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.