Secret Science Under Attack — Part 3

By Kip Hansen — Re-Blogged From WUWT

The attacks continue in the Journals of Science against the EPA’s proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule — commonly referred to as the Secret Science rule.

[WARNING:  This is a long Opinion Piece — only those particularly interested in this policy issue should invest the time to read it.  Others can click back to the home page and select another posting. — kh ]

The latest salvo comes from two scientists.  They are:  David B. Allison, PhD, Indiana University School of Public Health–Bloomington and Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

featured_image3

Continue reading

Secret Science Under Attack — Part 2

Opinion By Kip Hansen — Re-Blogged From WUWT

In Part 1 of this two-part series, I detailed how there has been a growing furor over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (E.P.A.’s)  proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule — most often referred to as the Secret Science rule.  A majority of the expressed concern about the rule deals with the Harvard Six Cities Study — which is being defended by opposing  the  proposed E.P.A. rule.  Here’s why:

six_cities_abstract_800

[ click to view full size in another tab/window ]

This is a perfectly fine preliminary study of the topic.  It has a major finding of :

Continue reading

Secret Science Under Attack — Part 1

By Kip Hansen – Re-Blogged From WUWT

In the 11th of November 2019, the NY Times published an article by journalist Lisa Friedman in the Climate Section titled: ”E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules”.

[ Why does an article about the EPA and Health Rules appear in the Climate section of the NY Times?  Who knows? ]

The article is a long series of accusations that the current administration’s EPA is trying to weaken the science used to make public policy.  It includes the following:

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #368

The Week That Was: July 20, 2019, Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.”Richard P. Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist

Number of the Week: Three Ways

The Greenhouse Effect – The Scientific Method: This week marks the 50th anniversary of humans landing on another celestial body, and their eventual safe return. The event is justly being celebrated in many ways, including recognition of the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, and workers involved in the Apollo Mission and its success. Of special note are the Human Calculators, mostly women, who performed the tedious calculations of the trajectories involved, with precision. But most importantly, the Apollo Mission was a brilliant example of rigorous application of the scientific method, and its importance of expanding knowledge of the physical world.

Today, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is claiming we are in a “climate crisis” which is leading to extinction of a million species and is a grave danger to humanity. Its special report “Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” in October 2018 stated:

Continue reading

Scientific Hubris and Global Warming

By Gregory Sloop – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Notwithstanding portrayals in the movies as eccentrics who frantically warn humanity about genetically modified dinosaurs, aliens, and planet-killing asteroids, the popular image of a scientist is probably closer to the humble, bookish Professor, who used his intellect to save the castaways on practically every episode of Gilligan’s Island. The stereotypical scientist is seen as driven by a magnificent call, not some common, base motive. Unquestionably, science progresses unerringly to the truth.

This picture was challenged by the influential twentieth-century philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who held that scientific ”truth” is determined not as much by facts as by the consensus of the scientific community. The influence of thought leaders, rewarding of grants, and scorn of dissenters are used to protect mainstream theory. Unfortunately, science only makes genuine progress when the mainstream theory is disproved, what Kuhn called a “paradigm shift.” Data which conflict with the mainstream paradigm are ignored instead of used to develop a better one. Like most people, scientists are ultimately motivated by financial security, career advancement, and the desire for admiration. Thus, nonscientific considerations impact scientific “truth.”

Continue reading