|
The EPA Proposes A New Rule To Make Scientific Data Available To Public
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM (457 Views)
|
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 04:45 PM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 04:31 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views.
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
To be honest GA, I thought that maybe you misread the topic title and then posted a little rant. Whatever the benefits of having the research data available might be, they don't outweigh privacy rights or proprietary process rights, and without exceptions for those this rule will unreasonably prevent research from being used that involves either of those.
Maybe that's the goal.
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 04:52 PM
Post #42
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- PATruth
- Apr 25 2018, 04:09 PM
There is no reason climate data isn't completely available to the public, after all, it will prove GW/CC and everyone can move forward in unison. This isn't like foreign intelligence or medical records, this is climate data. Besides that, we, the taxpayers PAID for it.
which data is not available?
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 04:53 PM
Post #43
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 04:45 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 04:31 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
To be honest GA, I thought that maybe you misread the topic title and then posted a little rant.
Whatever the benefits of having the research data available might be, they don't outweigh privacy rights or proprietary process rights, and without exceptions for those this rule will unreasonably prevent research from being used that involves either of those. Maybe that's the goal. I agree that any rule that would require the exposure of the names of individuals in a medical study is wrong and that should be able to be addressed rather easily.
I think that much of this depends on how it is applied. For example the rule may state that they can't use a study that has proprietary information in it in order to make a ruling but that does not mean that they can not use that study to point them in the right direction.
For example, let's say that there is a Harvard study with methods in it that Harvard does not want anyone else to have. That is fine. What you do is you take the conclusion of that study and work backward. Let's say that the study finds that SO2 and NO2 cause acid rain but due to the proprietary methodology you can't use that study as justification for a regulation. No problem, you just hire someone else to prove the same conclusion without using anything proprietary from Harvard. If those chemicals really do cause acid rain then it should be fairly simple to prove it without using anything from Harvard's study other than the conclusion.
If it can't be proven without some special manipulation of the numbers then maybe the conclusion was not correct anyway.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite. Exactly...
Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate.
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
George Aligator
|
Apr 25 2018, 05:10 PM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,637
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #37
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 04:31 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 11:32 AM
Can anyone anywhere explain to me why the science used by the EPA to make decision would not always be public information?
The answer to this ^^^ excellent question lies in the Republican political alliance between Big Oil and the Religious Right. For the latter, the issue goes back to the idea of evolution, which they find abhorrent because it contradicts the myths of the Old Testament which, according to their dogma of biblical inerrancy, makes evolutionary science a dangerous lie. Suppression of modern archeology and biology goes way back to the Scopes Monkey Trial almost a century ago, and has continued to the present day in protests over schoolbooks in places like Texas. Evangelical Christianity remains deeply suspicious of modern science. And it is modern science which leads the issues of global warming, climate change, and the effects of fossil fuels. All of these topics are economically threatening to the fossil fuel industry and so Big Oil, along with Dirty Coal have used their vast political resources to form an anti-science alliance with the evangelical right. The result has been a series of back-room directives to federal agencies, especially the EPA, restricting public release of research and information about scientific research. This anti-scientific political movement has reached levels not seen since the Monkey Trial with Donald Trump, who made revival of the dying coal industry a pillar of his campaign and an emblem of sympathetic support for a loose coalition of energy workers, evangelicals and other blue collar, rural whites which forms his political base. That's how I see it. I hope others will share their views.
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
To be honest GA, I thought that maybe you misread the topic title and then posted a little rant. I appreciate your honesty ^^^ and do not begrudge you what I understood to be your defense of your favorite President. My little rant, as you call it, is driven by the cynical political alliance of Big Energy and the Religious Right which I find distasteful at both ends. I'm not a radical environmentalist although I live in one of the wildest wilderness areas in the country and chose to live nowhere else, but I do believe that sound energy policy is being hampered by the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry through a corrupt political system. Also, I have been a student of Christianity all my life and have deep respect for faith that needs no corroboration from science; however, the punitive prejudices of the Calvinist branch I believe corrupt the core of the traditional belief system. I find hypocritical televangelist millionaires disgusting.
