Just how brilliant are Trump & Pruitt, his US EPA director.

They have just announced that the EPA will no longer accept secret science, unpublished garbage that has driven its direction under the Obama lot. Only published science, with full data & methodology open to all to evaluate, will be used in setting policy.

No longer can activists get away with hiding their data, if they want to participate, & by inference get government grants. Their findings will have to be published so they can be replicated, or disproven by anyone who is interested.

As we all know the whole thing has been driven by the "hide the decline" brigade, who's conclusions could never stand up to scrutiny. With this requirement the scam is now destined for the dust bin of history, to nestle with others like the stomach ulcer & Y2K bug.

What a brilliant way of making the scam promoters jump off the gravy train by choice, or be shown up for what they are. They will be jumping off just as quickly as they can. That train will be so empty, it won't need a cent of taxpayer funds.

Any one noticed that swamp level is disappearing increasingly quickly?

Dear Hassie,

Actually, I have a different picture of Mr Pruitt from the
one you've described:

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16684952/epa-scott-pruitt-director-regulations

Has been Unfortunately Mr Turnbull believes in the nonsense. With the most resources and almost the highest electricity prices you would think people would of woken up to the false religion. I suspect many of the getup clowns have been through uni and still push the gw lies. We really need a Trump like figure to drain the swamp. Dutton could be the man?

The new rules are certainly welcome and the new administration deserves credit for introducing them. But just to be clear, its not a new idea. Its been argued for over the past two or more decades going all the way back to the times when the data was ignored so as to demonise DDT and data was tortured to allow some to claim that second hand smoke was a problem.

The notion that the EPA should be able to introduce costly and business-killing rules based on research that can't be checked is absurd. There can be and has been only one reason to hide the data and that is that its not at all as strong as the EPA claims.

That's why they now pout that there will be less regulation ie if they have to prove their case using publicly available data, they have a much harder time doing so.

So yet another win for the US economy courtesy of the new broom in the EPA.

In other good news on the climate front, "Federal Judge Dismissed Claim Of A Conspiracy To Suppress Global Warming Science"....
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/21/federal-judge-conspiracy-exxon-chevron/

It bears remembering that Pruit heads the Environmental
Protection Agency. It's easy to forget this as the man
seems to think its his job to undo as many regulations
protecting the environment and public health as possible
and to maximise fossil fuel industry profits. That's clear
from his constant peddling of climate myths and misinformation.

There is no consistency at all to his various arguments other
than we should continue to burn fossil fuels. Pruit's job is
to protect human and environmental health and it is hard to
imagine anyone doing the job any worse. Read the link I gave
in my previous post.

BTW - under the Obama Administration the Environmental
Protection Agency regulated carbon pollution because it was
legally required to do so under the Clean Air Act - according
to the Supreme Court. That's not being "weaponised" against
fossil fuels - it's called enforcing the law to protect
America's health.

People should also be made aware that Pruitt is a climate
change denier (he also does not believe in evolution -
but that's another story). Pruitt has sued the agency
he now leads (EPA) more than a dozen times as
Oklahoma's Attorney General. He rejects clear and
compelling scientific evidence and is determined to make
it as difficult as possible for compelling independent
scientific research to continue. That is a dangerous
person to have running things especially when making public
policy. Embracing ignorance is not an option.

However, this is today's America under Donald Trump.

That is totally wrong foxy.

Under Obama the EPA used the confidence trick of organising lawsuits by the ratbag greens, which they failed to defend, to get many of these crazy powers they were never granted by congress.

This was a probably illegal, & most definitely immoral technique to get Obamas desire to ruin the USA commercially, in force without any reference to Congress.

Thank god they now have an administration which just may save us from a world government controlled by the most immoral & corrupt organisation the world has ever seen, the United Nations.

I'm sorry Foxy, but anyone who believes in the global warming scam is a fool, who has not put the work into understanding the garbage.

This is what is so good about this new rule. The global warming con men will no longer be able to get their pronouncements used in law making, without the public availability of their claims, & the data & techniques they used to justify their claims.

In other words, their science must be transparent, & available for others to replicate, or disprove. As the global warming brigade do not have a single piece of solid data to support the scam, this will be the death of it.

