Try technocrat.net - Bruce Perens already closed it down twice due to low interest, but if
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?
You're forgetting grade school science. The experiment, study, or calculations should be reproducible one person does should be able to be done by other scientists. If someone working for Chicago Solar claims that tree rings indicate that
If a student at TTI runs an analysis of the dihydrogen monoxide levels published by the national weather service, any scientist running the same calculations on the same data should get the same result. THAT'S reproducibility, it's a basic foundation of science and it was on the test in about 4th grade.
If the data is kept secret and the calculations are kept secret, that's not reproducible. That's not science, that's mysticism - tea reading.
What does "reproducible" mean? If there are 100 attempts to reproduce the results, and only 99 of them agree, is it reproducible? Do attempts at reproducing the results include work done by the very companies opposed to the regulations, who can't disclose all the details of their work because they're "proprietary"? Does it include work done by the equivalent of creation "scientists"? Can you tie a proposed regulation up in the courts for years because only 99 out of 100 attempts succeeded? Is there fine print saying that a regulation can't be implemented as long as there is "any reasonable legal challenge" or some other lawyerspeak BS that means throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Why don't you go read it and find out?
Or you could keep ranting and praising our glorious EPA who would never do anything wrong and must be trusted unequivocally to the point of not requiring them to base regulations with enormous economic and environmental and human impact on actual, reproducible science.
There's definitely no way that you're the dupe.
As far as I know, the EPA doesn't regulate people's beliefs about the origin of the universe.
Well, more accurately, it's the problem with idiots, or more simply, with humanity.
Yeah, it would have the effect of totalitarianism.
Seriously, that would be nice, but it wouldn't be right.
Maybe instead of making dogmatic rules that hamstring either the EPA or everyone else, we need to make rules that get rid of the idiots who make stupid decisions like the ones that affected you.
Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.
Neither extreme is reasonable or wise. Some people think that radio waves are cooking our brains and causing cancer. Should the EPA outlaw cell phones because "it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem"? Or should it base its regulations on scientific studies and reasonable evidence?
If the precautionary principle is, "If we (do|don't do) X, something bad might happen, therefore we must (do|not do) X!" then I think the precautionary principle should be thrown out the window. We need to advocate intelligence and wisdom, not dogmatic, arbitrary rules.
Leave it to--well, I was going to say "Slashdot," but I'll just go with "the Internet"--to simultaneously complain about anti-science "denialists" and pro-science "Republicans." Their true colors are showing.
Not reproducible implies no uncertainty in a measurement.
So you're objecting to this common-sense, science-advocating, holding-government-responsible bill based on your own, arbitrary, made-up "implication," and advocating instead irreproducible "science"?
And you call Republicans scientifically illiterate and stupid.
It is naive think that data, truth and science will prevail.
And it's not naive to think that the EPA is trustworthy?
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo