H.R. 1030 (The Secret Science Bill)

[Rotobeast]

Ok, I hate to say it.....but....

I think some of the data collected by the EPA should remain secret.
There would be security risks, if everything were disclosed immediately.
I'm not going to sit here and make up scenarios, but I assure you certain things could be exploited by big business and quite possibly terrorists.
So.....yeah

I'd like to see data, too, but it may not be the wisest idea to release.
:snark:  

[SunsetBengal]

(07-18-2015, 11:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Ok, I hate to say it.....but....

I think some of the data collected by the EPA should remain secret.
There would be security risks, if everything were disclosed immediately.
I'm not going to sit here and make up scenarios, but I assure you certain things could be exploited by big business and quite possibly terrorists.
So.....yeah

I'd like to see data, too, but it may not be the wisest idea to release.
:snark:  

Baloney...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

EPA: "Soilent Green is good for you and it's cheap too."
Public: "What's it made of?"
EPA: "It's made of protein and some fat but it's the good kind of fat."
Public: "Can we see how it's made and check out the ingredients?"
EPA: "Uuummm no, you can't see anything but trust us."
Sheeple known as the left: "Yeah, you wouldn't understand anyway so just eat it. The EPA is good, government is good and we need more of it so stop asking you racist bigot homophobe masogynist bastard."
Charlton Heston: "SOILENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!"

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2015, 11:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Baloney...

You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a friend in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we've discussed quite a few "things".
There is just certain information that can't safely be available anymore.
It's all good, man.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-18-2015, 11:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a friend in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we've discussed quite a few "things".
There is just certain information that can't safely be available anymore.
It's all good, man.

It would seem to me that anything having to do with national security would be exempt, as it is with anything else. I just don't see how anything in that regard would have anything to do with what the main topic of this thread is, re: the job of the EPA. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-18-2015, 11:56 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a friend in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and we've discussed quite a few "things".
There is just certain information that can't safely be available anymore.
It's all good, man.

I can understand withholding tidbits about the nuclear production process, but isn't the argument really about clean coal? 

The coal fired power plant industry, and all of the industries that feed into that system employ a good number of people.  Those miners often live in depressed areas, and that field is often their only hope of making a decent living to support a family with.

Personally, I feel those folks have a right to know exactly what the EPA is basing their rulings on.

[RoyleRedlegs]

The EPA is evil from the start. For god's sake, they try to shut down small businesses and accuse them of drugging clients and putting on elaborate hoaxes just because they don't understand them.

It's all the fault of that evil prick Walter Peck

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2015, 09:59 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I just don't get where some of you are coming up with the extreme thoughts on 'the worst that could happen'. If it's open, it's open for anyone to review. If someone were to try and manipulate it...they couldn't because whether the data was wrong from the beginning, or whether it was "tampered" with or changed...not having it 'behind closed doors' allows for less corruption. 

No?

What am i missing here?

There will be more corruption because this will open the door for companies and groups to challenge findings with more vigor, whether they are right or not, and hold up laws/policies/regulations/what have you. What will end up happening with that is special interest groups that have their scientists that they put tons of money towards to do a similar study. Their study won't be exactly the same, but there will be enough similarities involved for the general public to be fooled by it. In doing so, they go "look, they were wrong!" In reality, both sets of data are correct, but they do not represent the same methods and sources. Or, they take a data set being used and change their method in the interpretation so that, again, it looks similar but is representing something different.

This is what is happening all of the time with these sorts of things when politics gets involved in science. Both sides are guilty of it and the politicians love to use this sort of thing because they can hire people to prove their point when the point isn't actually a good one but the general public is not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-19-2015, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There will be more corruption because this will open the door for companies and groups to challenge findings with more vigor, whether they are right or not, and hold up laws/policies/regulations/what have you. What will end up happening with that is special interest groups that have their scientists that they put tons of money towards to do a similar study. Their study won't be exactly the same, but there will be enough similarities involved for the general public to be fooled by it. In doing so, they go "look, they were wrong!" In reality, both sets of data are correct, but they do not represent the same methods and sources. Or, they take a data set being used and change their method in the interpretation so that, again, it looks similar but is representing something different.

This is what is happening all of the time with these sorts of things when politics gets involved in science. Both sides are guilty of it and the politicians love to use this sort of thing because they can hire people to prove their point when the point isn't actually a good one but the general public is not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

Sounds a lot like what goes on around here.

And i can see that argument. Maybe i just give society too much leeway to see simple concepts/problems and correct them when needed. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2015, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There will be more corruption because this will open the door for companies and groups to challenge findings with more vigor, whether they are right or not, and hold up laws/policies/regulations/what have you. What will end up happening with that is special interest groups that have their scientists that they put tons of money towards to do a similar study. Their study won't be exactly the same, but there will be enough similarities involved for the general public to be fooled by it. In doing so, they go "look, they were wrong!" In reality, both sets of data are correct, but they do not represent the same methods and sources. Or, they take a data set being used and change their method in the interpretation so that, again, it looks similar but is representing something different.

