House passes bill to make EPA science public

[dilbert firestorm]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-29-17-56-41

good, this way EPA administrators can't hide behind a firewall of secrecy in how they arrived at the data. they can't play FOIA games anymore.

[Yssup Rider]

SPAM

[BigLouie]

It's the worse that could happen.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

SPAM

anyone tell you that you're an environmental hazard? LOL!

[gnadfly]

The NOAA isn't far behind. So BigLouse why don't you give us some links to back up what little point you have?

[The_Waco_Kid]

fuckin' A! let's post this bad science for all to see and review! it won't hold water in a tin cup!!!

[R.M.]

^Look who's back...

[BigLouie]

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017...is-bad-policy/

Read this article. Explains perfectly why this is terrible law.

[dilbert firestorm]

more bs from the left wing sycophants trying to protect their feathers.

[canuckeight]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017...is-bad-policy/

Read this article. Explains perfectly why this is terrible law.

Because maybe we can read the truth for ourselves.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017...is-bad-policy/

Read this article. Explains perfectly why this is terrible law.

That's hilarious. A blog post?

That basically has 3 kinda points to make "BECAUSE WE NEED TO USE THE BEST POSSIBLE MOST RECENT SCIENCE?"

Reading those three points is ridiculous. Just the first point is laughable. If the "science" is hurting some people's privacy issues then we are far off the mark.

We need to make the underlying information public, raw and testable.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's hilarious. A blog post?

That basically has 3 kinda points to make "BECAUSE WE NEED TO USE THE BEST POSSIBLE MOST RECENT SCIENCE?"

Reading those three points is ridiculous. Just the first point is laughable. If the "science" is hurting some people's privacy issues then we are far off the mark.

We need to make the underlying information public, raw and testable.

yup, the left hates being found out!!!!

[BigLouie]

Here is part of the problem

EPA would no longer be able to establish limits on emissions of hazardous air pollution into our air if a business claimed that any of the information EPA used to create the Clean Air Act protection was “confidential business information” that could not be released.
EPA could no longer issue national air quality standards that rely on studies about the health impacts of pollution if the studies relied in any part on confidential patient health data.
EPA could not make decisions about the safety of chemicals because such decisions would necessarily rely on information representing industry trade secrets.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Here is part of the problem

EPA would no longer be able to establish limits on emissions of hazardous air pollution into our air if a business claimed that any of the information EPA used to create the Clean Air Act protection was “confidential business information” that could not be released.
EPA could no longer issue national air quality standards that rely on studies about the health impacts of pollution if the studies relied in any part on confidential patient health data.
EPA could not make decisions about the safety of chemicals because such decisions would necessarily rely on information representing industry trade secrets.

Maybe that is all true, but we need public disclosure of everything the government does if possible. How do we get it?

[Jackie S]

Can everyone say........"bye bye Government Grants"