QuoteNovember 18, 2014, 06:18 pm
House passes bill to reform EPA science panel
By Cristina Marcos
The Hill
The House on Tuesday passed legislation to overhaul the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Board.
Passed 229-191, the measure, H.R. 1422, would change the process of selecting members of the Scientific Advisory Board and the terms of office.
Among other provisions, the measure would require the Scientific Advisory Board, which consults the EPA on its regulations, to have at least ten percent of members from state, local or tribal governments.
The bill is part of the House GOP's package of legislation this week to limit the EPA's ability to issue new regulations. Later this week, the House will vote on bills to require the EPA to make public its scientific data to justify regulations and limit updates to air pollution rules.
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), the measure's sponsor, said the measure would ensure the board is held accountable.
"There is a process that is broken. And it's through this bill we can not only improve that process, but also restore trust between the American people and the federal government," Stewart said.
Democrats said the measure would hinder the board's effectiveness and compromise its members' scientific expertise.
"While it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in reality this simply strengthens the role of special interests' biased interests in the process," said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.).
The White House issued a veto threat on Monday against the bill, saying it would "negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB."
QuoteHouse passes bill to limit EPA 'secret science'
By Cristina Marcos
The Hill
The House on Wednesday passed legislation to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing new regulations unless it provides the scientific data to justify them.
Passage of the measure, H.R. 4012, fell largely along party lines with a vote of 237-190.
The bill is part of the House GOP's package of legislation on the floor this week to limit the EPA's regulatory powers. On Tuesday, the House passed a measure to reform the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board.
Republicans said the measure would enhance transparency at the EPA.
"Costly environmental regulations should only be based on data that is available to independent scientists and the public," said House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).
But Democrats said imposing such a requirement could force the EPA to release confidential patient information used in scientific studies, a violation of federal law.
"The legislation will not improve the EPA's actions. Rather, it will stifle public health protections," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the top Democrat on the committee.
Moreover, Democrats questioned why Republicans were demanding access to scientific data when many deny the existence of climate change.
"The Republicans don't have a lot of credibility when they talk about wanting more science. Because I have seen so many areas where Republicans have tried to ignore the science," said Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), the bill's sponsor, said it would establish more responsible policymaking.
"If you're going to make public policy, do it by public data," Schweikert said. "Is there anyone in this body when we all ran for office that did not commit to transparency?"
The White House issued a veto threat against the legislation. In a statement of administration policy, the White House warned the bill would be used to simply mire proposed EPA regulations in legal challenges over "legitimate withholding" of scientific data.
"Instead of an overly broad bill that would tie EPA's hands, the Administration urges Congress to support the Administration's efforts to make scientific and technical information more accessible and regulations more transparent," the White House statement reads.
Before final passage, the House rejected an amendment, 194-230, sponsored by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would allow the EPA to use peer-reviewed scientific publications even if they are based on data prohibited from being made public.
It seems to be a strategy of all governments to deal with the inconvenient truths of science.
I thought about posting about this, but it's going to go no where until next year and the new senate comes in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2014, 09:19:06 PM
I thought about posting about this,
You couldn't just let CDM think he'd beaten you to it for once? :(
Secret science sure is annoying tho.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 24, 2014, 09:36:29 PM
Secret science sure is annoying tho.
Must be secret fleet of wormhole ships NASA is building.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 24, 2014, 09:36:29 PM
Secret science sure is annoying tho.
Yeah it's a bitch. Every December you have to go through the ritual of picking a name out of a hat and gift them with a new theorem.
Secret science is a threat to all true Americans!
Quote from: garbon on November 25, 2014, 12:11:21 AM
Secret science is a threat to all true Americans!
:lol: Industry whore.
It's the time of year for secret Santa, not secret science. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 25, 2014, 12:00:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 24, 2014, 09:36:29 PM
Secret science sure is annoying tho.
Yeah it's a bitch. Every December you have to go through the ritual of picking a name out of a hat and gift them with a new theorem.
:lol:
More Benghazi! More Fast n' Furious!
QuoteGOP set to strengthen committee chairmen's subpoena power
One Democrat says the move amounts to 'exporting the Issa model.'
POLITICO
By Lauren French, John Bresnahan and Zachary Warmbrodt
Updated 1/13/15 4:11 PM EST
House Republicans are about to give more of their committee leaders the same unilateral subpoena power that former Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa wielded against the Obama administration in his probes into the Internal Revenue Service and "Fast and Furious."
The change means that, in a break from years of tradition, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) wouldn't need to consult with his panel's top Democrat before subpoenaing documents or witnesses about issues like Obamacare or the Environmental Protection Agency. The GOP is also proposing similar boosts in authority for Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), whose panel's jurisdiction includes the Dodd-Frank financial regulations law, and for Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who will oversee any probes into immigration.
Two other panels — Agriculture and Science, Space and Technology — are considering making the same change. And in a similar move, the House passed a rules package last week that gave the energy, science, finance and Ways and Means committees the power to let their counsels hold depositions in private.
Democrats denounce the moves as a power grab, repeating their complaints that Issa (R-Calif.) "abused" his subpoena authority by bombarding the administration with hundreds of demands when he led the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But Republicans say it's necessary after Obama's agencies stonewalled GOP-led probes into the IRS, the health care law, the Fast and Furious gun-walking program and the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
"The Obama administration has employed unprecedented delay tactics and in many cases an outright refusal to comply with legitimate committee oversight requests, which is why committees sought the deposition authority and are using the existing rules to give committee chairs greater latitude in issuing subpoenas," said Doug Andres, a spokesman for the House Rules Committee.
