Posted on 10/31/2017 9:51:45 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday he intends to replace the outside experts that advise him on science and public health issues with new board members holding more diverse views.
In announcing the changes, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt suggested many previously appointed to the panels were potentially biased because they had received federal research grants. The 22 boards advise EPA on a wide range of issues, including drinking water standards and pesticide safety.
“Whatever science comes out of EPA shouldn’t be political science,” said Pruitt, a Republican lawyer who previously served as the attorney general of Oklahoma. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.”
Pruitt has expressed skepticism about the consensus of climate scientists that man-made carbon emissions are the primary cause of global warming. He also overruled experts that had recommended pulling a top-selling pesticide from the market after peer-reviewed studies showed it damaged children’s brains.
Pruitt said he will name new leadership and members to three key EPA advisory boards soon — the Science Advisory Board, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Board of Scientific Counselors. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
About time. The EPA is a national disgrace.
“Whatever science comes out of EPA shouldn’t be political science”
EPA Administrator wins the internet!
I want anyone who has taken government money under the color of climate science to be put under oath and testify about their findings
“said Pruitt, a Republican lawyer “ When has the AP ever said “Democrat lawyer” in like fashion, ever? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Stupid winning! LOL! Ecowanker heads a poppin`.
Hippies, roll up!!!!!!!
This is a curious statement from the author, who seems to support the grant receiving members who believe they can be objective, while complaining industry representatives cannot.
YES!! About time. The prog lefties have said for years that anybody paid by an energy company is biased and outright crooked. Obviously it's a two way street -- when your livelihood depends on government grants, you deliver the results your master expects. This is great news.
That’s been their damned argument for decades. Money from industry taints results in a very bad way.
Money from government goes to pure-as-white-snow saints who don’t have a biased bone in their bodies. Government is infallible and only wants what’s best for its sheeple.
That argument has always been a load of hogwash. And yet, tens of millions of people believe it to be true.
Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy.
On the journey to the promised land, “Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve,” Pruitt said. “This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do.”
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my oldest daughter who's gone full Communist. We agreed to debate whether global warming was human-caused.
She warned me she wouldn't accept any arguments from the Heartland Institute because it takes donations from the oil industry. I told her "fair enough, but I won't accept any arguments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because it's totally funded by the government industry."
For some reason the debate never happened.
Good. But the next president can easily undo all of this. Congress must pass legislation strictly limiting and defining the EPA’s powers, or this is all just temporary.
You might want to get that cleaned up.
I’d be happier if the entire EPA itself was gutted, but I’ll take it.
I’d be happier if the entire EPA itself was gutted...
**********************
Agree with that! Abolish the EPA and move responsibility for monitoring basic environmental issues to something like Dept. of Interior.
As Olog-hai said, the EPA was created by EO, so not Constitutionally required.
Would save tons of $$$ and ridiculous regulations and wasteful grants.
It doesn’t even have to be that the government is looking for a particular result.
A scientist could slant his results so as to get another grant to continue the research. Basically, steering science so he can continue to receive grants.
Scientist on grant panel: Well the results in rats suggest that PCBs promote cancer growth but it is not definitive. The results should be confirmed with a study in dogs.
Panel chair: Without any dissenting voices heard the grant will be continued for fiscal year 2018
People were biased because of their grants? No, that couldn’t happen. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.