• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's Happening to the EPA?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Politicization for raping and pillaging is what I call it.

First get rid of the scientists.

The Trump administration will not reappoint half the expert members of a board that advises the Environmental Protection Agency on the integrity of its science, the latest in a series of moves that could benefit industries whose pollution the government regulates.

Deborah L. Swackhamer, chairwoman of the Board of Scientific Counselors, confirmed Monday that nine of the 18 outside experts on her panel will not serve a second three-year term.

Trump's EPA dismisses half of the scientists on its advisory board - LA Times
Click to expand...

Next, give the hacks free reign.

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.

EPA Accused of Interfering With Top Science Adviser'''s Congressional Testimony - NBC News
Click to expand...

And, finally, allow the destruction of the environment and the poisoning of half the country so that the rich can profit off of our misery and, worse, stick us with the tab to clean it all up later, after all the profits have been pulled out and the culprits are long gone.

The E.P.A.?s Dangerous Anti-Regulatory Policies | The New Yorker
 
The EPA was fine before it became the cornerstone for Nazi -environmentalism. Now it's just another sadistic government agency Hell-bent on power and control.
 
calamity said:
Politicization for raping and pillaging is what I call it.

First get rid of the scientists.



Next, give the hacks free reign.



And, finally, allow the destruction of the environment and the poisoning of half the country so that the rich can profit off of our misery and, worse, stick us with the tab to clean it all up later, after all the profits have been pulled out and the culprits are long gone.

The E.P.A.?s Dangerous Anti-Regulatory Policies | The New Yorker
Click to expand...

It is more the poor, whose utility does better by lower prices. Sure the rich have piles of paper and lots of toys. But the poor have meat on the table, a roof with running water and a smart phone. It sounds like less than the envious would like. But it is more than other forms of societal organisation tend to grant them.
 
This response in another thread on the same topic summarizes is rather nicely.

ocean515 said:
As per the Socialist Progressive objective, citizens are to be ruled over by career bureaucrats not distracted by elections and accountability. As such, the EPA was turned into a Super Agency, like many others, during the Obama Administration.

Tasked with a social justice mandate, the militarized EPA passed regulations and invented standards that were not to be questioned, or even debated.

Purging the EPA of people who embraced this mandate is an appropriate and much needed activity so the original mandate of the EPA can be fulfilled.

All this BS about no scientists is just knee jerk responses from those trained to bark at the dog whistles.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
Politicization for raping and pillaging is what I call it.

First get rid of the scientists.



Next, give the hacks free reign.



And, finally, allow the destruction of the environment and the poisoning of half the country so that the rich can profit off of our misery and, worse, stick us with the tab to clean it all up later, after all the profits have been pulled out and the culprits are long gone.

The E.P.A.?s Dangerous Anti-Regulatory Policies | The New Yorker
Click to expand...

The EPA has been turned over to the oil industry. Ditto for the Federal Government. Pruitt, head of the EPA, is from Oklahoma, and a long-time naysayer to climate science. We have Exxon oil mogul, Tillerson as Secretary of State. Carl Icahn is a special advisor, dictating policy and investing at the same time. The Koch brothers are increasing investments in lobbying for Political favors. And many more - One big happy family, watching out for the 1%ers.
 
Media_Truth said:
The EPA has been turned over to the oil industry. Ditto for the Federal Government. Pruitt, head of the EPA, is from Oklahoma, and a long-time naysayer to climate science. We have Exxon oil mogul, Tillerson as Secretary of State. Carl Icahn is a special advisor, dictating policy and investing at the same time. The Koch brothers are increasing investments in lobbying for Political favors. And many more - One big happy family, watching out for the 1%ers.
Click to expand...

One reason I say that the Republicans steal from the poor to give to the rich is that GOP policy allows the rich to rape the planet and then sticks the taxpayer with the bill...usually after our poorest people get sick and die from all the pollution the factories owned by the rich spewed out to make them richer at our expense.

Typically, once the shtf, and we all prove how much damage company XYZ caused, the profits have been reaped and the the business has no money left to pay for the cleanup. Nice system we have here--if you are rich and don't care about killing millions of people.
 