Dear Hassie,

You'll have to excuse my scepticism regarding Scott
Pruitt. He is a climate change denier who as I stated
earlier has sued the agency he now leads more than a
dozen times as Oklahoma's Attorney General. He ignores
a large body of evidence collected over decades that
shows fossil fuels burning as the main factor in
climate change. He totally rejects clear and compelling
scientific evidence - and that is dangerous when making
public policy. Therefore he will do whatever he can to
obstruct scientific research - particularly from
independent scientists - he will continue to cater to the
fossil fuel industries - because he firmly believes -
"where there's smoke - there are jobs!"

Amazing that the American people are putting up with this
shyte.

I note that this chap doesn't believe in evolution either.

Is evolution a scam as well, Hasbeen?

And before you start, runner: nobody cares what you, for want of a better word, 'think'.

"People should also be made aware that Pruitt is a climate change denier"

During his January 18, 2017, confirmation hearing to be EPA Administrator, he said that "the climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that in some manner".

oops....

"I note that this chap doesn't believe in evolution either."

Then again he doesn't not believe it either. He points out that it is and remains a theory. Besides which, his views on it are neither here nor there as concerns his EPA responsibilities.

"I’ve been asking the question lately, what is true environmentalism? What do you consider true environmentalism? And from my perspective, it’s environmental stewardship, not prohibition,” Pruitt said....

//Then again he doesn't not believe it either. He points out that it is and remains a theory.//

"There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution"
- Scott Pruitt

More on Mr Pruitt and what he really believes in:

http://time.com/5139589/scott-pruitt-climate-change-epa/

The man has a big mouth, small brain, no heart!

'I note that this chap doesn't believe in evolution either.' good to see his not brain dead.

"There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution"

That's right. That's why it remains a theory. It's the same reason why Relativity remains a theory.

"A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones."

The THEORY of evolution explains a lot of what we observe and think we know about the past. But it doesn't explain all observations and it is subject to amendment as new data becomes available. eg just in the last year or so, new discoveries have called in question the 'out of africa' theory of man's evolution. These new discoveries using new DNA techniques cause the theory to change.

Facts don't change- theories do.

I would like to see see something similar here instead of the slightly less silly than Labor's promises to wreck our economy via ludicrously expensive electricity.

I’m amazed that the tired old “climate change denier” epithet is still being used by people with no arguments outside their rusted on ideology. Nothing the doomsayers predicted has eventuated. The money they scammed off us would have been better used in finding measures to adapt to climate change.

//"There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution"

That's right. That's why it remains a theory. It's the same reason why Relativity remains a theory.//

Really? You don't think there's sufficient empirical data to support evolution or relativity? O.... kay. Sounds like somebody's drunk the Kool-Aid.

"Really? You don't think there's sufficient empirical data to support evolution or relativity?"

Define 'support'.

Earlier I wrote "The THEORY of evolution explains a lot of what we observe and think we know about the past." So clearly I think there's lots of empirical data.

But the point Pruitt (and many others) make is that it remains a theory. I doesn't explain everything and it remains subject to revision. Therefore its not fact. 'The sun rises in the east' is a fact'...'the sun will extinguish all its fuel in 5 billion years' is a theory.

In context, Pruitt's point was that we should be aware that evolution is a theory, as yet not fully proven.

Saying that its largely supported so lets pretend its a fact is not exactly the scientific way. But if you can play pretend in order to mock political opponents, then, it seems, acting unscientifically is just fine....with some.

Just like the theory of climate change, it was once an accepted known fact that stress & worry caused stomach ulcers.

Well it was until someone proved it was all garbage.

Now Pruitt is going to require the climate scam people to present their evidence for their conclusion.

As we all know, that despite billions of public funds spent trying to find or more often fabricate, [hide the decline], they have nothing to prove CO2 has any effect on anything but plant growth.

Dear Hasbeen,

How are you going you old coot?

You ask how good is this? Bloody brilliant mate. It is blokes like you who make my day. Somehow you have managed to contort yourself into believing a bloke who is on the record taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the fossil fuel industry, even when he once ran unopposed, is not the very definition of the swamp. He is there promising to undo regulations that will now allow the people who paid him to make millions if not billions in extra profits.

That is a gravy train by any stretch of the imagination. But you don't have any imagination do you? This bloke pulls in donations and kickbacks that far outstrip scientists who are normally paid very modestly.

