Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Wingnuts pass bill to silence scientists -- it's good to know your enemies!

Wingnuts pass bill to silence scientists -- it's good to know your enemies!

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

This is Amerika Inc., action at its slimy, fetid best!  The republicans, in their ongoing efforts to screw the people in favor of big money bloodsucking corporations, just passed a bill that prohibits scientists from advising the government on their own findings and research.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/?source=newsletter

Can you say Koch Bros.?

Claiming they let Jesus rule their lives, but with a consistent history of favoring money over human dignity, health, or lives, the republicans could care less about the human costs of their ideas and programs.  They just won control of both the house and the senate, and this new bill exemplifies their zeal to screw the 97% of us not making dividends from the sales of fossil fuels.

It's good to know your enemies!

Screw Amerika Inc.!! Control of the government through campaign financing.

gatorfan



It's usually a good idea to check your own work - actually the bill does no such thing. It states BOARD MEMBERS (not public commentators) may not participate in activities of the Board that involve their own work. You know - to avoid the complications of self-interest.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me but then I'm not a communist.....

(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a
particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member
having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
that activity;
``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

But given your impeccably biased source I can understand your confusion.....

Guest


Guest

It is funny tho... word was getting worked up because he thght pubs were purposefully obfuscating public disclosure.

But for one of the biggest entitlements in history crammed though by the leftists there is no outrage over deception.

Yea team..!!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:It's usually a good idea to check your own work - actually the bill does no such thing. It states BOARD MEMBERS (not public commentators) may not participate in activities of the Board that involve their own work. You know - to avoid the complications of self-interest.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me but then I'm not a communist.....

(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a
       particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member
       having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
       that activity;
           ``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
       activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
       evaluation of their own work;

But given your impeccably biased source I can understand your confusion.....

You may be right, maybe I am confused.  But the following quote from the link I cited seems pretty clear:

"The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it  “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

One thing that does get my hackles up is when a statement of any kind is made by someone of note, and its veracity is disputed because of WHO said or quoted it, rather than for its own merit.

It would seem that you and Herr Markle share the same misguided ethos -- you both claim that nothing true can come from the mouth of someone you distrust.  Why you think that such a tack makes you appear anything other than silly, is beyond me.

Daily Koz was quoting the article.  If they quoted another piece that claimed that Sarah Palin was actually more intelligent than any of her spoken words communicate, I suppose you would again dismiss it.  LOL



Last edited by Wordslinger on 11/20/2014, 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:It is funny tho... word was getting worked up because he thght pubs were purposefully obfuscating public disclosure.

But for one of the biggest entitlements in history crammed though by the leftists there is no outrage over deception.

Yea team..!!

Bullshit PkrBum -- Thousands of progressives expressed their disgust with Obamacare -- because it was a present to the bloodsucking health insurance swine, and not a single payer National Healthcare Program that we still want, expressed outrage with the ACA.  It's also true, that despite the subterfuge that was used to get the bill passed, millions of Americans now have health insurance that didn't before Obamacare.  Furthermore, recent polls of these same people show that the majority believe that Obamacare is excellent or good. You republicans whine constantly about the need to repeal the ACA, but you offer nothing to the millions who are now insured and who would lose their insurance if repeal was successful.

Yes, apparently we all were lied to by the government (what's new about that?  Remember Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld?), about Obamacare.  But the reality is it's now law, serves millions and despite flaws that are steadily being corrected -- by republicans and democrats -- it appears to be working; health care costs ARE dropping.  

