House Passes Bill That Makes It Harder For Scientists To Advise The EPA

[Skidmore]

Just so we don't get complacent.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/18/3593645/house-epa-science-advisory-board-bill/

While their Senate colleagues were engaged in a fiery debate over the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline, the House on Tuesday quietly passed a bill that environmentalists say would hamper the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to use the best scientific information when crafting regulations to protect public health and the environment.

The House voted 229-191 to pass H.R. 1422, which would change the rules for appointing members to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group that gives scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. Also called the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, the bill would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the SAB, prohibit independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.

more...

[Wella]

1. Remember I told you about looney bills that would come up for a vote?

Let's see what the Senate does with this. The GOP may talk about impeachment, but it's the looney bills they are going to get the mileage out of.

[belzabubba333]

2. yes water it down - mercury for everyone

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. Most of the gop must be suffering from mercury poisoning.

[arcane1]

3. Is there any valid, non-evil justification for this?

Is anyone even trying to justify it?

[mmonk]

14. No. Pure evil.

[Archae]

21. Three words...

Environmental Protection Agency.

The wingnuts are bought and paid for by industries that dump their poisons into the air and water.

[RKP5637]

4. One more step backward for mankind! n/t

[Martin Eden]

5. The purpose of the bill, according to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) ...

The purpose of the bill, according to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), is to increase transparency and accountability to the EPA’s scientific advisors. Burgess said on the floor Tuesday that the board “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” With this bill, Burgess said the inclusion of industry interests would erase “any appearance of impropriety on the board.”
............

“The supposed intent [of the bill] is to improve the process of selecting advisors, but in reality, the bill would allow the board to be stacked with industry representatives, while making it more difficult for academics to serve,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) on the House floor on Tuesday. “It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.”

As it is now, the SAB does allow and include advisors with industry expertise. Of the board’s current 51 members, which are appointed by the EPA Administrator for three-year terms, three have industry expertise. But bill sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) says that’s not enough.

............
While transparency and accountability is generally deemed a good policy move on both sides of the aisle, some have accused Rep. Stewart of having an ulterior motive for introducing the bill — a distrust of scientists, a dislike of the EPA, and support for the oil and gas industry. Indeed, Stewart doubts the existence of man-made climate change, and has said he would like to see the EPA dissolved.

[Thor_MN]

17. One increases transparency and accountability by appointing people with conflicts of interest?

There really needs to be minimum standards for congress critters - this guy fails.

[Martin Eden]

23. Yes, in the Orwellian world of Republican politics

They're just trying to do what their corporate masters hired them to do.

[Deny and Shred]

29. It used to be Conflict of Interest

Now, the benefitting companies call it Synergy.

[Art_from_Ark]

35. "Stewart...would like to see the EPA dissolved..."

...in the acid rain produced by his industry cronies.

[sheshe2]

6. Surprise surprise, Skidmore.

“The supposed intent [of the bill] is to improve the process of selecting advisors, but in reality, the bill would allow the board to be stacked with industry representatives, while making it more difficult for academics to serve,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) on the House floor on Tuesday. “It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.”

They sure don't give a shit about people, only money.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. Proud of their stupidity

[onecaliberal]

8. What the hell

Is this what they spend our money doing. We can't have these scientist running around educating people about the truth. For fucks sake when are we going to say enough!?!

[Old Codger]

10. My guess

Is that this is just a start, Obama is probably going to need a lot of pens for vetoes ...

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. once big money is involved, it magically goes from science to politics.

[packman]

12. Scientists?

We don't need any stinkin' scientists

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[GreatGazoo]

13. Dark Ages here we come!

[Iliyah]

15. Ya Think the ugly monster Koch's congress will do anything constructive for

Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2014, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

America or her people? GOPers are on their way of completely destroying the last major federal union business called the US Post Office. Taking food stamps away from millions including Veterans. Taking away health care from millions of Americans. Shutting down the government again. War, War, War. More NSA. Impeachment, lawsuit against the President. More tax cuts or no tax at all for the 1-2%ers.

And more stupid insane bills, while America goes downward into darkness. Yep, voting does matter.

[maryellen99]

19. This country gets stupider by the day I swear nt

[Johonny]

16. There was a time when Republicans and Democrats all wanted clean air and water

now Republicans want to live on industrial sludge just as long as the black man's sludge is slightly dirtier than theirs. The new Republican vision of America.