Yet you are cheering him on and condemning them.

Unbelievable! I really am very impressed by how much you have bought in to the cult of Trump.

The old Hasbeen would have picked this bloke for the grifter that he is in a flash. There is very little of you left though isn't there. Pity.

Scientific inquiry doesn't "prove' anything, it only supports or falsifies a hypothesis/belief. Even if a hypothesis/belief is supported by an experiment, the basis for it is not upheld, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

The angles of a plane triangle can be proven, however, to add to 180 degrees, now and forever. Pruitt wants such proof of AGW. Does he require proof that smoking causes cancer too?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1956/01/lung-cancer-and-smoking-what-we-really-know/304760/

In the end these changes to the EPA procedures simply mean that any science used to justify EPA actions will need to be open, transparent and able to be critiqued and replicated.

If it is thought that the science is and always was sound, then there ought not to be any problems or concern about opening the data to all interested parties. The only reason one wouldn't want the data to be openly available is if one was concerned it, the data, wouldn't stand scrutiny.

And that's exactly what's happening. The EPA made decisions about what they wanted to regulate and then went looking for 'science' to back the decision and if the 'science' wasn't quite up to scratch that was OK because no one would ever know. Until now.

For the likes of SR/Foxy and myriad others, the data is irrelevant anyway. The global warming cheer squad haven't concerned themselves with the data behind the scare for a very long time, if ever. They are much more used to simply accepting what they been told to believe as fact and then denouncing those who, with better understanding of the data, have a different view.

It is a sign of the times and an indicator of the decline in social values, that a proposal to make decision-making more transparent and more open to scrutiny is viewed with suspicion by so many. But for that many, the issue isn't whether the decision is valid or right or based on fact. The issue is whether is supports the agenda.

Once again it bears remembering that Scott Pruitt
heads the Environmental Protection Agency.

It's easy to forget this as the man seems to think it's
his job to undo as many regulations protecting the
environment and public health as possible and to
maximise fossil fuel industry profits. This is clear
from his constant peddling of climate myths and
misinformation. There's no consistency at all to his
various arguments other than we should continue to burn
fossil fuels.

It is regrettable but I guess inevitable that some
people and some governments see pollution as a by-product
of desired economic development - "Where there's smoke
there's jobs." Control of pollution under Donald Trump
and Scott Pruitt has become politically diffcult
because the economic interests behind "smokestack"
industries are a very powerful political lobby (like
the NRA and gun control) that is reluctant to commit the
necessary resources to the task.

After decades of carelessly dumping noxious gases and
particulates into the atmosphere, most of the industrialised
societies are now enforcing clean-air standards, and air
quality in these societies is generally much better than at
any time in the past.

It's too bad for the American people that under Scott Pruitt
and Mr Trump - things are going backwards. They don't seem
to have a clue that resources are limited and exhaustible
and that pollution can disrupt the ecological balance on which
our survival depends on this planet. And those are facts - not
theories!

So Foxy, we'll put you into the anti-transparency column then? Or do you just prefer not to know when you're being manipulated, especially if its in a 'good' cause?

To get a flavour of how much these people manipulate, obfuscate and outright lie to achieve their ends you might like to look over this...
http://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/03-16-12_arnett_carb_diesel_print.pdf

From that report.." Because CARB, EPA, and other state and federal agencies use flawed science and methodology in human health effects to justify extraordinarily expensive and ever-tightening air quality regulations, tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost annually, and the health of Americans, instead of improving, has suffered because of the resultant joblessness and loss of wealth." But we'd prefer not to know that, n'est pas?

Remember how Europe encouraged/forced a societal transfer to diesel. That change was done based on hidden science also. But the Europeans were assured it was the best of science, nonetheless. Checkout how European governments are now penalising diesel because it is polluting. How many lives were lost due to them using faulty science to push a political agenda? I guess some prefer not to know, eh?Somehow those governments forget to mention their previous errors but still assure everyone that their new stance is based on the best science...but don't bother checking the data, for God's sake!

Fifty years ago, US did have some pollution problems, just like China and India today. Although those problems were long since resolved. no government programme ever dies. They always claim there's more to be done. Jobs, EPA jobs, are at stake. And if that means that others have to suffer job losses...well so be it.