The prevailing anti-science stance of the republican party is appallingly ignorant and hurtful to all of us regardless of our politics.  But then again, considering your party is dominated by folks who think the earth is 6,000 years old, speaks for itself.  LOL

Guest


Guest

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

RCP Average 10/8 - 11/13 -- For 37.7 Against 51.6

I think we'll also see a shift now that gruber is getting a little coverage in the media. But I've noticed that the leftists have never acknowledged that obamacaid was and is unpopular. It goes with the talkingpoint now that it doesn't matter that deception was used... because it's helping some people. That is a propagandist point... the manner in which the legislative process was abused and the people deceived does matter... it is what matters most. Without it you don't have what you falsely claim as a success... and rightly so.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

RCP Average 10/8 - 11/13 -- For 37.7   Against 51.6

I think we'll also see a shift now that gruber is getting a little coverage in the media. But I've noticed that the leftists have never acknowledged that obamacaid was and is unpopular. It goes with the talkingpoint now that it doesn't matter that deception was used... because it's helping some people. That is a propagandist point... the manner in which the legislative process was abused and the people deceived does matter... it is what matters most. Without it you don't have what you falsely claim as a success... and rightly so.

I don't dispute your disgust at being lied to about Obamacare when the administration was trying to get it passed.

But no matter how you look at it, the current facts are that millions of Americans who did not have health insurance and couldn't afford it prior to Obamacare, now do. Do you dispute that? What will your republican party offer these folks if the law is repealed? No cynicism here, I want to really hear your answer.

gatorfan



Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:

But given your impeccably biased source I can understand your confusion.....

You may be right, maybe I am confused.  But the following quote from the link I cited seems pretty clear:


One thing that does get my hackles up is when a statement of any kind is made by someone of note, and its veracity is disputed because of WHO said or quoted it, rather than for its own merit.

It would seem that you and Herr Markle share the same misguided ethos -- you both claim that nothing true can come from the mouth of someone you distrust.  Why you think that such a tack makes you appear anything other than silly, is beyond me.  LOL

LOL all you want, I READ THE ENTIRE BILL. Did you or are you depending on whoever to interpret it for you?

I prefer to look at facts and decide for myself. Interest groups of any ilk will spin anything to fit their agenda. Left, right, center, or from outer space - you know as well as I do bias is rampant in the media. The only thing "Herr Markle" and I have in common is the ability to post on this forum. It would be a rare thing indeed if I commented on a Markle thread. I don't like hype.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:

But given your impeccably biased source I can understand your confusion.....

You may be right, maybe I am confused.  But the following quote from the link I cited seems pretty clear:


One thing that does get my hackles up is when a statement of any kind is made by someone of note, and its veracity is disputed because of WHO said or quoted it, rather than for its own merit.

It would seem that you and Herr Markle share the same misguided ethos -- you both claim that nothing true can come from the mouth of someone you distrust.  Why you think that such a tack makes you appear anything other than silly, is beyond me.  LOL

LOL all you want, I READ THE ENTIRE BILL. Did you or are you depending on whoever to interpret it for you?

I prefer to look at facts and decide for myself. Interest groups of any ilk will spin anything to fit their agenda. Left, right, center, or from outer space - you know as well as I do bias is rampant in the media. The only thing "Herr Markle" and I have in common is the ability to post on this forum. It would be a rare thing indeed if I commented on a Markle thread. I don't like hype.

Since you read the bill itself, please tell us whether one of the results would be that scientists would not be permitted to testify or advise on matters of science which were part of their own research. I'm all ears.

gatorfan



Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:

But given your impeccably biased source I can understand your confusion.....

You may be right, maybe I am confused.  But the following quote from the link I cited seems pretty clear:


One thing that does get my hackles up is when a statement of any kind is made by someone of note, and its veracity is disputed because of WHO said or quoted it, rather than for its own merit.

It would seem that you and Herr Markle share the same misguided ethos -- you both claim that nothing true can come from the mouth of someone you distrust.  Why you think that such a tack makes you appear anything other than silly, is beyond me.  LOL

LOL all you want, I READ THE ENTIRE BILL. Did you or are you depending on whoever to interpret it for you?

I prefer to look at facts and decide for myself. Interest groups of any ilk will spin anything to fit their agenda. Left, right, center, or from outer space - you know as well as I do bias is rampant in the media. The only thing "Herr Markle" and I have in common is the ability to post on this forum. It would be a rare thing indeed if I commented on a Markle thread. I don't like hype.

Since you read the bill itself, please tell us whether one of the results would be that scientists would not be permitted to testify or advise on matters of science which were part of their own research.  I'm all ears.

