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.