It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Passes Bill Targeting EPA’s “Weird Science”

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
In an effort to curb wild science used by the U.S. EPA, the House of Representatives passed a bill to make "science" based decisions more transparent and accountable.

This will never get Obama's signature of course, but it might lay groundwork for future exposures.

Maybe it's time Congress actually makes these "science" based regulations explain themselves better instead of the usual "generally accepted" attitudes.


House Passes Bill Targeting EPA’s “Weird Science”



The EPA has become a bureaucratic Frankenstein Monster

It looks like the “luck of the Irish” continues today.

Last week, I reported the US House of Representatives was poised to vote on H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015. The purpose of this legislation is “to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.”

The measure passed, along with another one that would put an additional check on the EPA:

The House has passed two Republican-backed bills that would place new restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency.

A bill approved Wednesday would require the EPA to disclose scientific data behind proposed regulations, while a measure passed Tuesday would prohibit the agency from appointing registered lobbyists to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.



H.R. 1030

H.R. 1029




edit on Mar-19-2015 by xuenchen because: ;;added 2nd link;; "-"36




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Its about time someone stuck it to them.. EPA seems to be a waste of taxpayer dollars no milestones or anything to account for I say dissolve em!! reply to: xuenchen



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   


“to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.”
Sounds fair to me, i would not think the y would have a problem with that. But i would think they would require the same for claims to dispute them. Which i am sure replicants can't and won't do.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
This is great to finally hold these people accountable. Why wouldn't you want policy to be based upon clear and easy to understand science? It is definitely a step in the right direction, although, I would rather take the EPA, NSA, IRS and a few other alphabet agencies and disband them.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is great to finally hold these people accountable. Why wouldn't you want policy to be based upon clear and easy to understand science? It is definitely a step in the right direction, although, I would rather take the EPA, NSA, IRS and a few other alphabet agencies and disband them.


I could not agree more.

If we had a 'real president' he'd have no qualms publicly telling entire agencies to get their collective s# together within ten days ... or no more paychecks ... and no transfers to any other 'open' government agency. At that moment it would only take one leader amongst the labor force to say, "Ya'll heard the man. Bring your torches and pitchforks with ya to work tomorrow."

People so easily forget that the country had no such agencies once upon a time. And then the Good Idea Fairy waved her magic wand. -Sigh



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   
These controls seem reasonable to me. There should always be some dissenting view, and they should be able to share their criticisms. I think there is a case to be made that sometimes the ones who question the consensus view are suppressed. So, making the process more transparent is a no-brainer. In fact, it seems self-evident that they should already be functioning in this manner.

I'm curious why the Democrats don't support these relatively straightforward controls.


dex



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Both seem like actual common sense ideas...

My head might explode from the paradox.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
This is really a no brainer and should be heavily supported by both parties and the white house. After all, wasn't one of Obama's B# campaign promises a more open and transparent government? Now is his chance to finally keep a promise he made 7 years ago. I think all legislation should be able to be easily read and understood by all constituents as opposed to the vague and cumbersome legalese mumbo jumbo pork they tend to be loaded down in.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This would be fine and dandy except for the GOP's oft-stated wish that the EPA vanish entirely. So anything the overall GOP has to add to the EPA's regulations will usually fall on the side of hindering it. The EPA was more or less created by Richard Nixon while he was president, although he tried to defund it soon before leaving office, so this new GOP party is far to the right of even Nixon (today he'd be seen as a liberal tree-hugger by these 21st century Republicans).



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
This would be fine and dandy except for the GOP's oft-stated wish that the EPA vanish entirely.


Which would be perfectly fine as there are state-level EPAs and having a Federal agency is redundant.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But the environment needs all the help it can get! Praise ye Richard Nixon, the Father of the EPA, for being so wise and far-seeing.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

It has help, at the state level in all 50 states.

The EPA, along with the IRS and several other agencies, should be eliminated to help streamline the Federal government and put more power back in the hands of the constituent states.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

The EPA was intended to clean up the sites where corporation dumped hazardous waste and the pollution that they filled the air. At no time did they envision the EPA managing mud puddles on private property calling them "wet lands." I am allowed to own it, pay taxes on it but have no control over it.

For one, I believe that the EPA should be dissolved for no other reason than it's pervasive over reach. It has accomplished it's initial goals and now it is just trying to remain relevant.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Can we do the same thing to the FDA? Then we can dump all the terrible science that the drug scheduling program is based on.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Now the EPA has studies on the particulate matter that comes out of backyard BBQs. They want to eventually regulate that. It's all for your own good though.

But I'm sure we don't need to reign them in at all with any Congressional Oversite.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Now the EPA has studies on the particulate matter that comes out of backyard BBQs. They want to eventually regulate that. It's all for your own good though.


They are free to monitor mine. Only rules are it has to be inside of it while I am holding the lid down.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

BRAVO!



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I'm not sure if you could've found a more biased source. It's all well and good to believe this is what the authors of the bill want, but when some of them are claiming that 'climate change is a lie from the pit of Hell,' it's hard to accept what they say about science and the environment at face value.

There's nothing really 'weird' about the science the EPA uses. It's been reviewed, peer reviewed and subject to rigorous evaluations. Last years proposal was nearly identical, the CBO said that bill would end up costing the agency, and tax payers, money, to the tune of $250 million annually. The agency would utilize fewer scientific studies meaning they'd have fewer aspects of a problem to consider.

Rather than making the EPA a more efficient agency, the GOP has decided they don't like the answers that the EPA has been finding. So they're altering the process of finding those answers to make it harder, less efficient and less effective at doing its job.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
I'm not sure if you could've found a more biased source. It's all well and good to believe this is what the authors of the bill want, but when some of them are claiming that 'climate change is a lie from the pit of Hell,' it's hard to accept what they say about science and the environment at face value.

There's nothing really 'weird' about the science the EPA uses. It's been reviewed, peer reviewed and subject to rigorous evaluations. Last years proposal was nearly identical, the CBO said that bill would end up costing the agency, and tax payers, money, to the tune of $250 million annually. The agency would utilize fewer scientific studies meaning they'd have fewer aspects of a problem to consider.

Rather than making the EPA a more efficient agency, the GOP has decided they don't like the answers that the EPA has been finding. So they're altering the process of finding those answers to make it harder, less efficient and less effective at doing its job.


Maybe I'm not that bright so please explain to me the science behind the declaration of a mud puddle that measures 3x10 feet a wetland and only fills two or three times a year. There's no farming going on here in the last ten years and only used as a vacation home. My "wet land" lies 150 feet from a creek that feeds a large lake 2 miles away. Where's the science? Could it be the cow farts from 20 years ago? Maybe if I bought some carbon credits from Al Gore?
edit on 22-3-2015 by buddah6 because: lobotomized through superior pain meds.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: links234
Rather than making the EPA a more efficient agency...


Why does a redundant agency need to be efficient? The very fact that it exists means it is unefficient, we do not need state and Federal EPAs.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join