As for Trump -- I am one who shares a deep disappointment with his administration. I was no fan of Hillary, having voted for both Ron and Rand Paul. I've followed Trump in the press for many years and, as a wealthy New Yorker, actually met him in person once. I thought he was serious about his populist campaign rhetoric. I thought there was a good chance he would follow through on single payer healthcare which he spoke glowingly about and knew from his business dealings in Scotland. I thought his economics was a bit naive but if you go back far enough in my posts on P.com you will see that from early on I was an advocate of a tariff policy to bring our balance of trade deficit with China etc. to zero in order to create more good jobs. I debated that topic on Perspectives for several years with PATruth, then a champion of free trade.
What I didn't see coming in the Trump administration was his utter incompetence as a chief executive and his willingness to go to crazy extremes to protect his image from the consequences of his failures. I'm not alone in that one either.
|
|
Conservatism is a social disease
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 05:13 PM
Post #46
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite.
Exactly... Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate. Not really. What we're arguing against is ruling out valid studies that rely on confidential information that would require the permission of a third party for it to be made public.
If, for example, I'm studying the potential environmental impacts of fracking and as part of my study I obtain the proprietary information of a number of companies that do fracking, I shouldn't be required to release to the public that proprietary information in order for my study to be deemed "acceptable" for EPA rule making.
|
|
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
Post #47
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,704
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite.
Exactly... Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate. This is being driven by industries that get hurt when science is used to show their products or services hurt people. Don't want that study that shows a chemical causes cancer? Just require that everyone who participated in the study has to have their medical history publicly released. That kills the study, the regulation and the companies can keep pumping out poison. That my friends, is the swamp filling up.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 25 2018, 05:30 PM
Post #48
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 05:10 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 04:31 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 04:27 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:29 PM
- George Aligator
- Apr 25 2018, 12:22 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
You do realize that Trump's EPA is creating a rule so that the information is public don't you? That would seem to argue against the portion of your theory where you suggest that Trump is part of the anti-science crowd. Perhaps you wish to reassess?
Perhaps I was not detailed enough in describing the alliance between Dirty Coal and anti-evolution. Trump is active on the fossil fuel end and speaks of jobs not science. The biblical dirty work is done by the right wing GOP in the House, playing to their constituency in the Bible Belt. Your determination to find something wrong in whatever I post is flattering indeed. As with the question of Southern culture in southern Illinois, your technique of attacking your own over-simplified paraphrase while attributing it to me suggests a longing for that locker room banter you enjoy so much. Why can't we treat each other with respect and long for what can be learned from our dialogue? Really
To be honest GA, I thought that maybe you misread the topic title and then posted a little rant.
I appreciate your honesty ^^^ and do not begrudge you what I understood to be your defense of your favorite President. My little rant, as you call it, is driven by the cynical political alliance of Big Energy and the Religious Right which I find distasteful at both ends. I'm not a radical environmentalist although I live in one of the wildest wilderness areas in the country and chose to live nowhere else, but I do believe that sound energy policy is being hampered by the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry through a corrupt political system. Also, I have been a student of Christianity all my life and have deep respect for faith that needs no corroboration from science; however, the punitive prejudices of the Calvinist branch I believe corrupt the core of the traditional belief system. I find hypocritical televangelist millionaires disgusting. As for Trump -- I am one who shares a deep disappointment with his administration. I was no fan of Hillary, having voted for both Ron and Rand Paul. I've followed Trump in the press for many years and, as a wealthy New Yorker, actually met him in person once. I thought he was serious about his populist campaign rhetoric. I thought there was a good chance he would follow through on single payer healthcare which he spoke glowingly about and knew from his business dealings in Scotland. I thought his economics was a bit naive but if you go back far enough in my posts on P.com you will see that from early on I was an advocate of a tariff policy to bring our balance of trade deficit with China etc. to zero in order to create more good jobs. I debated that topic on Perspectives for several years with PATruth, then a champion of free trade. What I didn't see coming in the Trump administration was his utter incompetence as a chief executive and his willingness to go to crazy extremes to protect his image from the consequences of his failures. I'm not alone in that one either. Trump is not even in my top 20 favorite Presidents lol. To be honest, he has not been in office long enough and the legacy of what his admin has done is not in any way a finished product so it is hard to place him.
