goal of this bill is not to make that science more transparent, but to exclude it from consideration altogether.

    And obviously the “reproducible” requirement is a crock of horseshit, the goal being to exclude the types of researched mentioned here or even meta-analyses.

    Politicians who think evolution is a lie straight from the pit of hell (as one of the bill’s cosponsor’s said) should not be doing science policy. Maybe more transparency is needed in some areas, maybe not. How the hell are we going to know when Republican idiots who don’t believe in science are the ones making the rules?

    1. “The “secret information” consists of private health information used in medical research or confidential business information.”

      Apparently the government is too incompetent to anonymize data (Tony has never heard of a double blind study). But we should trust them in all other cases because they are super competent.

      “And obviously the “reproducible” requirement is a crock of horseshit, the goal being to exclude the types of researched mentioned here or even meta-analyses.”

      Not only does Tony not understand science, he doesn’t want to.

      1. Libertarians have to figure out how to get out of this mode wherein they assume that the stuff they read in chapter 1 of a high school textbook on science (or economics) is everything there is to know about the subject.

        You tell me how, for example, a meta-analysis of studies meets this bill’s criteria; alternatively, tell me why they should all be excluded.

        1. It’s not even that much fun kicking the shit out of you anymore. It’s just too easy.

          This isn’t about excluding meta-studies, it’s about following the actual scientific method. EVERY major journal requires archiving of the raw data precisely to ensure the integrity of the paper. But in Tony the kitten fister’s universe the only thing that matters in ‘science’ is that it gets the pre-ordained conclusion he wants.

          We call this religion. You call it Wednesday.

          1. Maybe they didn’t get to this in the on-level 9th grade general science class you topped out at, but science, in general, is the study of the universe. That study takes many forms, not all of which are rigorously experimental. Some is observing and collecting data. Speaking of, what raw data is being withheld from whom? Are you letting bullshit rightwing talking points from 5 years ago trump the findings of the world’s scientific community again?

            1. You mean the community that once believed the world was flat? Or believed the universe revolved around the earth? Or believed that stress was the primary cause of stomach ulcers?

              Unlike you I know scientists are human and are therefore subject to all the frailties humans possess. They have been wrong in the past, are in cases wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. That is why all science, even observational science must be reproducible for it to mean anything.

              1. This is idiotic on so many levels. The global scientific community never believed the earth was flat, because there was no such thing when people believed that. And yes, even after the advent of modern science, science has made wrong conclusions, then it revised itself. Because someone was wrong in the past doesn’t tell us anything about whether someone else is wrong now. You just want them to be wrong. You are the one substituting politics for science. This nonsense was pathetic 15 years ago. That it persists is only a testament to the power of stupidity.

            2. Tony, go back to fisting kittens. It’s all that you’re good at. Have you published in a peer reviewed scientific journal(s)? I have. Just because adding lemon juice to baking soda satisfies all of the mysteries of your universe doesn’t mean that the rest of us with fully functional lobes find that sufficient.

              Yes, real science requires experimental verification or it IS NOT FUCKING SCIENCE. Just how thick do you have to be to not understand this? Real science is FALSIFIABLE. If it can’t be tested and can’t be reproduced or verified, then it is RELIGION.

              RTFA. EPA won’t release the “science” (i.e. data) supporting their findings of endangerment. Phil Jones refused to release the raw HadCRUT data (Oh, I lost the floppies; Oh, the formats changed; Oh, we just didn’t keep it). Keep sticking your head in the sand but the Left is about as anti-science as it gets.

            3. https://youtu.be/LIxvQMhttq4

              Watch. Learn. (I’m generously assuming you are capable of learning, something you have yet to demonstrate on these boards.)

        2. “You tell me how, for example, a meta-analysis of studies meets this bill’s criteria; alternatively, tell me why they should all be excluded.”

          Well that’s easy. A meta-analysis study should reference all the papers they studied. That would be the data they used to determine their answer.

          And you thought that would be hard. Wow. Maybe you ought to actually read the first chapter of the high school science textbook before you ask again.

          1. What does that have to do with the “sufficient for substantial reproduction” requirement?

            Also, why do you people always reflexively defend Republicans? Shouldn’t you be skeptical of the law before jumping to defend it?

            1. “What does that have to do with the “sufficient for substantial reproduction” requirement?”