The US has few pollution issues (other than those caused by the EPA....http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/07/colorado-river-epa-mine-wastewater-spill/31320641/) and if they do, then let's see the data that they currently hide.

Its not a fact that resources are exhaustible. Its not a fact that pollution at current levels in the USA can "disrupt the ecological balance". Its not even a theory. Its just scare-mongering. Those who check the data know that. The others...well, not so much.

Climate change may or may not be a fact of life but what is unarguable is that the quality of the air in many places has improved, and as internal combustion engines become less it will undoubtedly improve more.

I was in London not long after the burning of coal in open fires was banned, not long before, a couple of people had died because of the London Smog.

I was again in London some two years later and had the pleasure of seeing the dome of St. Paul's shining in the sunlight, a sight that had not been enjoyed for some 400 years.

Dear Is Mise,

I remember flying into Los Angeles and not being able to see
due to a brown thick blanket covering the entire landscape
down below.
Also my eyes watering for days because it took me a while to
get used to the smog, and then one morning waking up to a
bright clear day for a change and from our
apartment lounge room window seeing mountains and discovering
something that had been there all along but
\which we hadn't been able to see previously - due to the smog.
I remember listening to the "smog alerts" given to us daily
via news forecasts. And then the incident of a woman's body
being found by police in Griffith Park - on the news, and being
told that they knew she wasn't from Los Angeles because her
lungs were too clear

Dear mhaze,

No don't put me into the "anti-transparency" phase.
Instead put me into "anti BS." That would be more
appropriate.

The following links explain:

http://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/scott-pruitt-promises/

And -

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/26/16936104/epa-trump-toxic-air-pollution

Foxy if you aren't in the pro-transparency group, you are in the pro-bulldust group.

Let me assure you that CO2 does not cause smog. It does not make your eyes water, & in fact you are producing quite a bit of it yourself.

In places with the unfortunate geographical position of Los Angeles, car exhausts can be a problem. For 40 years now California has had local admission standards to help mitigate this problem, & this is the sort of thing the EPA should be doing.

Trying to push an agenda with secret & corrupt science is not. I expect clowns like steely to be all for using any lie to push their ideology, but I did think you were more likely to want to know the truth.

Foxy,

That reminds me of flying into Mumbai. as we approached the pilot said, "...and visibility in Mumbai is (pause) well, it's Mumbai!"

Even there, though, things are improving and on my last visit (last year) I actually saw the stars, the heavenly ones not the Bollywood variety.

Six years ago we stayed with friends in the Bandra area of Mumbai.
He is a top executive with an international company and as such has an apartment provided as part of his package, said apt. took up the entire top floor of a five-story building and it wasn't until the second day that we saw the ocean from our bedroom window.

The previous day the air pollution was so heavy that the sea was hidden and it was less than 200 yards away and in full uninterrupted view. We'd been advised to stay indoors the day before as their air conditioning had fairly efficient filters.

Gentlemen,

I'll take on board what you guys are stating.
However, seeing as you admit that the pollution
control laws have helped many places in many countries,
and cities like Mumbai and Los Angeles, then surely
you have to agree that Mr Scott Pruitt's undoing of
as many regulations protecting the environment and
public health as possible and maximising fossil fuel
industry profits is at best rather questionable, at best.

You're welcome.

Dear Hasbeen,

Accusing me of lying? My goodness I had better review my last post.

Are you an old coot? Check.

Does scott Pruitt take donations in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry? Check

Is he rescinding regulations that will make his benefactors millions if not billions in extra profits? Well don't take my word for it take his;

“In year one, EPA finalized 22 deregulatory actions, saving Americans more than $1 billion in regulatory costs.”

By 'Americans' he of course means corporate Americans.

Check.

Like you has he brought into the Cult of Trump or has he remained independent as any statutory authority should?

Once again in his own words;

“We have been hard at work enacting President Donald Trump's agenda during my first year as EPA Administrator. His courage and leadership have been key to our success. From his decision to exit the Paris Accord to his executive order empowering EPA to review and rescind the Clean Power Plan, the President is delivering on his promises and getting results for the American people.”
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/year_in_review_3.5.18.pdf

Gosh. I think you might have to take a cheek each when you are on your knees behind your president. Pucker up boys!

