by Ron Arnold
February 18, 2014
Virtually all EPA regulations
have been justified (sic) by
nontransparent data and
American taxpayers foot the bill for the Environmental Protection
costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying
EPA bureaucrats routinely hide this
public information, insolently foreshadowing President
Obama's recently outed code of
can do anything I want."
As Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX) bluntly forced the issue,
"Virtually every regulation proposed
by the Obama Administration has been justified by nontransparent
data and unverifiable claims."
'Nontransparent data and unverifiable
Translated from scientese, it's
If you're a good scientist, you
make an exact, detailed description of how you did your
study or research so anybody else can follow your
description and get the same result.
If you won't tell anybody how
you did it, your work is not "transparent."
If you do tell and nobody else
can get the same result you got, your science is junk, or
not "reproducible" - not verifiable.
Face it, EPA science is junk
and they're hiding that fact.
Smith is in a position to do something about Obama's scofflaws: he's
chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, where
his panel on February 11 held a hearing on "Ensuring
Open Science at EPA."
It was the launching pad for the
Secret Science Reform Act of 2014,
a bill to bar the EPA from proposing regulations based upon science
that is not transparent or not reproducible.
That sent shockwaves through Big Green, which has a vested interest
in hiding outdated, biased, falsified, sweetheart-reviewed, and even
non-existent "science" that has destroyed the lives of thousands in
the death-grip of agenda-driven EPA rules.
Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Schweikert
(R-AZ) gaveled the hearing to order.
"For far too long," he said, "the
EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling
financial burden on economic growth in this country with no
public evidence to justify their actions."
The average American would probably ask
why the EPA is such a problem.
The first witness told why:
John D. Graham, a dean at Indiana
University and former administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, has years of experience telling good
science from junk.
Graham surprisingly said that EPA science standards are "quite
high" because lives depend upon proper rules to protect us from
the harmful effects of pollution while avoiding data errors that
can unjustly destroy whole sectors of America's economy.
The EPA isn't living up to its
The EPA's downfall is its poorly developed science culture, said
"In my experience working with the
EPA, I have found that the political, legal, and engineering
cultures are fairly strong but the cultures of science and
economics are highly variable…
First-rate scientists who are
interested in public service employment might be more inclined
to launch a career at the National Academy of Sciences" or
Most damning, Graham cited a decade of
National Science Foundation reports documenting the bad quality,
transparency, and reproducibility of EPA's scientific
Dr. Louis "Tony" Cox, chief sciences officer at
Nexthealth Technologies, needs
access to sound data for his work on health risk assessment, but
he's more than alarmed at the state of EPA science.
"catastrophic failure in the
reproducibility and trustworthiness of scientific results."
Even science editors complain that many
published research articles are false and even peer-reviewed results
are not reproducible. EPA demands sensational reports, true or not,
and isn't checking scientists' work.
In short, we need junk sniffers.
Raymond J. Keating, chief economist of the Small Business
& Entrepreneurship Council, who testified for the Center for
Regulatory Solutions, provided one of the hearing's big shockers:
"The annual cost of federal
regulations registered $1.75 trillion in 2008."
A highly credentialed witness, Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health Professor Ellen Silbergeld
(above), picked the Secret Science Reform Bill apart.
She hit two points:
In rebuttal of both points, Graham noted
that the National Academy of Sciences is now focusing not on whether
patient data is to be shared, but how to do it while protecting
privacy; and the Secret Science Reform bill requires all EPA
science, regardless of source or funding, to have open data,
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) asked of the witness panel,
"Do any of you disagree with the
principle that in [the] case of taxpayer-funded research or
studies, the public should have access to the underlying data?"
"As stated in my testimony, for
reasons given, I disagree with that - respectfully."
EPA is basing major regulatory decisions
on junk and inviting a rebellion by doing it.
Taxpayers must become America's army of junk sniffers and ruthlessly
axe the EPA's heart rot - respectfully, of course.