Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

Congress created this agency years ago (1883 i think) when it passed the civil service act into law.

It's a central office in charge of federal government employees and administrates their benefits and retirement packages as well as wage tables and so on. You can think of them as the HR department on a grand scale.

Science is not faulty, but taking freedoms based on unproven or incorrect science is. That is the problem. Government should not by extra-legislative processes, declare you are no longer allowed to do X for reasons we do not understand at the moment but might eventually.

FFS, you cannot just accuse something of being wrong or incorrect. You have to show why it is and that opens your claim up for review which will show your faults.

Why don't you use some critical thinking skills here. When has any legitimate science ever been trumped by the nuh-uh hypothesis? The science either speaks for itself or it cannot stand the light of examination. That goes both ways too.

And while you're off "reproducing the results," industry has had free reign to spend a decade or so fucking everything up. You might as well change the name from "Environmental Protection Agency" to "Environmental Hindsight Agency" since all it'll be able to do is say "yup, that really was a bad idea after all" after the damage is already done!

And this is different from now how? Whenever the EPA advances regulation changes, it spends a large amount of time in court already. You are either not aware of how this crap works or are pushing some narrative you know to be incorrect.

It "seems" like you're intentionally mischaracterizing the situation to suit your own argument. The burden of proof should be on you to explain why we should run full speed ahead changing the climate, not on the EPA to explain in excruciating detail precisely why erring on the side of caution might be prudent common sense.

No silly. The burden of proof in a free and democratic society is on the government to show the necessity for regulating and restricting those freedoms. If government wants to say you cannot do X, they need to demonstrate a valid reason for it. Using hidden studies or hidden science to do so is ridiculous. To say otherwise is just silly.

CRU is the climate research unit from University of East Anglia who refused to provide climate data used to push the global warming narrative when requested by people they considered hostile to their cause. Accusations of this were made several times and denied but someone hacked into the email servers and released a bunch of email showing them discussing withholding the information. Now it is said that the original raw data does not exist any more nor does the methods and processes used to correct irregularities of it.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/20...

Now, I know you are a global warming pusher and have your own beliefs but this is not about you in the slightest. All that I'm a believer bullshit you just posted is irrelevant to what was said. Let me repeat that in less convoluted terms in case it was too difficult for you. What kind of grand conspiracy would you be tilting at instead of windmills if the data and process were made available early on when the notion of anthropogenic global warming was being introduced instead of hiding it because of fears that people would pick it apart? I would be more than 80% of the so called deniers- the ones who actually believe there is long term warming but either do not believe humans are the chief architect of it or that there are agendas hidden within the claims so the so called solutions should not be trusted would not be questioning anything right now. But you go on stating how you was always a believer and the appearance of improprieties did nothing to shake that belief.

If you think that is how science is done, you probably need to go back to watching lady gaga and let the adults talk.

Here is what the real study would be. People notice lung cancer incidents are on the rise and people with cancer admit to being smokers. Someone analyzes the data and draws the correlation between people with lung cancer and smoking. They find a connection in the data and make policy accordingly. Someone gets a hold of the data and does their own analysis and says Yep, they are right or no they are wrong.

But here is some interesting facts for you that make smoking and cancer not as cut and dry as you think it is. In today's pop culture, it seems it is a given that if you smoke you will get cancer. "Fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer". "In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking." but from an analysis perspective " Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer".

So lets stop pretending that something like smoking and cancer is so obvious that the tobacco company's denials were baseless.

Scorpion seems to try to be preachy but fails in keeping it seamless to the plot.

I'd rather watch cartoons than that show..

That is only true if the EPA is relying on faulty science that cannot survive the scientific method. Of this case, if such is to be true, nothing is different than today other than it would be easier to detext witg an open and transparent EPA. But should ths EPA use sound scientific arguments then it wiuld be easily proven as such and the court battles eaasily dismissed.

If you put any though into it, you would see that the bill actually prevents the situation you decry by placing a legal qualifyer on the premise of regulation.

Lol.. it wouldn't matter if they did not like the conclusions. If the data is open and it can be reproduced, all they can do is "not like it,".

As for the refusals. This is laughable. I will post some infomation when i get to a computer but i gave you a huge hint when i mentioned CRU. but please, go ahead and try to obfuscate those problems in a discussion about mistrust and the need to open it up.

Logic is not one of your strong points is it, ui

Nothing in this is about having to use studies by third parties. Its about science being used to shape regulation being open for review and people being able to reproduce it. I can pay for a study to say anything i want, but the EPA can ignore it as long as their science is sound (available and can be reproduced). If it can be reproduced, the science will speak for itself. If it cannot, then it cannot be used. So in a way, it relates to the tobacco studies as in they couldn't be used because if they were wrong, the data which would have to be made public would show the fault.

I would think those granting the consent of the governed when regulation is being made would care.

But if all is as you say and the info is already availible to anyone qualified, i do not see why you are objecting.

Wow. How completely stupid can you be? You can pay anyone off to say it is not reproducable and anyone can prove them wrong by simply reproducing it. FFS, is logic lost on you? All anyone would have to do is reproduce the results.

Its like you are arguing that anyone could pay someone to say 2+2 is 10 and pulling a calculator out to show it is actually 4 is somehow invalid. All some saying it is not reproducable will do when it is being reproduced by at least one if not more entities is show how wrong they are. And yes, they will have to show their work so their flaws will be highlighted too.

It seems like you are scared to have work used to claim global warming opened up for anyone to inspect. Why is that?

Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data. What will happen is the data will be availible so it will or could be statistically validated and analysis redrawn. And i state "could" only because it allows full access to all the information.

Now think about that. How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on. This is prety much lae in the UK after the CRU email scuffle in which they forced the disclosure of data.

No.. The EPA would propose a regulation and during the required comment period, people could examine the science and the data used and attempt to reproduce it. If they find fault during the regulation process (the EPA cannot just declare regulation, it has to propose it, wait for a comment period, address any concerns brought up, comment, then vote to pass it). But anyone can reproduce the science if it is sound. You will have people in favor of the regulation reproducing it, you will have universities doing the same. if someone cannot reproduce it and others can, you will only have people looking like dumbasses and nothing more.

You do not know if he was even captured at all. Let alone speculating about big foot, drug cartels, the NSA, or Chinese military. Its just wishful thinking and hoping that he is still alive and alright at this point. For all we know, he could have ran off with some chick that wasn't his wife or interrupted something illegal and is face down in a shallow grave somewhere.