From a personality point of view, he might be my least favorite President. I would much rather have a bullshitter like Bill Clinton be the face of the nation.
Thus far though, policy wise, Trump is OK for me.
The tax cut thing I am OK with and we will have to wait and see just how good or bad it is because that kind of thing takes quite a while to really show up.
Rolling back all of Obama's "pen and phone" legislation is something that I am very happy with.
He is enforcing immigration law. I am OK with that. I do wish he would enforce the fines on businesses with the same level of dedication that he deports illegals.
Pulling out of the Paris Climate thing really had no effect on anything because the Paris nonsense was not going to effect anything.
North Korea and South Korea are possible about to end their half century long war. If something positive happens with the NK nukes then Trump might be able to just drop the proverbial mic and walk off into the sunset if he wants.
As much as I dislike some of Trump's personality quirks and as much as I hate his damned Twitter account, the actual policies his administration have put in place are not too shabby.
I realize that as a (what is it you once called yourself? Not a communist but a something or other socialist) you and I will not have to much common ground and many of the things I see as a positive you will see as a huge negative. That is fine, we prefer different styles of governance.
Incidentally, don't give up on the "single payer" dream. Trump was never going to implement anything that looks like what Canada or England has but given time, something more along the lines of what Australia has might be a possibility. The system we have will need to be fully broken though before that can happen. We will have to wait and see on that. BTW, did you see that Trump was talking about making hospitals post their pricing for services publicly? That could be interesting.
For a guy and and admin that folks like to call incompetent, he has managed to get some interesting things done. I am fascinated to see what he pulls next at this point.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
ringotuna
|
Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
Post #49
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,492
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite.
Exactly... Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate.
This is being driven by industries that get hurt when science is used to show their products or services hurt people. Don't want that study that shows a chemical causes cancer? Just require that everyone who participated in the study has to have their medical history publicly released. That kills the study, the regulation and the companies can keep pumping out poison. That my friends, is the swamp filling up. It's simple enough to maintain respect for patient confidentiality and HIPAA accountability by referring to them as Subject, or Patient. That's how all the peer review publications I've read do it.
That being said, I think this whole transparency issue is nonsense. Most of us wouldn't understand the raw data anyway. Yes myself included. It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary. I would suggest something more pragmatic, having an independent panel of qualified scientists unaffiliated with either the EPA or any corporate entity peer review both the data and results and debate the issues.
|
|
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 06:14 PM
Post #50
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Quote:
-
It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary.
In all honesty, I think that is the intent behind the rule change.
|
|
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
Post #51
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- ringotuna
- Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 12:43 PM
This is really just more of the Trump swamp being created
I fail to see how releasing raw data creates a swamp. In fact, it would seem to do the opposite.
Exactly... Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate.
This is being driven by industries that get hurt when science is used to show their products or services hurt people. Don't want that study that shows a chemical causes cancer? Just require that everyone who participated in the study has to have their medical history publicly released. That kills the study, the regulation and the companies can keep pumping out poison. That my friends, is the swamp filling up.
