There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.

No we are not. The EPA or whatever is only has to show the credibility of their science used. If they show that yellow and blue make green, and I declare it makes orange, as long as they can reproduce the green claim, they can use it.

You cannot discredit something that can be proven through the scientific process. All you can do it show alternative results.

In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.

Poppycock. I have no doubt that they are trying to make it more difficult to impose sweeping regulation but it's hardly to that point. It's quite simple really, use open sources and if you cannot, then don't bother imposing regulations. The EU has made most all their climate data open and anyone can grab it and do whatever they want with it. I really do not see the problem/.

Why do people keep saying shit like this?

because there isn't and your reading of the US constitution fails basic comprehension.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

While this general welfare clause has been expanded over the years, it still fails on several levels. The courts have only allowed the general welfare clause to be used with the taxing and spending powers of congress. No court and no competent constitutional authority has ever said it extends congress's powers to create departments that can make law independent of congress or constitutional processes nor have they used the clause to establish fines and/or imprisonment terms to anyone. There is simply no constitutional basis for it.

It's the Congress that created the EPA. It's the Congress that funds them. It's the Executive that controls them in accordance with the laws passed by... Wait for it... CONGRESS. All that based on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution.

And the general welfare clause would allow this to happen only if every single regulation, fine, or punishment was voted on, passed and signed by congress and the president. Do you see the disconnect here?

Can congress create a department of the second amendment, staff it with a bunch of people who create regulation saying you have to own at least 3 guns per person in the household, molest your children at least once in their life time, spin in circles twice before taking a piss all without congressional action? Can the EPA make any of these regulations? The answer is no to all because there is no constitutional authority for it. The only difference is how silly the regulations might be but the general welfare claim can be made just the same.

If congress had free reign over anything it could construe to be in the interest or general welfare, then why is Abortion out of their grasp? In order for your presumption to be true, they must be able to create a department of abortion that could impose a tax penalty or jail terms on everyone who performs or haves an abortion. But that simply is not possible because the general welfare clause does not do what you think it doe. It would however, allow congress to tax and spend money either encouraging or discouraging abortions.

Or maybe you are suggesting that control of commons should be relinquished to the corporations?

Maybe you should think a bit before posting. Perhaps study a bit on what you are posting about.

Wouldn't happen.

First, unless it is a prominently accepted safe additive, it would need to seek approval by the FDA in order to be marketed to the public in the first place.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumer...

Second, part of the FDA's role is to study food available to the public not only for human consumption but most animal consumption to maintain certain health guidelines. This is done by "FDA field investigators inspect food companies, examine food shipments from abroad, and collect samples. Laboratory scientists analyze samples."

So, basically a bunch of luddites on the payroll of major corporations are trying to ensure those corporations have access to whatever private data they need to discredit the science?

If the science can be discredited, should the federal government really be using it to impose burdensome regulations onto the public?

Look, I understand a lot of people think the EPA is god's gift or champion whatever they have done or are doing that you have been convinced needs to be done. But seriously, your argument is that bad science should survive scrutiny because if it doesn't, everyone is stupid?

Requiring them to publish the "science" they are basing their rulings on is influencing science?

Yes, it is influencing the science.

If you know what they know, you can check the science, if it is bad science, you can correct it. If it is good science, you can improve it. If you cannot improve it, you can accept it and champion it. And when you make your science available to others to do the same, the EPA can then use it too. See how all that influence is possible?

The argument against influencing the science is essentially- stay out of this because we want it to mean what we want it to mean so we can justify doing what we want to do.

Many people will ignore this reality and focus on politics- those evil republicans only want to stop the EPA from doing what we want them to do. To them, it is not about the science, it is about doing what they want the EPA to do.

Perhaps their mission should be to mow the whitehouse lawn. There certainly is no constitutional basis for the EPA to exist anyways.

That being said, what exactly is your problem with requiring all information the EPA uses to set policies be open to the public and able to survive scientific scrutiny? I would think you of all people would be championing this transparency as well as the stability the rigor of the scientific process could give as they justify their moves. Perhaps you only don't like it because republicans want it to happen?

Don't know why you think it's God's domain. The article doesn't pretend that they are alive. It's not any different than the G.I. Joe dolls or even the merchandise Hollywood puts out resembling movie characters.

but a cube has 8 corners you half-assed time-cubers

In these situations, I'm not entirely sure collateral damage is of a primary concern. The image of either building being damaged or destroyed or the threat to elected representatives likely presents a worse impact than collateral damage might. Its like all the special protections they already have. For instance, punch your neighbor and face a misdemeanor, punch a senator or the president and it is not only a felony but a serious one at that. Kill someone in an auto accident and it can be a charge with less than 10 years but run over a police dog and you face life for killing an officer of the law.

Our system has said they are special and more protected than most people for quite a while now.

Anything is possible but they have helicopter rides at the county fair around my neck of the woods. They take off and land right next to the fair way with an area about 30 yards roped off. Of course they approach and leave from the far side and away from the rides but its usually still over a parking lot.

I'm not sure I would be overly excited about his landing. Still some concerns but likely not dangerous.

There is a surface to air missile battery on the capital building and white house. Likely in other areas around there to.

Because of his slow speed and open cockpit they had the opportunity to watch him instead of just reacting. If he got closer or appearedt to be threatening to the white house he likely would have been shot down.

Nobody can say anything definitive becaus because we do not have all the facts yet. It is suspicious when congress asks for all the correspondents over benghazi and hers were missing just to find out she used an outside server and email and decided to purge anything she didn't want congress to see. Whether that purge contained anything pertinent to state or not is still being determined.

As for 2008, she would have lost by a significant amount. People like to say Obama was elected because he is black but the truth is that people were sick of the same old shit which after Bush, a Clinton would have been no different. Obama won because he was new and not a legacy. He offered change simply by not being related to previous administrations. I do agree it was Bill who lost it but not in the way you think.

Or, rig 3 phones in advance, wait until it looks like your guy is going to lose, drop off a phone in each stall he used, give the signal and have your guy complain. Then go about proclaiming how shocked you are and how guilty he has to be.

If i was to frame someone, that's what I would do.

Or maybe it's for the same reasons he always turns door knobs to the right or pats his pockets whenever leaving a building or that some baseball players don't change socks until the end of season. People have all sorts of quirks that doesn't mean they are guilty. For years I used to wait until the ace of hearts came up when playing solidare before I would put any aces in the slot.

But some patterns are obvious enough that they could be used to do whatever - like accuse someone of cheating and point to the behavior as proof.