Marshmallow Marshalls Moralising Muscle


#221

Exactly. So the website will contain that (good) data when they are ready. Accessing the old rubbish would be stupid. It wasn’t verifiable. It was unreliable. If it meets the new standard, I’m sure it will go back up.

In the meantime the aphorism is “Both in danger and in doubt, tun in circles scream and shout”.

Why do you need a source? The reason is obvious. The boss said so.


#222

This is great, “Why do you need a source?” and “So cite the proof” from this same thread.


#223

I guess you should just keep up with the news or just google it. This has been talked about for ages now and there are adequate examples of EPA endangerment findings being based on secret science, so presumably not on the website. The whole reason Pruitt is exploding heads is that he was given the job with the express aim of breaking the cabal of corrupted power which infested the EPA. His advocacy of red and blue teams to debate issues of science openly scared the pants off the comfy bureaucrats because it challenged their undisputed authority.


#224

There MAY be some hope that Mr. Pruitt’s time at the EPA come to an end soon:


But what come in his place may not be any better.
Who knows which TV personality may be picked for the job. (Hannity maybe???)


#225

I dont get it, whats the problem with the EPA showing the climate data they use to make decisions?
Makes you wonder why its been secret all these years?


#226

The simple problem is that the warmist climate scientists cannot defend their science by openly engaging in debate with anyone who disagrees. They refuse to debate, won’t sit on panels with so-called ‘denialists’, blackball inconvenient scientific papers, peer review their own by others in their club, silence every critic, defund and denounce others, and soak up all the largesse dished out by governments to serve up constant alarm of pending doom which politicians are happy (or compelled) to ‘do something’ about to pacify the populous.

They controlled the science and fresh air will destroy their power, money and influence. They will squeal.


#227

Those damn “warmist climate scientitsts” are just like the evolution believers and round earth fools. They have nothing to back them up and only exist due to special interests, power and influence. They have already convinced a lot of people that humans haven’t always looked like we do now and earth looks like a ball. It is all BS.


#228

I said they would squeal. Didn’t take long.


#229

And that is just it. I am always suspicious of anyone that won’t argue the merits of their case, taking the low road of name calling and denigration. . . that ALWAYS raises an eyebrow with me, in ANY debate/argument/discussion.


#230

In the beginning.

Then came the answer.

I agree absolutely.


#231

So much easier to just call them snowflakes and walk off feeling you’re superior


#232

More dirt on Pruitt:


But will it be enough to get him kicked out of EPA??


#233

No point in trying to convince anyone, at this level it’s a debate about politics, not science.

The science is about the models I think. I sometimes tweak my weather routing program if I think it’s not giving good results. However no matter how I tweak it the amount of energy in, in the case of the ship it’s changes in rpm, consistently drives the final results no matter the other variables.


#234

It hadn’t been secret, it was on the EPA website.

Pruitt said that quote and then the current administration had all the data removed from the EPA website…


#235

Yes the EPA publish some data but not all
So do they publish all the data that they make decisions on and the answer is no.
They keep medical and industrial pollution data secret so there are plenty of issues like this:


#236

I see what you are saying and agree the data should not have been with held from the public but I want to mention a few things.

The Bush team article says that the EPA report that they planned to released had a chapter removed by the Bush administration, not that the EPA wanted to keep the data from the public so if you want to blame someone for keeping that data/chapter from the public it would be the Bush administration (not that it makes it any better that the chapter was kept from the public).

The first article you linked also draws ties between when the Pruitt was appointed to the EPA and that the with holding of information occurred after the Trump administration started. Now I do not have definitive proof that that administration was censoring the EPA similarly to what the Bush administration did but I have a hard time believing that it was a different situation (again, not that makes it any better).


#237

The most egregious EPA misconduct came after Bush.


#238

And this.


#239

Updated by this one. Here’s the key point summary.

Key Points:

Just Released, new research findings demonstrate that Ten Frequent Climate Alarmists’ Claims have each been Rebutted by true experts in each Field by simply citing the most relevant and credible empirical data.

The new results invalidate 10 very frequent Alarmist Claims in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.

If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.

This scientifically illiterate basis for regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth, jobs and national security.


#240

Interesting, I will keep an eye out for the EPA response to the 5th petition and then review the data of both. Although I did take a quick look through and found the hurricane one interesting since they equated intensity and frequency with landfall. Then because strong storms making landfall has decreased then storm intensity and frequency must also be decreasing which is a false equivalence, https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

Who knows maybe this time the EPA will revise some of its initial endangerment findings.