It's simple enough to maintain respect for patient confidentiality and HIPAA accountability by referring to them as Subject, or Patient. That's how all the peer review publications I've read do it. That being said, I think this whole transparency issue is nonsense. Most of us wouldn't understand the raw data anyway. Yes myself included. It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary. I would suggest something more pragmatic, having an independent panel of qualified scientists unaffiliated with either the EPA or any corporate entity peer review both the data and results and debate the issues. And relying on secret data to determine policy and create law is not ripe for abuse...gimme a f*cking break!
Make it public and allow the concerned parties to debate it...the one with science on their side will win the argument.
You can't make informed decisions if you are not first informed.
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
Post #52
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,398
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
- ringotuna
- Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
- Demagogue
- Apr 25 2018, 12:50 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Exactly... Liberals are actually arguing AGAINST transparency, public discourse and debate.
This is being driven by industries that get hurt when science is used to show their products or services hurt people. Don't want that study that shows a chemical causes cancer? Just require that everyone who participated in the study has to have their medical history publicly released. That kills the study, the regulation and the companies can keep pumping out poison. That my friends, is the swamp filling up.
It's simple enough to maintain respect for patient confidentiality and HIPAA accountability by referring to them as Subject, or Patient. That's how all the peer review publications I've read do it. That being said, I think this whole transparency issue is nonsense. Most of us wouldn't understand the raw data anyway. Yes myself included. It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary. I would suggest something more pragmatic, having an independent panel of qualified scientists unaffiliated with either the EPA or any corporate entity peer review both the data and results and debate the issues.
And relying on secret data to determine policy and create law is not ripe for abuse...gimme a f*cking break! Make it public and allow the concerned parties to debate it...the one with science on their side will win the argument. You can't make informed decisions if you are not first informed. You mean like how the climate change scientists, with their mountains of data, have managed to win the global warming argument against those who refuse to believe the data?
Yeah, I'm not really buying it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:16 PM
Post #53
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
- ringotuna
- Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 05:05 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
This is being driven by industries that get hurt when science is used to show their products or services hurt people. Don't want that study that shows a chemical causes cancer? Just require that everyone who participated in the study has to have their medical history publicly released. That kills the study, the regulation and the companies can keep pumping out poison. That my friends, is the swamp filling up.
It's simple enough to maintain respect for patient confidentiality and HIPAA accountability by referring to them as Subject, or Patient. That's how all the peer review publications I've read do it. That being said, I think this whole transparency issue is nonsense. Most of us wouldn't understand the raw data anyway. Yes myself included. It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary. I would suggest something more pragmatic, having an independent panel of qualified scientists unaffiliated with either the EPA or any corporate entity peer review both the data and results and debate the issues.
And relying on secret data to determine policy and create law is not ripe for abuse...gimme a f*cking break! Make it public and allow the concerned parties to debate it...the one with science on their side will win the argument. You can't make informed decisions if you are not first informed.
You mean like how the climate change scientists, with their mountains of data, have managed to win the global warming argument against those who refuse to believe the data? Yeah, I'm not really buying it. So you're in favor of secret data being used to set policy and make law. It's an incredibly stupid position to take but nobody's stopping you...
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
jake58
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:26 PM
Post #54
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,340
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:16 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
- ringotuna
- Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
- BuckFan
- Apr 25 2018, 05:14 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
It's simple enough to maintain respect for patient confidentiality and HIPAA accountability by referring to them as Subject, or Patient. That's how all the peer review publications I've read do it. That being said, I think this whole transparency issue is nonsense. Most of us wouldn't understand the raw data anyway. Yes myself included. It's ripe for public abuse through agenda driven analysis and commentary. I would suggest something more pragmatic, having an independent panel of qualified scientists unaffiliated with either the EPA or any corporate entity peer review both the data and results and debate the issues.
And relying on secret data to determine policy and create law is not ripe for abuse...gimme a f*cking break! Make it public and allow the concerned parties to debate it...the one with science on their side will win the argument. You can't make informed decisions if you are not first informed.
You mean like how the climate change scientists, with their mountains of data, have managed to win the global warming argument against those who refuse to believe the data? Yeah, I'm not really buying it.