EPA / reproducibility / Science
New Study Claims To Expose The ‘Science Charade’ Behind Some EPA Regulations

From the Daily Caller Michael Bastasch 07/04/2017 A new study highlights how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to game the rule-making system to cloak contentious policy decisions as based on science. Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published…

A new study highlights how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to game the rule-making system to cloak contentious policy decisions as based on science.
Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published a report to highlight the “perverse incentives involved in developing regulations” as part of EPA’s air quality setting standards.
The report outlines problems in the regulatory process from the way Congress wrote the Clean Air Act to how EPA staff and agency science advisers present the data to the administrator. All this creates a “science charade” to mask controversial decisions, the report claims.
The study also took aim at EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is a board of science advisers tasked with reviewing and recommending air quality standards for pollutants.
But the legislative language authorizing CASAC allows them to “make hidden policy judgments couched in scientific terms and attempt to influence” EPA decisions, according to the study.
Recent CASAC panels have been more activist in their recommendations, which is one reason why they’ve been targeted by Republican lawmakers.
House lawmakers passed two bills in 2017 to require EPA to use publicly-available scientific data and limit the conflicts of interest of agency science advisers. Both bills were highly criticized by environmental activists. . . .

 
Media_Truth said:
The EPA has been turned over to the oil industry. Ditto for the Federal Government. Pruitt, head of the EPA, is from Oklahoma, and a long-time naysayer to climate science. We have Exxon oil mogul, Tillerson as Secretary of State. Carl Icahn is a special advisor, dictating policy and investing at the same time. The Koch brothers are increasing investments in lobbying for Political favors. And many more - One big happy family, watching out for the 1%ers.
Click to expand...

And yet, it is the alt-left's .0001% that funds the propaganda that pushes the gullible to believe what you wrote is true.
 
calamity said:
One reason I say that the Republicans steal from the poor to give to the rich is that GOP policy allows the rich to rape the planet and then sticks the taxpayer with the bill...usually after our poorest people get sick and die from all the pollution the factories owned by the rich spewed out to make them richer at our expense.

Typically, once the shtf, and we all prove how much damage company XYZ caused, the profits have been reaped and the the business has no money left to pay for the cleanup. Nice system we have here--if you are rich and don't care about killing millions of people.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Dang, you should write fiction for Hollywood. With an imagination like yours, you might find a better paying job.
 
ocean515 said:
:lamo

Dang, you should write fiction for Hollywood. With an imagination like yours, you might find a better paying job.
Click to expand...

Must be hard to be so ALT Right, while living in Southern CA.
 
Jack Hays said:
EPA / reproducibility / Science
New Study Claims To Expose The ‘Science Charade’ Behind Some EPA Regulations

From the Daily Caller Michael Bastasch 07/04/2017 A new study highlights how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to game the rule-making system to cloak contentious policy decisions as based on science. Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published…

A new study highlights how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to game the rule-making system to cloak contentious policy decisions as based on science.
Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published a report to highlight the “perverse incentives involved in developing regulations” as part of EPA’s air quality setting standards.
The report outlines problems in the regulatory process from the way Congress wrote the Clean Air Act to how EPA staff and agency science advisers present the data to the administrator. All this creates a “science charade” to mask controversial decisions, the report claims.
The study also took aim at EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which is a board of science advisers tasked with reviewing and recommending air quality standards for pollutants.
But the legislative language authorizing CASAC allows them to “make hidden policy judgments couched in scientific terms and attempt to influence” EPA decisions, according to the study.
Recent CASAC panels have been more activist in their recommendations, which is one reason why they’ve been targeted by Republican lawmakers.
House lawmakers passed two bills in 2017 to require EPA to use publicly-available scientific data and limit the conflicts of interest of agency science advisers. Both bills were highly criticized by environmental activists. . . .

Click to expand...

Another Watts Up with That pseudo-science article. Watts is not even educated in the field of climate science, and yet claims to be an expert, and you buy it, Jack? Really....
 
Media_Truth said:
Another Watts Up with That pseudo-science article. Watts is not even educated in the field of climate science, and yet claims to be an expert, and you buy it, Jack? Really....
Click to expand...

Neither Thomas Edison nor Abraham Lincoln had much formal education but they did OK. I don't think Watts is in their class, but he runs a fine site -- much more courteous and broad-minded than those run by warmist zealots.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that WUWT often functions as a data aggregator, bringing relevant information of diverse origins to a single convenient site. In this case, the article you're so eager to trash has pretty good provenance.

Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published a report to highlight the “perverse incentives involved in developing regulations” as part of EPA’s air quality setting standards.
 
Jack Hays said:
Neither Thomas Edison nor Abraham Lincoln had much formal education but they did OK. I don't think Watts is in their class, but he runs a fine site -- much more courteous and broad-minded than those run by warmist zealots.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that WUWT often functions as a data aggregator, bringing relevant information of diverse origins to a single convenient site. In this case, the article you're so eager to trash has pretty good provenance.