I don't see that - in fact comments are wide open to the public. That restriction applies - as I stated before - to BOARD members. Here is the bill - if you find a golden bullet in there let me know, if I'm mistaken I don't mind saying so.

To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration
Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board
member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``EPA Science Advisory Board Reform
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Independent Advice.--Section 8(a) of the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42
U.S.C. 4365(a)) is amended by inserting ``independently'' after
``Advisory Board which shall''.
(b) Membership.--Section 8(b) of the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C.
4365(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The Board shall be composed of at least nine members, one
of whom shall be designated Chairman, and shall meet at such times and
places as may be designated by the Chairman.
``(2) Each member of the Board shall be qualified by education,
training, and experience to evaluate scientific and technical
information on matters referred to the Board under this section. The
Administrator shall ensure that--
``(A) the scientific and technical points of view
represented on and the functions to be performed by the Board
are fairly balanced among the members of the Board;
``(B) at least ten percent of the membership of the Board
are from State, local, or tribal governments;
``(C) persons with substantial and relevant expertise are
not excluded from the Board due to affiliation with or
representation of entities that may have a potential interest
in the Board's advisory activities, so long as that interest is
fully disclosed to the Administrator and the public and
appointment to the Board complies with section 208 of title 18,
United States Code;
``(D) in the case of a Board advisory activity on a
particular matter involving a specific party, no Board member
having an interest in the specific party shall participate in
that activity;
``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;
``(F) Board members shall be designated as special
Government employees; and
``(G) no federally registered lobbyist is appointed to the
Board.
``(3) The Administrator shall--
``(A) solicit public nominations for the Board by
publishing a notification in the Federal Register;
``(B) solicit nominations from relevant Federal agencies,
including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the
Interior, and Health and Human Services;
``(C) make public the list of nominees, including the
identity of the entities that nominated each, and shall accept
public comment on the nominees;
``(D) require that, upon their provisional nomination,
nominees shall file a written report disclosing financial
relationships and interests, including Environmental Protection
Agency grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other
financial assistance, that are relevant to the Board's advisory
activities for the three-year period prior to the date of their
nomination, and relevant professional activities and public
statements for the five-year period prior to the date of their
nomination; and
``(E) make such reports public, with the exception of
specific dollar amounts, for each member of the Board upon such
member's selection.
``(4) Disclosure of relevant professional activities under
paragraph (3)(D) shall include all representational work, expert
testimony, and contract work as well as identifying the party for which
the work was done.
``(5) Except when specifically prohibited by law, the Agency shall
make all conflict of interest waivers granted to members of the Board,
member committees, or investigative panels publicly available.
``(6) Any recusal agreement made by a member of the Board, a member
committee, or an investigative panel, or any recusal known to the
Agency that occurs during the course of a meeting or other work of the
Board, member committee, or investigative panel shall promptly be made
public by the Administrator.
``(7) The terms of the members of the Board shall be three years
and shall be staggered so that the terms of no more than one-third of
the total membership of the Board shall expire within a single fiscal
year. No member shall serve more than two terms over a ten-year
period.''.
(c) Record.--Section 8(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(c)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``at the time any proposed'';
(B) by striking ``formal''; and
(C) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``to the Board such proposed''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``or draft risk or hazard
assessment,'' after ``the scientific and technical
basis of the proposed''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The
Board's advice and comments, including dissenting views
of Board members, and the response of the Administrator
shall be included in the record with respect to any
proposed risk or hazard assessment, criteria document,
standard, limitation, or regulation and published in
the Federal Register.''.
(d) Member Committees and Investigative Panels.--Section 8(e)(1)(A)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365(e)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``These member committees and investigative panels--
``(i) shall be constituted and operate in
accordance with the provisions set forth in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b), in
subsection (h), and in subsection (i);
``(ii) do not have authority to make
decisions on behalf of the Board; and
``(iii) may not report directly to the
Environmental Protection Agency.''.
(e) Public Participation.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365)
is amended by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h)(1) To facilitate public participation in the advisory
activities of the Board, the Administrator and the Board shall make
public all reports and relevant scientific information and shall
provide materials to the public at the same time as received by members
of the Board.
``(2) Prior to conducting major advisory activities, the Board
shall hold a public information-gathering session to discuss the state
of the science related to the advisory activity.
``(3) Prior to convening a member committee or investigative panel
under subsection (e) or requesting scientific advice from the Board,
the Administrator shall accept, consider, and address public comments
on questions to be asked of the Board. The Board, member committees,
and investigative panels shall accept, consider, and address public
comments on such questions and shall not accept a question that unduly
narrows the scope of an advisory activity.
``(4) The Administrator and the Board shall encourage public
comments, including oral comments and discussion during the
proceedings, that shall not be limited by an insufficient or arbitrary
time restriction. Public comments shall be provided to the Board when
received. The Board's reports shall include written responses to
significant comments offered by members of the public to the Board.
``(5) Following Board meetings, the public shall be given 15
calendar days to provide additional comments for consideration by the
Board.''.
(f) Operations.--Section 8 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4365) is further
amended by amending subsection (i) to read as follows:
``(i)(1) In carrying out its advisory activities, the Board shall
strive to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations, and,
in the event the Board feels compelled to offer policy advice, shall
explicitly distinguish between scientific determinations and policy
advice.
``(2) The Board shall clearly communicate uncertainties associated
with the scientific advice provided to the Administrator or Congress.
``(3) The Board shall ensure that advice and comments reflect the
views of the members and shall encourage dissenting members to make
their views known to the public, the Administrator, and Congress.
``(4) The Board shall conduct periodic reviews to ensure that its
advisory activities are addressing the most important scientific issues
affecting the Environmental Protection Agency.
``(5) The Board shall be fully and timely responsive to
Congress.''.

