Category Archives: Science

Many “scientific” studies are improperly conducted and are not reproducible

Proposed Rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science is long overdue

“This document proposes a regulation intended to strengthen the transparency of EPA regulatory science. The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. In this notice, EPA solicits comment on this proposal and how it can best be promulgated and implemented in light of existing law and prior Federal policies that already require increasing public access to data and influential scientific information used to inform federal regulation.” click here

EPA science transparency rule a positive step

“Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t publish the underlying data.” click here

EPA rules should be based on best available, open peer-reviewed science without prejudice; Not on secret studies done behind closed doors.

“The New York Times is spittin’ mad at Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt. In just the past week, the paper has attacked Pruitt four times – from the front-page to the editorial page — following his announcement that the agency would not longer be permitted to rely on so-called “secret science” as a basis for taking regulatory action. And at no point in this onslaught has the Times allowed the truth to intervene.” click here

Climate policies must be based on science-based reality or they will fail

Regardless of politics or religion, climate policies and decisions that are based on beliefs that do not correspond to reality – the way the world really is – will ultimately fail. As knowledge of the underlying science advances climate policies must also advance. Being stuck in a dogmatic “science is settled” attitude is counterproductive.  Yes, scientists have differences of judgement and opinion but this is normal. It’s why meaningful discussion, transparency (including making data available), disclosing underlying assumptions, and mutual respect is so important. Avoidance and activism (e.g. here) only serves to fuel ill-will and hostility rather than constructive dialog.

Google funding to determine what is science “misinformation”?

This is unfortunate. Committees of the Academies typically work behind closed doors and are not transparent. Regardless of the funding source this authoritarian effort (click here) to define scientific misinformation will likely have a bad ending. Concerns have already been raised about abuse of power (e.g. here) as a result of such effort.

As an observer of this I have to ask, who is the motivation coming from for this effort to turn NAS, NAE, and NAM into an information filtering agency.

The best way to counter misinformation is to make data publicly available so that analysis of such data and the claims being made can be confirmed or disputed by others. Two equally qualified scientists can look at exactly the same information and draw different or even opposite interpretations. What is misinformation to one scientist may a valid argument to another. 

Just because an interpretation or statement may not be generally accepted does not mean it is “misinformation.” All new ideas in science begin as “misinformation” to those scientists entrenched in the “status quo”.

It seems to me that the abuse of science mostly occurs in the media and news articles that promote unsupported or exaggerated claims.

NOAA data fabrication is real; NOAA manipulation of science is settled, unequivocal.

“There are many problems with what NOAA is doing. The first is that they are turning an 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend, which has massive implications for both climate scientists, journalists, voters and policy makers who depend on the accuracy of their work. “ click here