[Ampersand Unicode]

22. There was a time when Republicans believed in science

Wiki (emphasis added):

On the whole, Eisenhower's support of the nation's fledgling space program was modest until the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, gaining the Cold War enemy enormous prestige around the world. He then launched a national campaign that funded not just space exploration but a major strengthening of science and higher education. He rushed construction of more advanced satellites, created NASA as a civilian space agency, signed a landmark science education law, and fostered improved relations with American scientists.

How did we go from that Republican to these mentally stunted, shit-flinging troglodytes who believe that evolution is pagan heresy and the U.S. should not be involved in the promotion of science? Ike would be considered worse than a RINO by today's standards. He, Teddy Roosevelt (tree-hugger) and Lincoln (big-gummint race traitor) are probably considered downright godless communists.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. We got here...

due to the rise of religion in this country.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Eisenhower wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool Republican

He was courted by both Republicans and Democrats to run for President in 1952. He could just as easily have chosen to run as a Democrat.

[B Calm]

18. Wow, that is so damn dumb. . .

[Ampersand Unicode]

20. Galileo is rotating in his grave

...while ignorant morons get paid to claim the sun revolves around the earth.

[tclambert]

24. Scienteests? We don' need no steenkeen scienteests!

Oil company executives can set our environmental policies. 'Cause nobody cares more about natural resources than the people who make money off 'em.

[Auggie]

25. It's over. Sensible ideas/solutions are now trumped by the need for profit. We're irrelevant.

[randys1]

26. Remember please, the MAINSTREAM of the current republican party is now made up of people who do this

Science requires education and intelligence, liberals like science and education, therefore all educated people and scientists are liberals and therefore are the enemy.

They will actively attempt to kill all life on the planet if that is what it takes to prove that they are right and we are wrong




Even at the point when they realize they are actually wrong, and we are right, they will STILL insist on destroying life on the planet vs admitting we are right.

They cant ever admit that we are right and they are wrong, not ever.

They are enemies of life on the planet.

I dont know any other way to say this.

[hifiguy]

30. The religulous nihilists are willing to do it

because they have drunk the koolaid of promised immortality and utterly rejected science in all its forms.

The tenth-percenters already have the space for their "Galt Valley" picked out in the Rockies and in South America. Like cockroaches after a nuclear blast, they will survive because enough Morlocks will survive to provide them with a population of slaves.

[hifiguy]

27. This is absolutely fucking insane.

The simple problem was stated by Neil deGrasse Tyson - science is true whether you want to believe it or not.

We are fucking doomed.

[Frustratedlady]

28. So, does this include ALEC, or will ALEC continue to write legislation for Congress?

If so, then it makes sense that they don't want any scientists around asking questions.

At first, I truly thought this was satire. With Republicans these days, it's pretty hard to tell.

[Turbineguy]

32. No problem

Scientists can get a fake ordination and put "Reverend" in front of their names.

[blkmusclmachine]

33. The Republican Party is 100% CORRUPT (the DEMS are only 95% corrupt).

[pampango]

36. Krugman: It’s not just facts that have a liberal bias; so does careful, open-minded analysis.

Here’s how it works: If you believe that we’ve spent the past six years suffering from a huge overhang of excess supply, that inadequate demand is the whole story — as Yellen does, I do, and so should you — you do have one slightly awkward question to answer: while inflation has been subdued, why hasn’t it turned into deflation? If labor is in huge excess supply, why are average wages still rising, albeit slowly?

Doves like me have taken that question seriously, and placed a fair bit of weight on downward nominal wage rigidity. If wages don’t fall except in extreme cases, you can explain average wages continuing to rise by the combination of sticky wages for some workers and rising wages for those workers who, for whatever reason, face better-than-average prospects.

What’s notable, then, is that you hardly ever see this kind of thing on the other side. Inflation hawks never lay out any specific model of how inflation is supposed to take off in a depressed economy; nor do they talk about testable implications of their view, or for that matter offer any explanation of why they’ve been so wrong for so long.

It is, in other words, an asymmetric debate from an intellectual point of view. Doves are doves because their analysis leads them to believe that rates should stay low, and they make a point of explaining that analysis, addressing its implications even if they don’t lend support to their policy case, and suggesting what information might lead them to change their mind. Inflation hawks know what they want, and don’t feel any need to explain clearly why or how they might be wrong.

If this reminds you of other debates these days, it should. It’s not just facts that have a liberal bias; so does careful, open-minded analysis.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/yellen-wages-and-intellectual-honesty/

You have to wonder how long it will be before republicans outlaw science altogether.