This is a false dilemma. Who says a study would have to be like that? Why wouldn't it be sufficient to show that these hypothetical chemicals are toxic to humans and animals, and therefore should not be dumped into a body of water?

You know, I thought your post was quite reasonable, until I got to the last line.

I didn't assume that people opposing the bill are against science. I didn't say anything of the sort. That's your assumption about me. I asked a question to make a point; namely, that requiring the government to disclose the data and methods it uses to justify its regulations is a good thing--the alternative is secrecy and blind trust, which is the antithesis of democracy. If someone is arguing against mandatory disclosure, one should question their motives, especially if their argument tends toward hypocrisy because of their accusing their opponents of all being "anti-science."

But I wouldn't want to influence anyone with my "ignorance," "stupidity," or "idiocy," so you should probably ignore me.

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anyone take the IRS's side before.

Well, some people will do anything to defend Obama. We all know that he and his executive branch would never do anything wrong; they'd never, ever misuse or abuse their power to intimidate or inconvenience their political opponents. Yeah, yeah, there were documents and sworn testimony, but that's all made up BS. Why? Because...why am I replying to you? Sigh....

From your link:

If you think that constitutes an "objective fact," then you clearly don't know what an objective fact is.

Here, let me ask you 0.18 questions and see if you answer correctly: How does

Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you're calling your opponents "the Tealiban"?

You know, it's funny, I can't recall hearing any Tea Party folks make up names for their opponents that look and sound like an infamous group of terrorists recognized around the world as just plain evil. But it seems like people who disagree with Tea Party ideas can't even post a comment without resorting to labeling, name-calling, and well-poisoning.

"...extremist...abuse...wars...mindlessly..." Labeling your opponents is the easiest and cheapest way to avoid having a rational argument.

So, if there are any scientists who vote Republican, is that enough to disprove your mindless, well-poisoning generalizations? What if there are any scientists who believe that God created the universe?

Oh, wait, of course, I forgot: that's impossible, because "anyone with half a brain" knows that there is no God, so anyone who thinks there is a God must have no brain. Yeah, yeah, I know, plenty of scientists throughout history have believed in God, but they were all forced to say that; they didn't really believe in God. We're so much more enlightened now.

Can this also be used against climate alarmists, atheists, humanistic cults etc?

I mean, as long as we're labeling people...

Does "-1, Funny" roughly equal "+1, Sad but True"?

You could be right.

But what would be in our favor? Letting the EPA do whatever it wants, without having to justify it to anyone? Don't you know that there are lobbyists on the other side too, and that they manipulate government too?

Really, how can you argue against requiring the government to publicly disclose the scientific studies it uses to justify its regulations?

The GP just said that the bill requires the EPA's research to be made public. The scenario addressed is not that of the EPA's ignoring contrary studies, but the EPA's making regulations and refusing to disclose their own data to back it up. It's more like, "Nope, we don't have to prove that this regulation is based on sound science, you have to take our word for it. Thank you for playing, now go shut down your plants and put your people out of work. (Then they'll need government assistance, and then they'll vote for us, because we took care of them.)"

Don't you get it? Or are you so entrenched in your partisan views that you can't see the other side of the coin?

But Democrats would never believe in conspiracies, not even ones saying that every "right-wing nut"--I mean, Republican--is a corporate sellout.

I know I'm generalizing here, but I think it's telling that so many liberals fall back on ad hominems when conservatives try to have a reasonable, rational argument. One side doesn't need to resort to name-calling to make their point. The other side calls their opponents "nuts" and poisons the well by claiming they believe "nonsense" and conspiracy theories. What's sad is that, as was mentioned before, it seems like a large segment of society falls for it. But I guess nothing's really changed; Barnum was right.

That's basically the purpose of our entire structure of government, to prevent any one part of it from assuming too much power and doing too much damage. Our government is based on the fundamental distrust of people in power and government in general. And the result has been the most prosperous and free nation in the history of the world. I'm mystified as to why people nowadays want to go the opposite direction, why they suddenly believe government knows best--government that is run by people as messed up as everyone else on the planet.

When did the EPA start regulating personal beliefs about the origin of the universe? or school curriculums?

Your hypocrisy is astounding.

How many things that you know have you personally observed or heard first-hand?