” She defended the EPA’s “high-quality science,”....”
The scientific method involves trying to disprove hypotheses.
Politics involves trying to convince voters that you’re right. When politicians use ‘science’ to make their case, what they really mean is some ‘scientist’ found something that supports their case. A polite term for this is “confirmation bias”. There are innumerable less polite terms for it. Whatever it’s called, it is most certainly not “high-quality science”.
Next, ask her to produce all of the scientific data used to justify the rules and regulations they have imposed on Americans via the Clean WATER Act.
I’ll bet she can’t do that, either.
No scientific basis for EPA policies. What a surprise.
these are end-justifies-the-means socialists. they are also we-are-experts-and-know-whats-best-for-you asshats as well.
best thing we could do is find an active volcano and do a mass drop of these people into them.
Wteffing-f???
SHUT THEM DOWN
With that kind of ammunition... there’d be NO objection whatsoever to the kind and extent of regulation the Liberals routinely foist on us.
It doesn't exist... and never did.
We have given the EPA and their Liberal shills a latitude on this that NO college kid in any lab or science class gets just writing a term paper! STUDENTS are held to a higher standard on verification and transparency than THESE jerks are!
Take a look at what their so called scientists did to an oyster farm in northern California .... in the face of all facts and reason they made up lies and did what they wanted to anyway. Surprise surprise
Thank you Dick Nixon....even from the grave you are docking with us
In fields other than climate science [sic] publishing the data and the process is part of the peer review process.
IOW, they just make stuff up.........................
Shut it down, shut it down NOW!
I guess this means that if you aren't a member of the scientific peerage you won't be allowed to see the data and must trust in the scientists' word on the results.
Funny, I had always thought that the idea of peer review was free exchange of all of the data and allowing for the reproduction of the experiments. I guess that just applies to those who know the secret handshakes though and not to the peons.
From President Eisenhower's farewell address.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.Nice little circle of life: The EPA funds the scientists, the scientists produce the results the EPA wants and nobody is allowed to look at or question anything going on. The whole peer review system was meant to stop this type of hijinks rather than perpetuate it.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Fixed...
Time to RIF the EPA to nothing.
Although this issue is seldom discussed, it is generally true of every "environmental" law since 1972. Including the creation of the EPA itself.
There are silver bullets to end that whole phony charade; if only the proper organization or true science group could find the gonads, time and determination to pursue it.
And...
Federal Rules of Evidence, Dec 1, 2013
Federal Rules of Evidence
bump