This is what is happening all of the time with these sorts of things when politics gets involved in science. Both sides are guilty of it and the politicians love to use this sort of thing because they can hire people to prove their point when the point isn't actually a good one but the general public is not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

I completely understand your reasoning, though I see that logic as a bit imperialistic.  When decisions that effect a great number of people, are made behind a veil of secrecy, it leads to the question of why.  And if we're talking about putting additional restrictions on industries that employ many people, it can lead to a strong feeling of resentment toward the government.  Especially if those industries simply pack up, and go to another country.

Then what?  The environment is still being damaged, maybe even more so, in an unregulated manner, and lots of Americans no longer have jobs.. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2015, 12:20 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Sounds a lot like what goes on around here.

And i can see that argument. Maybe i just give society too much leeway to see simple concepts/problems and correct them when needed. 

I admit that I have a very pessimistic outlook when it comes to the ability of our citizenry to recognize a ruse when they see one.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2015, 01:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I completely understand your reasoning, though I see that logic as a bit imperialistic.  When decisions that effect a great number of people, are made behind a veil of secrecy, it leads to the question of why.  And if we're talking about putting additional restrictions on industries that employ many people, it can lead to a strong feeling of resentment toward the government.  Especially if those industries simply pack up, and go to another country.

Then what?  The environment is still being damaged, maybe even more so, in an unregulated manner, and lots of Americans no longer have jobs.. 

I get the argument being made here, but I have two problems with the argument. One is that it sounds very much like the "it's too difficult to do so we shouldn't even try" stance. I'm not much for that attitude. The other problem I see with this is the argument of "no one else is doing the right thing so why should we?" Leaders take appropriate risks. Leaders do what needs to be done, not what everyone else is doing. Leaders are those that do the thing that may not be the most comfortable. If we are truly going to be leaders in the world, if we want to walk the walk of being the best country on earth, then how can we submit to that argument?

I know, and indeed subscribe to, many viewpoints against the hyper-regulatory stance that the government has taken on some things. I believe the private sector should be taking these actions on their own and the government, instead of making laws about it, should incentivize the innovation and implementation of solutions. But the arguments you provide are, to me, not the arguments of leaders.

[GMDino]

[SunsetBengal]

Maybe so, in your opinion.  However, I'd almost be willing to bet that the Governors of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and PA may tend to agree with what I said.

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2015, 06:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Maybe so, in your opinion.  However, I'd almost be willing to bet that the Governors of Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, and PA may tend to agree with what I said.

Of course they will, because that is the comfortable course of action. Humans like to be comfortable. This is why leaders that don't allow themselves to just be comfortable, that push forward and succeed, are the ones best known in history. Because they are extraordinary when compared to the rest of us. The people that make up our government tend to be leaders in title only. That is why they are politicians, not statesmen.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2015, 06:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course they will, because that is the comfortable course of action. Humans like to be comfortable. This is why leaders that don't allow themselves to just be comfortable, that push forward and succeed, are the ones best known in history. Because they are extraordinary when compared to the rest of us. The people that make up our government tend to be leaders in title only. That is why they are politicians, not statesmen.

So, according to what I'm reading from you.  You are comfortable with causing industries to pack up and move, leaving large numbers of people without livelihoods, and having no solution to offer them?

I'm all for change, but if you're going to displace a large number of workers, shouldn't you have a feasible alternative livelihood in place for those folks, first? I mean, that's what a true Statesman would do, right?

[GMDino]

(07-19-2015, 07:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, according to what I'm reading from you.  You are comfortable with causing industries to pack up and move, leaving large numbers of people without livelihoods, and having no solution to offer them?

I'm all for change, but if you're going to displace a large number of workers, shouldn't you have a feasible alternative livelihood in place for those folks, first?  I mean, that's what a true Statesman would do, right?

The pack up and move every time they think they can save a dollar.

The coal is where it is.  You can't dig for it somewhere else.

I'm not even saying I'm for the newer regulations...just that this bogus argument that it will "cost" will always be used. 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-19-2015, 07:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: The pack up and move every time they think they can save a dollar.

The coal is where it is.  You can't dig for it somewhere else.

I'm not even saying I'm for the newer regulations...just that this bogus argument that it will "cost" will always be used. 

Yeah, like those companies that love money so much would have any issues with making their money from Russia, China, Australia, India, or Germany...

[Belsnickel]

(07-19-2015, 07:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, according to what I'm reading from you.  You are comfortable with causing industries to pack up and move, leaving large numbers of people without livelihoods, and having no solution to offer them?

I'm all for change, but if you're going to displace a large number of workers, shouldn't you have a feasible alternative livelihood in place for those folks, first? I mean, that's what a true Statesman would do, right?

That's not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that the fear of that happening is not a valid reason for not doing anything. For ignoring the majority of the scientific community. For allowing these industries to make your decisions for you. There are things that can be done that won't cause these issues, like what I said about incentivizing innovation rather than hyper-regulating.

You're right that a true statesman would have a feasible alternative in place, which is what I advocate for. The problem is that the threat of displacement has been used to lull the people into a state of complacency so they see any movement towards being more environmentally friendly as hostile.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2015, 09:53 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/earth-broke-multiple-warming-records-in-2014-150718.htm

So now weather is climate? I get confused as it seems to change based on the weather. Pretty chilly summer here this year.