Check.

I'm at a loss. Perhaps you should show me where I have lied to save some time.

Seriously though this is the type of swamp rat you use to loath. Why are you now polishing his turds?

So pro-transparency but opposed to any policies that might increase transparency!! Doublethink lives.

One can only marvel at the mental gymnastics required to hold those two positions concurrently.

Foxy,

No one is suggesting that the changes to the EPA rules will move or seek to move conditions back to those that applied in the 1970s. That isn't what is being sought at all and suggesting it is, is mere scaremongering to support a different agenda.

For example, as I showed you in those previous links, the EPA is trying to reduce so-called PM2.5 pollution. This is so small that it couldn't even be measured in 1970 and, as you saw, the science suggesting it's dangerous is spectacularly questionable. It is that type of science that Pruitt is trying to bring into the 21st century.

Now its all very well to say that further cleaning the air is always good but in the adult world we know that there have to be compromises. Removing PM2.5 particles will cost jobs and cost significant money. No one disputes that. The issue therefore becomes whether those jobs and money are worth it. So far the science that we are allowed to see says no. But the EPA says the science that they hide says yes...so show us the science is Pruitt's attitude. Somehow you both agree and disagree with that.

As always, there is a sector of the populace who think that the costs in funds and jobs are always worth it, so long as those costs are borne by others. And then they'll tell themselves and anyone who'll listen, how ethical they are.

Dear mhaze,

The following link may clarify a few things for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/10/11/the-energy-202-the-other-scientific-consensus-the-epa-is-bucking/59dcff9230fb0468cea81e52/?utm_term=.4522631d0527

SR still doesn't know the difference between 'loath' and 'loathe'. He is hardly the sort of person to assume the task of correcting people like Hasbeen who actually know what they are talking about, and who can actually spell. What is it that's been said about people with the most to say having the least to contribute?

Foxy,

Your last link is behind a paywall but I hardly need to read it to know what its about.

The thing is, Foxy, you continually return to these claims that Pruitt is trying to reverse unassailably good (in your mind) EPA policy. Even if that were true (and it's not), that isn't the issue here.

The issue here is about Pruitt's attempts to open up the EPA science so that all can see and evaluate the value and validity of the science and the underlying data. That you, and oh so many others, prefer to have that science and data hidden shows that they fear the science and the data doesn't support the agenda.

It seems that you'd prefer to remain ignorant of the science, to allow others to tell you what to believe, to abdicate reason in favour of adherence to those who tell you to simply trust that they know the truth. It seems that you're happy that jobs and livelihoods be sacrificed without knowing and/or caring if the sacrifice is valid. Ban PM2.5 while cheering the suppression of the supporting data while ignoring the only available data that shows that the bans are useless.

If you want to "clarify a few things for" me, clarify how that thinking can be reconciled with a reverence for the truth and caring for those whose jobs and lives will be upended because of potentially useless rules.

Again, we aren't debating the efficacy of individual rules and procedures. I'm happy to have that debate but just now we're debating whether a government agency is allowed to upend society based on science that they aren't prepared to share or defend.

Dear mhaze,

This where we disagree. I don't believe that the US Government
is doing what you and Hasbeen suggest. Their actions dispute
your claims.

See you on another discussion.

Dear mhaze,

Absolute baloney.

Pruiit isn't interested in the science at all. Even before him there was this;

"The EPA’s Office of Science and Technology has historically been in charge of developing clean water standards for states. Before January 30 of this year, the website said those standards were “science-based,” meaning they were based on what peer-reviewed science recommended as safe levels of pollutants for drinking, swimming, or fishing. Since January 30, though, the reference to “science-based” standards has disappeared. Now, the office, instead, says it develops “economically and technologically achievable standards” to address water pollution."

Now it is;

"Yet, “climate change resilience” is no longer even listed as a goal of the EPA’s sustainability plan. The removing, burying or redacting of climate change information also comes amid the agency’s wider freeze on litigation and enforcement actions with reported delays or rollbacks on dozens of environmental regulations."
http://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorship/

Full on censorship of the highest order.

Oh look, the EPA is now dropping a raft of fuel efficiency regulations for new motor vehicles in response to lobbying from car manufacturers.

Hell of a lot of science based decision making in that backflip.