So you're in favor of secret data being used to set policy and make law. It's an incredibly stupid position to take but nobody's stopping you... The default position of most Democrats is that if the govt is doing it, it must be right... govt would never knowingly do anything wrong
|
|
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:29 PM
Post #55
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- jake58
- Apr 25 2018, 10:26 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:16 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
- ringotuna
- Apr 25 2018, 06:11 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
And relying on secret data to determine policy and create law is not ripe for abuse...gimme a f*cking break! Make it public and allow the concerned parties to debate it...the one with science on their side will win the argument. You can't make informed decisions if you are not first informed.
You mean like how the climate change scientists, with their mountains of data, have managed to win the global warming argument against those who refuse to believe the data? Yeah, I'm not really buying it.
So you're in favor of secret data being used to set policy and make law. It's an incredibly stupid position to take but nobody's stopping you...
The default position of most Democrats is that if the govt is doing it, it must be right... govt would never knowingly do anything wrong So they'll blindly accept Trump's numbers on illegal immigration, the deficit, the economy etc.?
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
lucash
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:30 PM
Post #56
|
|
#NeverTrump
- Posts:
- 3,005
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
The problem I have isn't with transparency, but the illusion of transparency with the underlying intent to inflict damage - political or otherwise - on an opponent. This entire administration hasn't shown even a reasonable maturity level, so forgive me if I don't find their intent sincere.....
|
|
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:34 PM
Post #57
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- lucash
- Apr 25 2018, 10:30 PM
The problem I have isn't with transparency, but the illusion of transparency with the underlying intent to inflict damage - political or otherwise - on an opponent. This entire administration hasn't shown even a reasonable maturity level, so forgive me if I don't find their intent sincere..... The only thing that transparency can damage is deception.
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
jake58
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:36 PM
Post #58
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,340
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:29 PM
- jake58
- Apr 25 2018, 10:26 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:16 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:03 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
You mean like how the climate change scientists, with their mountains of data, have managed to win the global warming argument against those who refuse to believe the data? Yeah, I'm not really buying it.
So you're in favor of secret data being used to set policy and make law. It's an incredibly stupid position to take but nobody's stopping you...
The default position of most Democrats is that if the govt is doing it, it must be right... govt would never knowingly do anything wrong
So they'll blindly accept Trump's numbers on illegal immigration, the deficit, the economy etc.? they don't consider Trump to be govt... he's actually anti-govt
|
|
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:38 PM
Post #59
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,652
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- jake58
- Apr 25 2018, 10:36 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:29 PM
- jake58
- Apr 25 2018, 10:26 PM
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:16 PM
- Opinionated
- Apr 25 2018, 10:04 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
So you're in favor of secret data being used to set policy and make law. It's an incredibly stupid position to take but nobody's stopping you...
The default position of most Democrats is that if the govt is doing it, it must be right... govt would never knowingly do anything wrong
So they'll blindly accept Trump's numbers on illegal immigration, the deficit, the economy etc.?
they don't consider Trump to be govt... he's actually anti-govt But he's the elected President...how is that not the government? Can you square the circle for me please?
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
|
lucash
|
Apr 25 2018, 10:38 PM
Post #60
|
|
#NeverTrump
- Posts:
- 3,005
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- Right-Wing
- Apr 25 2018, 10:34 PM
- lucash
- Apr 25 2018, 10:30 PM
The problem I have isn't with transparency, but the illusion of transparency with the underlying intent to inflict damage - political or otherwise - on an opponent. This entire administration hasn't shown even a reasonable maturity level, so forgive me if I don't find their intent sincere.....
The only thing that transparency can damage is deception. Then why do you and others endorse an administration that constantly trashes transparency and promotes deception?
Now I'm not saying politics isn't without it's bullscheisse, but really, hold onto some higher standards, eh?
|
|
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|