Posted on 08/31/2018 12:57:27 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) internal watchdog is auditing how the agency deals with issues of scientific integrity.
In a notice released Friday, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said it would launch research into how the EPA implements and adheres to its scientific integrity policy.
The audit was launched voluntarily by the office, so it is not connected to a specific request from a lawmaker or complaint.
But critics of the Trump administration have nonetheless criticized the agency for what they see as attempts to undermine science at the EPA, including downplaying the harms from climate change and air pollution, and censoring scientists.
To some degree, the criticisms go both ways. Republicans in Congress have accused career employees at the EPA of improprieties in research that showed that “glider trucks,” trucks with old engines and new bodies, emit far more pollution than newer trucks.
The OIG said its research will focus on at least four areas: any employee concerns with scientific integrity, employee awareness of the policy and reporting requirements, reasons that workers might not report violations of the policy and the adjudication process for alleged violations.
Will government grants for man-made global warming research become more difficult to obtain?
Ping.
Exactly what harm is “Climate Change” causing?
Specific cases with irrefutable evidence of a cause and effect chain please.
“Scientific integrity” to the Left means cherry-picking data to support global warming and ignoring anything else. The evidence must always match the pre-determined conclusion, or it’s not evidence we want.
Have they come up with the “correct” temperature for the earth?
How about sea level? They got the “correct” value for that?
Any scientist using the Scientific Method to reach their conclusions rather than the political agenda of the left, has been censored, to date.
Key parts of science are precision and probability.
If I eat too much of anything I will get sick, and often die, regardless of what it is. Different chemicals have different levels of toxicity.
Suppose a chemical has a 1% probability of causing illness at 100 ppm =(parts per million) and 99% probability at 500ppm.
There are no tests at 1 ppm because that lab work for that accuracy is expensive. Even at 100ppm the tests could be + or - 10 or 20 of 100.
So should the EPA ban something at 1ppm ... just to be safe?
Of course, the manufacturer would have to test with accuracy at 1 ppm also, which would be as expensive as it is for the EPA.
That is the kind of question in the real world. Accuracy and probability.
Any and all predictions of the future are probability. There is never certainty of global warming, or cooling or rain 2 hours from now. Eveything in the future is a probability.
At what point should the EPA consider a probability to be a certainaty?
Kindly cease imposing your definition of what’s important on your fellow FReepers.
Who is the watchdog, and who is going to watch him?
This is a very good thing. Watch for more EPA resignations.
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.