SEC. 3. RELATION TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

SEC. 4. RELATION TO THE ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978.

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed as supplanting the requirements of the Ethics in Government
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).

Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 2014.

Attest:

Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 1422

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

RCP Average 10/8 - 11/13 -- For 37.7   Against 51.6

I think we'll also see a shift now that gruber is getting a little coverage in the media. But I've noticed that the leftists have never acknowledged that obamacaid was and is unpopular. It goes with the talkingpoint now that it doesn't matter that deception was used... because it's helping some people. That is a propagandist point... the manner in which the legislative process was abused and the people deceived does matter... it is what matters most. Without it you don't have what you falsely claim as a success... and rightly so.

I don't dispute your disgust at being lied to about Obamacare when the administration was trying to get it passed.

But no matter how you look at it, the current facts are that millions of Americans who did not have health insurance and couldn't afford it prior to Obamacare, now do. Do you dispute that? What will your republican party offer these folks if the law is repealed? No cynicism here, I want to really hear your answer.

They deserve not to be covered... and the leftists that decided to insert fraud into the legislative process should be jailed. Look... I don't have any delusion about the direction our country is heading. I think the solution should be nationalizing the govt programs.

Completely separate the socialist systems from the private market. Let the govt fully service mcare, mcaid, ssdi, vets... etc.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Pkrbum: Many thanks for citing the bill. I read it carefully and find only the following section objectionable:

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

What in hell is the purpose of making it impossible for the Board to hear a scientist elaborate on his own research?

Let's say a scientist called Larry Einstein has created a method to measure the anti-environmental destructiveness of Fracking. The subject has come before the Board, and two of the board members work for the oil industry. What is the purpose in denying everyone on the board to look in depth at the problems found through Mr. Einstein's research -- by asking Larry to elaborate on his findings? The same problem, by the way, would exist if an oil company's scientist had done research that claims fracking is environmentally okay. According to (E) the board would again be denied the right to explore this advisor's premise.

What's the good of this rule, for all of us?

Sal

Sal

It makes it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the board, prohibits independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and makes it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.

So yeah, it's anti-science.

What else would you expect from the monkey house?

"This effectively turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head, with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not conflicted while academics who work on these issues are."

"Of course, a scientist with expertise on topics the Science Advisory Board addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies on that topic. That makes the scientist’s evaluation more valuable, not less."

http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letter%20opposing%20EPA%20SAB%20Reform%20Act%20HR%201422%20.pdf

gatorfan



Wordslinger wrote:Pkrbum:  Many thanks for citing the bill.  I read it carefully and find only the following section objectionable:

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

What in hell is the purpose of making it impossible for the Board to hear a scientist elaborate on his own research?

Let's say a scientist called Larry Einstein has created a method to measure the anti-environmental destructiveness of Fracking.  The subject has come before the Board, and two of the board members work for the oil industry.  What is the purpose in denying everyone on the board to look in depth at the problems found through Mr. Einstein's research -- by asking Larry to elaborate on his findings?  The same problem, by the way, would exist if an oil company's scientist had done research that claims fracking is environmentally okay.  According to (E) the board would again be denied the right to explore this advisor's premise.  

What's the good of this rule, for all of us?


Research = $$$

Don't you think it would lead to conflict of interest claims if the involved board members research and subsequent board results were contested?

Just because a Board member is involved in a particular area of research doesn't mean there aren't other scientists or SME's who can't be used to study the issue.

gatorfan



Sal wrote:[font=Arial Black]It makes it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the board, prohibits independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and makes it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.

How? Board membership is pretty well defined, if you had read the bill you would see that.

How are private scientists disenfranchised since they are members of the public - you know, the public the amendment cites as having multiple opportunities to comment on board activity.

No, the real issue is Dumbocrats crying because the Repubes actually accomplished something. That is amazing in itself....

Hilarious.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Pkrbum:  Many thanks for citing the bill.  I read it carefully and find only the following section objectionable:

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

What in hell is the purpose of making it impossible for the Board to hear a scientist elaborate on his own research?

Let's say a scientist called Larry Einstein has created a method to measure the anti-environmental destructiveness of Fracking.  The subject has come before the Board, and two of the board members work for the oil industry.  What is the purpose in denying everyone on the board to look in depth at the problems found through Mr. Einstein's research -- by asking Larry to elaborate on his findings?  The same problem, by the way, would exist if an oil company's scientist had done research that claims fracking is environmentally okay.  According to (E) the board would again be denied the right to explore this advisor's premise.  

What's the good of this rule, for all of us?


Research = $$$

Don't you think it would lead to conflict of interest claims if the involved board members research and subsequent board results were contested?

Just because a Board member is involved in a particular area of research doesn't mean there aren't other scientists or SME's who can't be used to study the issue.

The arguments this board will presumably face are supposed to present the perspectives of un-sponsored scientists (scientists not on the payroll of oil companies) and the witnesses or paid scientists of the oil industry, etc.

The bill makes a sham of real study -- by denying expert witnesses -- oil industry or environmentalist representatives -- from fully explaining the meanings of their supposed scientific research.

Of course the perspective of the oil industry would oppose the view of environmentalists. One seeks only profit and to hell with pollution problems, while the other side seeks to protect the environment. Yes, they are conflicted perspectives, as you admit!

gatorfan



Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Pkrbum:  Many thanks for citing the bill.  I read it carefully and find only the following section objectionable:

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

What in hell is the purpose of making it impossible for the Board to hear a scientist elaborate on his own research?

Let's say a scientist called Larry Einstein has created a method to measure the anti-environmental destructiveness of Fracking.  The subject has come before the Board, and two of the board members work for the oil industry.  What is the purpose in denying everyone on the board to look in depth at the problems found through Mr. Einstein's research -- by asking Larry to elaborate on his findings?  The same problem, by the way, would exist if an oil company's scientist had done research that claims fracking is environmentally okay.  According to (E) the board would again be denied the right to explore this advisor's premise.  

What's the good of this rule, for all of us?


Research = $$$

Don't you think it would lead to conflict of interest claims if the involved board members research and subsequent board results were contested?

Just because a Board member is involved in a particular area of research doesn't mean there aren't other scientists or SME's who can't be used to study the issue.



The bill makes a sham of real study -- by denying expert witnesses -- oil industry or environmentalist representatives -- from fully explaining the meanings of their supposed scientific research.

OK, I'm a little dense sometimes, how would the opinions or testimony (even if submitted in writing) of any interested party be prevented from presenting their side of an issue to members of the Board?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Pkrbum:  Many thanks for citing the bill.  I read it carefully and find only the following section objectionable:

``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;

What in hell is the purpose of making it impossible for the Board to hear a scientist elaborate on his own research?

Let's say a scientist called Larry Einstein has created a method to measure the anti-environmental destructiveness of Fracking.  The subject has come before the Board, and two of the board members work for the oil industry.  What is the purpose in denying everyone on the board to look in depth at the problems found through Mr. Einstein's research -- by asking Larry to elaborate on his findings?  The same problem, by the way, would exist if an oil company's scientist had done research that claims fracking is environmentally okay.  According to (E) the board would again be denied the right to explore this advisor's premise.  

What's the good of this rule, for all of us?


Research = $$$

Don't you think it would lead to conflict of interest claims if the involved board members research and subsequent board results were contested?

Just because a Board member is involved in a particular area of research doesn't mean there aren't other scientists or SME's who can't be used to study the issue.



The bill makes a sham of real study -- by denying expert witnesses -- oil industry or environmentalist representatives -- from fully explaining the meanings of their supposed scientific research.

OK, I'm a little dense sometimes, how would the opinions or testimony (even if submitted in writing) of any interested party be prevented from presenting their side of an issue to members of the Board?

The bill denies a scientist who performed original research to verbally expand and explain his findings to the board:

"``(E) Board members may not participate in advisory
activities that directly or indirectly involve review or
evaluation of their own work;  

Scenario: Scientist claims fracking is detrimental to ground water. Oil company scientist says "bullshit." Under the clause cited above, the original scientist is forbidden from explaining his investigation, his findings and why they are accurate.

That's insane.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

No Gatorfan -- check out this new piece that explains exactly what the republicans and their oil industry sponsors are trying to achieve:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

After you read the piece, tell me why the bill is ethical. What's good about a wingnut attack on science itself?

Why do you hate science? I want to hear your reasons ... really do!!

gatorfan



Wordslinger wrote:No Gatorfan -- check out this new piece that explains exactly what the republicans and their oil industry sponsors are trying to achieve:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

After you read the piece, tell me why the bill is ethical.  What's good about a wingnut attack on science itself?  

Why do you hate science?  I want to hear your reasons ... really do!!

Oh I don't hate science, I just can't seem to work myself into a frenzy over what I see as nothing. So what if a Board member can't participate in a discussion if it involves their own research? That little rule in no way prevents others to provide input. Isn't the link the same one you started the thread with? BTW, you never answered my question......

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

gatorfan wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:No Gatorfan -- check out this new piece that explains exactly what the republicans and their oil industry sponsors are trying to achieve:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

After you read the piece, tell me why the bill is ethical.  What's good about a wingnut attack on science itself?  

Why do you hate science?  I want to hear your reasons ... really do!!

Oh I don't hate science, I just can't seem to work myself into a frenzy over what I see as nothing. So what if a Board member can't participate in a discussion if it involves their own research? That little rule in no way prevents others to provide input. Isn't the link the same one you started the thread with? BTW, you never answered my question......

Look, my interest is that genuine scientists -- not experts paid to propagandize in favor of their fossil fuel sponsors -- is fairly examined and evaluated. The bill you favor pits genuine researchers acting in pursuit of scientific truth against propagandists.

It's no different really than a schoolboard that is supposed to approve or disapprove of a science textbook, opening their examination to religious zealots as well as genuine scientists. One deals with factual scientific evidence and the other deals from religious dogma.

You want your kids to actually believe the earth is 6000 years old, send them to a non-educational religious school.

Real science deals with truth, not truth slanted to promote a commercial interest.

Presumably, one realistic challenge the board may face, is deciding whether a proposed fossil fuel process is acceptable or deadly harmful to underground aquifers. As a citizen, I want the decision based on truth, not somebody's commercial agenda.

Don't you?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Wingnuts pass bill to silence scientists -- it's good to know your enemies!

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum