The Environment

A good look into what's going wrong at the EPA under Pruitt

In testimony before a House science subcommittee on May 23, the scientist, Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors, raised numerous concerns about what she saw as a political agenda at the EPA to "marginalize" and "politicize" scientific data used to shape agency policy since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the agency's administrator in February.

--------
In both her written and her live testimony before the subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Swackhamer stressed that she was speaking as a private citizen and an independent scientific expert, not in her role as head of the EPA advisory committee.

But internal EPA emails published this week by Republicans on the committee show that before the hearing, Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, sent a memo saying, "I need to contact Ms. Swackhammer [sic] as soon as possible to get a copy of her testimony and discuss her question period before the Science Committee."
-----

But speaking more generally, Swackhamer lamented what she characterized as EPA leaders' campaign to skew raw science to push a political agenda.

"My concern is that the science that is needed to develop good environmental policy, whether it's done at the state or federal level, will simply not be available if the path that we're going down currently continues to be followed," Swackhamer testified May 23.

"My personal fear is that the actions taken at the federal government [level] are, in fact, diminishing the role of science," she said. "Certainly, they're not celebrating the role of science."
Click to expand...
She is the Chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors. As I understand it, that is their top scientist. Not only did Pruitt oust half of her advisory committee, but they tried to submit to her a list of talking points to use when visiting Congress.

They're trying to tell the scientists at the EPA how to science. That's not how science works.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My daughter ordered to fill up R22 fluid (freon) in home air conditioners unit ....... outrageous price now days for some reasons. Anyway, tech guy said eventually phased out including R22. In other words, illegal, about 3 years or so in the future because ozone depletion thing. Thanks to feds. R410a replacement ...... legal and supposedly friendly environmental issues but R410 and R22 not mixed well at all ...... I think different compressor and copper lines. Best solution: new unit

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I have the feeling environmental scientists would LOVE to do this. I wonder if scientists from the EPA and NASA would be allowed to participate.
Click to expand...
I don't like the smell of this. Scientists ALREADY debate one another through the process of peer review of research. Consensus (like the consensus on global climate change) comes about in a lengthy, laborious, process.

Some of these scientists that are experts in their fields are also good defending their views orally. Some are not. Creating persuasive arguments to "average" television viewers is more the realm of politicians and lawyers, not scientists.

Seems like a set-up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OH...I agree. It seems like the prefect situations where a bunch of junk science can be thrown out there and all of a sudden a bunch of people latch onto it and never pay attention to the fact checking after it's over.

 
I think it's a terrible idea.

Trump won the election, and a huge number of his claims were made-up bullsh#t. But when someone just spouts bullsh#t endlessly, no amount of data-driven evidence can have an effect in real time. Trump could debate Neil deGrasse Tyson on astrophysics and probably "win" in many people's eyes.

When you have a debate it's about who is believed by the largest # of people or even if they don't believe, who is liked by the largest # of people. It's easy to throw lies in as long as they sound good.

It's just not a good forum for scientists. If Pruitt wants to do it, it's because he knows this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only way I would want to see it happen is if they roll out 100 scientists and it is 97 against 3. But that would probably be a bad idea because a chunk of the public would sympathize with the 3 and feel they are getting picked on.

 
tenor.gif


 
Moiraine said:
I think it's a terrible idea.

Trump won the election, and a huge number of his claims were made-up bullsh#t. But when someone just spouts bullsh#t endlessly, no amount of data-driven evidence can have an effect in real time. Trump could debate Neil deGrasse Tyson on astrophysics and probably "win" in many people's eyes.

When you have a debate it's about who is believed by the largest # of people or even if they don't believe, who is liked by the largest # of people. It's easy to throw lies in as long as they sound good.

It's just not a good forum for scientists. If Pruitt wants to do it, it's because he knows this.
Click to expand...



You're absolutely right. In political situations, people don't want to hear facts they don't agree with and realize the error of their ways. They want someone who makes them feel good and reaffirms their preexisting beliefs, even if it's with a bunch of dishonest garbage.

Tribalism is badly hurting us as a nation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top