Another good move by EPA..

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member

My lib side of the family accuses me of being anti science, among other things, for not jumping right on the global warming bandwagon. How can you call it believing in science when;

A) You're not allowed to see the data that went in to forming the conclusion.
Publishing raw data also opens scientists up to attacks from industry, which can twist or distort data to shape a deregulatory agenda, said Betsy Southerland, a former senior EPA official in the Office of Water who worked on a staff analysis of the "HONEST Act."
B) You don't have to defend the opinion against the people best able to pick apart the conclusion. The climate scientists have stated that they did this already and have found their conclusions to be true.
“Climate scientists have created a unique institutional system for assessing and improving models, going well beyond the usual system of peer review. Consequently, their conclusions should be entitled to considerable credence by courts and agencies.”
C) The people making the conclusion have admitted to massaging the data and using tricks to make the data meet the conclusion.
D) The milestones that were given in the beginning failed to appear.

It sounds more like believing in the idea of science without having to do the work. Personally I'd like to see the climate scientists have to defend their conclusions against someone who has a differing opinion and the credentials to back it up.
 
Top