H/T to GwPF’s Benny Peiser
Timothy Cama
A Senate committee voted Tuesday to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using ‘secret science’ to back its regulations.
The vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee came after the GOP-controlled House repeatedly approved the bill. It previous was stalled in the Democratic-majority Senate.
Under the measure, which President Obama has threatened to veto if the Senate passes it, the EPA would only be allowed to use scientific studies whose detailed results are posted publicly online.
“EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public, and therefore cannot be reproduced and verified,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill’s sponsor, said at a committee hearing.
“What this bill is trying to accomplish is to make sure that we strengthen the scientific information the EPA uses to make regulations, guidance and assessments,” he continued.
But Democrats said the bill would unnecessary cut in half the studies that the EPA can use, because research is often uses proprietary, health-related or otherwise restricted data.
“This bill would force them to use whatever science was available after legal challenges generate from the broad language of this legislation,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Secret data allows EPA to cherry-pick anything that suits its purpose, regardless of whether there is alternative research pointing to a different conclusion or opposing the one selected by EPA.
Elected representatives of the people are thus kept in the dark.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.“
James Madison
The Federalist No. 47: The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts
New York Packet
January 30, 1788
“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”
George Washington
Washington’s Farewell Address
1796
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/american-founding-and-19th-century-quotes-checks-and-balances
Serious typo by someone or wrong footed.
Bolded an inversion in the external quote.
“EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public, and therefore cannot be reproduced and verified,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill’s sponsor, said at a committee hearing.
tchannon says: April 29, 2015 at 5:48 pm
“Serious typo by someone or wrong footed. Bolded an inversion in the external quote.”
(“EPA has a long history of relying on science that was not created by the agency itself. This often means that the science is not available to the public, and therefore cannot be reproduced and verified,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the bill’s sponsor, said at a committee hearing.)
What did the R-Sen actually say? Is the “scien-terrific” data public or not?
Presumably the legislature doesn’t have the majority necessary to prevent Obama from exercising the veto. It is, was a sensible bill.
Not that it clarifies much but Sen Barrasso has this on his blog
Screengrabs of the act courtesy Sen Barrasso’s blog (should be no copyright issues – none stated).
wpid-screenshot_2015-04-29-21-35-34.png
wpid-screenshot_2015-04-29-21-35-34.png
Seems standard jargonese but section 2 is a quandary.
I could well be wrong but this is
a) The EPA are not required to say anything and can use dodgy science – you may be able to view it but we won’t say anything or if we do expect a ‘good day to release bad news’.
b) Existing ‘nondiscretionary’ legislation is primary but the EPA already hide behind this anyway (and destroy emails whilst they haggle on definitions about if Richard Windsor is a real person or a figment of d3n13r’s imagination). Doesn’t that make this pointless? A Shylock ‘pound of flesh’? Or am I misreading intent?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1030/text
I admit I could be reading this wrong but section 2 makes me wonder..?
The ERDDA acts seem broad in definition giving the EPA a wide wedge to regulate what they deem toxic (makes sense of the appropriation of ‘dirty’ and ‘toxic’ CO2 meme these past years).
Looking to home l, I dread what my poor head will feel when I look through Milliband’s 2008 legislative gift to the nation.
Do realize the importance that the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx of Giza is a clock counting down the precession of the Earth?
The heart of the Sphinx indicates the brightest star in the constellation Leo in the period of construction.
ren says: April 30, 2015 at 6:12 am
“Do realize the importance that the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx of Giza is a clock counting down the precession of the Earth? The heart of the Sphinx indicates the brightest star in the constellation Leo in the period of construction.”
Can you please translate this to stupid earthling speak?
Egyptian astronomers have provided us with important information on the impact of changing the angle of inclination of the Earth’s axis on the climate. They made a huge effort to do so. Apparently saw it as very important.
Will Janoschka if you see a a convex heart Lion? This pointer clock.
ren says: “April 30, 2015 at 7:53 am
“Egyptian astronomers have provided us with important information on the impact of changing the angle of inclination of the Earth’s axis on the climate. They made a huge effort to do so. Apparently saw it as very important.”
OK, Apparently saw “it as very important” I can accept that “it” was seen as important. Just what is “it”, and why is “it” important?
Let’s see ice growth in the Antarctic.
Click graph.
ren says: April 30, 2015 at 8:12 am
Will Janoschka if you see a a convex heart Lion? This pointer clock.
I see no convex anything! What is your point?
Will Janoschka says:
April 30, 2015 at 8:40 am
ren says: April 30, 2015 at 8:12 am
Will Janoschka if you see a a convex heart Lion? This pointer clock.
I see no convex anything! What is your point?
Whether you see now?
Will Janoschka
Let’s see Antarctica.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Encoded in the Great Pyramid proportions have to convince us of mathematical knowledge builders.
Let’s see the ocean temperature anomalies around Antarctica.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-47.56,-87.51,395
Reblogged this on mrgnome wordpress com and commented:
This is really good for openness.
ren & will: you’re way off topic re Egypt.
The objection to banning secret science makes sense, but only within a static view; i.e., there may now be research organizations which maintain a proprietary interest in studies they have produced, and if EPA is required to publicize all its data, codes, etc., it will not have access to these studies for the purpose of making policy.
But, from a more dynamic view, these research organizations will see that their future research will be debarred from any impact on policy, and so a lot of them will be motivated to change the terms for releasing information. If they do not change the terms they will be close to an admission that their results are not quite up to the standards necessary to guide policy.