Susan Dudley, president of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and Marcus Peacock, executive vice president of the Business Roundtable, published a report to highlight the “perverse incentives involved in developing regulations” as part of EPA’s air quality setting standards.
Click to expand...

It's Junk Science lies, and Watts has been called out for lying repeatedly. His attacks on the credibility of Climate Change scientists are well known lies, such as claiming that they do not use or have renewable energy systems, when they certainly have. Nothing but a fossil-fuel industry pet, trying to instill doubt, in an effort to refute the 97% of climate change professionals who are NOT deniers.
 
Media_Truth said:
It's Junk Science lies, and Watts has been called out for lying repeatedly. His attacks on the credibility of Climate Change scientists are well known lies, such as claiming that they do not use or have renewable energy systems, when they certainly have. Nothing but a fossil-fuel industry pet, trying to instill doubt, in an effort to refute the 97% of climate change professionals who are NOT deniers.
Click to expand...

And your post is just a string of unfounded allegations, the tactic of low information zealots.

And you were of course completely wrong about the post in question.
 
Jack Hays said:
And your post is just a string of unfounded allegations, the tactic of low information zealots.

And you were of course completely wrong about the post in question.
Click to expand...

Sure, Jack, keep posting your Watts misinformation. His uneducated banter fits right in with your easy-to-refute, unscientific allegations.
 
ocean515 said:
When California is ruled by the alt-left, I'm not sure how far right from them someone would have to be in order to be considered alt-right.
Click to expand...

I can tell by the comments that your off-the-chart Right. The 1%ers have you firmly in their hip pocket.
 
Media_Truth said:
I can tell by the comments that your off-the-chart Right. The 1%ers have you firmly in their hip pocket.
Click to expand...

Can you now? :lamo

I guess when you can't argue a point intellectually, there is always that meme the alt-left has created for you.
 
calamity said:
Politicization for raping and pillaging is what I call it.

First get rid of the scientists.



Next, give the hacks free reign.



And, finally, allow the destruction of the environment and the poisoning of half the country so that the rich can profit off of our misery and, worse, stick us with the tab to clean it all up later, after all the profits have been pulled out and the culprits are long gone.

The E.P.A.?s Dangerous Anti-Regulatory Policies | The New Yorker
Click to expand...

EPA = scientists with guns?
 
Media_Truth said:
Sure, Jack, keep posting your Watts misinformation. His uneducated banter fits right in with your easy-to-refute, unscientific allegations.
Click to expand...

So far you've been shown to be wrong on the facts in every exchange.
 
The many, many lies exposed.

https://wottsupwiththat.com/

This web site will be a response to wattsupwiththat.com, an anti-science web site operated by amateur climatology critic Anthony Watts and his associates. We consider his web site a prominent and monotonous source of misinformation and misrepresentation of the science and physical evidence that relates to the human contribution toward Climate Change, also called Anthropogenic Global Warming or “AGW”.
 
Media_Truth said:
The many, many lies exposed.

https://wottsupwiththat.com/

This web site will be a response to wattsupwiththat.com, an anti-science web site operated by amateur climatology critic Anthony Watts and his associates. We consider his web site a prominent and monotonous source of misinformation and misrepresentation of the science and physical evidence that relates to the human contribution toward Climate Change, also called Anthropogenic Global Warming or “AGW”.
Click to expand...

Sure. A zero-content site run by a guy who's afraid to provide his own name.
 
calamity said:
Politicization for raping and pillaging is what I call it.

First get rid of the scientists.



Next, give the hacks free reign.



And, finally, allow the destruction of the environment and the poisoning of half the country so that the rich can profit off of our misery and, worse, stick us with the tab to clean it all up later, after all the profits have been pulled out and the culprits are long gone.

The E.P.A.?s Dangerous Anti-Regulatory Policies | The New Yorker
Click to expand...

Actually, they are removing the politics already embedded in the EPA.
 
Media_Truth said:
The EPA has been turned over to the oil industry. Ditto for the Federal Government. Pruitt, head of the EPA, is from Oklahoma, and a long-time naysayer to climate science. We have Exxon oil mogul, Tillerson as Secretary of State. Carl Icahn is a special advisor, dictating policy and investing at the same time. The Koch brothers are increasing investments in lobbying for Political favors. And many more - One big happy family, watching out for the 1%ers.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Please link court worthy evidence to support your contention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom