Posted on 01/25/2017 2:35:17 PM PST by lafroste
Amid rumors (climate change site removal), denials (gag orders), and melting snowflakes (see social media), AP reports the Trump administration is mandating that EPA scientific studies and data must undergo review by political staff before being released to the public.
As NPR reported earlier, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings likely will need to have their work reviewed on a "case by case basis" before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency's transition team.
In an interview Tuesday evening with NPR, Doug Ericksen, the head of communications for the Trump administration's EPA transition team, said that during the transition period, he expects scientists will undergo an unspecified internal vetting process before sharing their work outside the agency.
"We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration," Ericksen told NPR.
Ericksen did not say whether such a review process would become a permanent feature of Trump's EPA. "We're on Day 2 here. ... You've got to give us a few days to get our feet underneath us."
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
The feds have no constitutional right or authority to meddle in or interfere with the environment or environmental issues. Those issues legally belong to the states.
The White House has issued no such directives
The EPA is part of the Executive Branch.
The EPA is not independent.
Get on board with the head-shed or suffer the consequences.
Snowflakes, buttercups, and participant millennials should pay attention to subjects covered in kindergarten:
<><> Follow the rules and mind your manners.
Gee, maybe they’ll all be so offended they will quit and make the job of shutting the place down that much easier.
Agreed. Political review of science is unpalatable - however, the EPA has become a home of dishonest nutball cultists. They need actual scientists - yes, even liberal ones - as long as the organization exists.
You fervently believe that man is dooming the planet? Fine. Show us, in an honest and reproducible manner.
Abolish Nixon’s worst idea, the EPA.
Political review is not a good thing. On the other hand, since so much posing as science is actually politics wrapped up in undisclosed data sets, I hate the idea that my tax dollars are paying for political misinformation pretending to be science.
Why I Am Cancelling Two Subscriptions to Smithsonian (Vanity)
We must take a stand against these commies, everywhere!
“Political review of science is unpalatable”
It’s not political review of science. It’s political review of a political decision to fund research. In the past, that political decision has been exercised almost exclusively for a political goal—support for the AGW theory. Political review of a political process is entirely appropriate.
EPA was giving $15k grants to any green who could fill out the form.
Now you tell me.
EPA is going to get really really leaky until its staff is reduced substantially.
“EPA is going to get really really leaky until its staff is reduced substantially.”
That may be the only way to get rid of them!
Peer review, what a concept.
Abolish Nixon’s worst idea, the EPA.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EPA is a dangerous, tyrannical agency hostile to property owners and to private enterprise. SHUT IT DOWN NOW!
That was already a requirement.
It’s not political review of science. It’s political review of a political decision to fund research. In the past, that political decision has been exercised almost exclusively for a political goal—support for the AGW theory. Political review of a political process is entirely appropriate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well and truly said. The EPA is a highly politicized agency in which hardcore leftists employ scientists who willingly “do science” with the goal of giving an aura of credibility to a Marxist-inspired political agenda.
I have worked for a number of organizations during my career (including NASA), and every single one of them required any paper I authored for a conference or magazine or book be vetted by the organization before publication. This is absolutely standard stuff.
The problem with this guy is he doesn’t like the new reviewer.
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.