              Because that would give people the ability to look up those papers and see if the writer(s) of the meta-analysis accurately reported what the papers said. Kind of how several scientist found out their papers were used to support the 97% consensus even though the paper said nothing of the sort.

              “Also, why do you people always reflexively defend Republicans? Shouldn’t you be skeptical of the law before jumping to defend it?”

              Most commentators here (with you and several others as exceptions) regard any bill increasing the transparency of the government and its agencies with so much power over us as a good thing. This bill probably does that so most here would support it.

              As to the other sentence, by the same standard you reflexively and strenuously defend Democrats and government so I will leave it at that.

              1. As I said, it doesn’t increase transparency and is not meant to. It’s meant to ban the EPA from using a ton of the research it relies on, because Republicans and their industry cronies don’t like that the EPA uses science to tell them they can’t poison people with impunity. What’s absolutely transparent is the cynicism of this bill.

                It is not clear that the bill wouldn’t simply ban meta-studies outright. It seems likely that it would ban longitudinal or other expansive observational research. And it would ban a whole lot of health research that relies on subject privacy, or any research that relies on innovative proprietary methods and technologies.

                You cannot really defend this unless you take Republican bullshit-speak at face value and don’t actually think about it too hard. But then you are the one wheeling out the “science once believed the earth was flat” double fallacy, so I don’t expect anything else.

                1. So why are you so afraid to release your data? Afraid that someone will look behind the curtain as see what little men you are?

                2. Sorry, but accepting those sorts of things without transparency would require trust, and the government has done nothing to deserve it, and done much to deserve skepticism of both its competence and its motives.

    2. Wow. Just- wow. You are unbelievable.

      On the other hand, at least you’re consistent. I mean, there is some virtue in being utterly, maniacally consistent, even in the face of your TEAM proving what cunts they are.

      But go with it. It looks good on you.

      1. Democrats are opposing this bill because it is obviously a bad bill with ulterior motives that have nothing to do with improving either the EPA or scientific research. Bailey’s headline is idiot bait, which is a shame.

  19. Republicans are using a narrow, idealized portrayal of science ? that it produces clear and reproducible finding

    It’s true that the everyday methodology of science doesn’t always produce clear and reproducible findings….at first.

    The point is that, until you understand things well enough that you *can* produce, at the very least, reproducible (if not clear) findings, then your theory or interpretation of the data has not yet been scientifically verified.

    If that process takes a long time, then so be it. That means that the Universe is a complicated place.

    If you can’t ever get reproducible results, then you don’t understand things well enough to justify policy decisions that are literally forced on people.

    1. So we can never prove climate change since we can’t reproduce the experiment we’re currently running on this Earth on multiple identical Earths (with a control Earth in which we never emitted excess greenhouse gases). Therefore, do nothing is obviously the best policy.

      The disconnect is that climate change skeptics are challenging facts that we know from past experimental science. Current research is about modelling the real world’s past, present, and future conditions. It’s not like physics, in which the goal is finding a yes or no answer to a hypothesis. It’s about probabilities. If we are 97% sure there is a climate problem, the correct policy response does not defer to the 3% uncertainty. That is just plain fallacious.

      1. And climate change alarmists are relying on projections (notice I didn’t say extrapolations) that are not matching reality.

        1. Reality mostly is turning out to be worse than projections, if anything.

          1. Do you have some – uh, you know – uh, EVIDENCE for that bold-faced fucking lie?

            Seriously, is that all you do? Do you have any fealty to reality?

            Wait. Never mind. I know that answer to that. All that matters is the TEAM AGENDA. People are inconsequential and unimportant as individuals to you.

            1. If I pick a team it’s because they’re the only one that actually believes in science, whether it calls into question the claim that Jesus had a pet dinosaur or not.

              There is Google. Type “climate change evidence” and read. Be sure to consult reliable sources. I’ll wait for you to come back and apologize for speaking before thinking or reading.

              1. So I take it your answer is “No” then?

                1. Tony only believes in evidence that fits his preconceived notions. That is why he said reliable sources. They are only reliable if they agree with him.

                  1. They’re reliable if they’re established peer-reviewed scientific publications or journalism/explanatory articles that rely on such. There, glad to help.

                    1. You do understand that peer review has failed many, many times. That is why it is not the final word in scientific review, just part of it.

                    2. Tell me again about how because “scientists” once believed the earth was flat, any and all modern science is open to being accepted or rejected on your whim alone. Do educate me some more. This has been so enlightening.

                    3. Well if you can do it, why can’t I? I’m not the one who believes present scientists are infallible. I’m not the one blindly accepting the dictates of other people.

                    4. Only bullshit rightwing conspiracy theorists. You have no rational reason to question whether the basic findings of climate change science are true. You are the ideologue. You are the ones who come to any conversation with a preconceived picture of how the world should work. I only, ever, go with what has been demonstrated to work, or what I think might be a fruitful experiment. You are the dogmatist, and I reject dogma. If I had a preference, I would rather you be right and the world’s scientists be wrong. Absolutely, 100%. But I’m not a fucking idiot who thinks he gets to pick and choose which facts are real based on whether I can wrap my brain around addressing those facts in the context of a bizarre small-government fetish.

                    5. You deny the data all the fucking time. You won’t even admit that the models are running hot! Despite Karl et al the consensus (your criterion, not mine) is that the models are SIGNFICANTLY overstating the actual warming trends. In fact they’ve been breached at the 97% CI. Mann’s nature “trick” of splicing an instrumental data set onto a proxy record right at the point that the proxy record shows cooling. And you have the balls to claim that there’s no reason to question CAGW?!

                      Your entire existence is dogma. Government can do no wrong. Central planning is the only thing that can save us.

                    6. So Tony, what is my background? What in my background says I have no standing to challenge climate science? You claim to be come to a conversation without a preconceived notion of how the world works, yet you know why I question something. You claim I pick and choose facts but you know my background off a few comments on a bulletin board. Gosh I wish I was as smart as you.

      2. This is a false dichotomy and also shows your complete ignorance of science. There is plenty of science that can be done without having to have control groups and the like. What you need is models with predictive power. That’s what science is. A hypothesis is only useful to the extent it leads to a model with predictive power, beyond what would be expected of random chance.

        If a hypothesis can’t do that it’s discarded….
        ….UNLESS it’s from the AGW camp, then it gets a new name, a new marketing campaign, faked data, adjustments to baseline temperature readings – which were previously “good enough” for “science” but now aren’t anymore – and a zealotry among its followers that would make Torquemada proud.

        1. I won’t wait for you to ever pull your head out of your ass.

        2. So statistical modelling isn’t part of science. Also, what science says about global warming is all a big hoax and nobody but Republicans and internet commenters have figured it out. Got it. Anything else, Professor?

          1. In other words, Tony can’t read.

      3. Yes it fucking is like physics because it fucking IS physics. Fuck but you’re stupid. The whole point of TOM’s is to model the Javier-stokes equations along with radiative forcing.

        1. Navier-Stokes. Fucking autocorrect.

        2. Someone please tell me how GCM becomes TOM.

        3. But the physics is not what is under scrutiny (except by rightwing morons).

          1. Feedback loops are not part of physics? Well that explains a lot.

          2. The physics say an ECS of about 1.5C. Your BS fever dreams assume a runaway postive feedback 3 times that. Yes, it’s about the fucking physics.

            1. You’ve obviously been using the wrong physics… you haven’t been using “teh progessif fizzicks!!!”

  20. “There is simply no excuse for not making any data used to justify regulatory action publicly available for independent scrutiny. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack science abuser.”

    That’s your conclusion? Sure there are reasons…some legal, some based on privacy laws, some based on proprietary product owned by businesses.

    But holding that aside, the hacks you decry are those who wrote the bill you mentioned. If it’s just making info public that concerns you, maybe they should just take out the “reproducibility” the GOP decided to throw in there, and which even the op-Ed you cite says is often impossible . Also, the bill says this:

    “The EPA may not spend more than $1 million per fiscal year on carrying out this Act.”

    You know how much the CBO says it will cost the EPA if the bill passes? Between $10k and $30k per study. Know how many studies the EPA uses in a year? 50k. Guess there not supposed to use scientific studies, eh Ronald?

    The hacks you should be concerned about are the hacks who wrote the bill.

    1. EPA is never concerned about the costs of their regulation. Tell me why I should be concerned at how much it will cost EPA to actually be scientific?

  21. Tony what ar your credentials as to assess the validity of climate change? Do you even have a scientific background?

    Tia

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.