The rule change under consideration for the Judiciary, Financial Services and Energy and Commerce panels would eliminate long-standing requirements that the chairmen either consult or get consent from the minority party before issuing subpoenas for testimony and documents or hold a majority vote. The Judiciary Committee will maintain its requirement to consult, a spokeswoman said.
Democratic staffers accused Republicans of overreaching.
"We think it's ridiculous that the Republican leadership is exporting the Issa model to the rest of the House," a staffer said.
"The Republican playbook is clear: obstruct, distract, subpoena, repeat," Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said separately. "This change will inevitably [lead] to widespread abuses of power as Republicans infect the other committees with the poisonous process that Issa has so abused during his chairmanship."
The Financial Service Committee will vote on the new rules Tuesday during its first public meeting of the year. Democrats are expected to challenge the proposal, but committee spokesman Jeff Emerson said the change "will facilitate the committee's ability to conduct oversight and to fulfill its oversight duties."
"Hopefully, it will never need to be used because the officials, agencies and entities the committee oversees will be fully accountable, responsive and transparent," Emerson said.
House Republicans have promised aggressive oversight during the next two years. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who assumed the Oversight chairmanship this month after Issa had to give up his gavel because of GOP term limits, has promised a similarly intense investigation of the White House over Fast and Furious and embassy security. The House also reauthorized the select committee investigating Benghazi during its first week.
Elections have consequences.
If they really believe that, they wouldn't run on impeaching the President.
Most of that stuff is bullshit, but I am surprised that Fast and Furious didn't become a bigger scandal.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
I think there was a big difference between Bloomberg and de Blasio.
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
That makes you sound like an ignorant asshole.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2015, 07:29:27 PM
Most of that stuff is bullshit, but I am surprised that Fast and Furious didn't become a bigger scandal.
They wanted something to tie the President. Bring down a regional director of the ATF isn't good enough.
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2015, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
That makes you sound like an ignorant asshole.
Whoa, Jake just turned heel. You join the four horsemen?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2015, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2015, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
That makes you sound like an ignorant asshole.
Whoa, Jake just turned heel. You join the four horsemen?
Nah, Jacob's an idealist. He came down on Valmy because what Valmy posted was quite cynical.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2015, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2015, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 14, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. Same shit, different assholes.
That makes you sound like an ignorant asshole.
Whoa, Jake just turned heel. You join the four horsemen?
Well V did just mimic the reasoning that leads the young apathetic voter not to vote.
I personally advocate political violence. Corruption has rendered the process of voting irrelevant, so why not return to pre-democratic methods? Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
I don't think anyone would buy that - as in no one's reaction would be "oh well he just plans to target politicians, duh."
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 09:22:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
I don't think anyone would buy that - as in no one's reaction would be "oh well he just plans to target politicians, duh."
Maybe. I'm just saying that if a guy were to throw a bomb into a car carrying a Congressman or something, I wouldn't call it terrorism.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
I personally advocate political violence. Corruption has rendered the process of voting irrelevant, so why not return to pre-democratic methods? Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
Nah. Wait for the other guy to draw first then land on them with both feet. It worked in the 1860's.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
I personally advocate political violence. Corruption has rendered the process of voting irrelevant, so why not return to pre-democratic methods? Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
Nah. Wait for the other guy to draw first then land on them with both feet. It worked in the 1860's.
That doesn't really apply in this situation though. It's not like either party is really planning on doing anything good or useful. They all want to just rob and steal. Obviously, the Republicans are more socially damaging, but assassinating a Democrat would be almost as good.
I don't really see how it would help / it would just send lots of ordinary citizens into panic mode.
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:49:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
I personally advocate political violence. Corruption has rendered the process of voting irrelevant, so why not return to pre-democratic methods? Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
Nah. Wait for the other guy to draw first then land on them with both feet. It worked in the 1860's.
That doesn't really apply in this situation though. It's not like either party is really planning on doing anything good or useful. They all want to just rob and steal. Obviously, the Republicans are more socially damaging, but assassinating a Democrat would be almost as good.
The side that is causing the most damage is the one most likely to start shit. Nearly beating Charles Sumner to death on the Senate Floor did not change things. The South starting a civil war did.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 10:02:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:49:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2015, 09:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on January 14, 2015, 09:20:30 PM
I personally advocate political violence. Corruption has rendered the process of voting irrelevant, so why not return to pre-democratic methods? Terrorist methods wouldn't be terrorism if you were targeting politicians.
Nah. Wait for the other guy to draw first then land on them with both feet. It worked in the 1860's.
That doesn't really apply in this situation though. It's not like either party is really planning on doing anything good or useful. They all want to just rob and steal. Obviously, the Republicans are more socially damaging, but assassinating a Democrat would be almost as good.
The side that is causing the most damage is the one most likely to start shit. Nearly beating Charles Sumner to death on the Senate Floor did not change things. The South starting a civil war did.
You can't start a civil war now though. It's not like the party trying to disband government will just secede from the Union or anything. After all, they're just as drunk of their power and privilege as the other guys.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 09:54:31 PM
I don't really see how it would help / it would just send lots of ordinary citizens into panic mode.
It creates an impetus for political change. Besides, people should be in panic mode.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2015, 07:29:27 PM
Most of that stuff is bullshit, but I am surprised that Fast and Furious didn't become a bigger scandal.
It isn't surprising at all. The scandal of F&F was the government participating in the subversion of its own firearms control laws. But those are the very laws that the most vocal attackers of the President want to weaken themselves. So instead the line of attack was to suggest is was some complex but diabolical conspiracy to tighten regulation and take away everyone's guns. :tinfoil: Thus undermining its political value as a scandal other than for the already converted.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2014, 07:31:12 PM
It seems to be a strategy of all governments to deal with the inconvenient truths of science.
See the EU Parliament abolishing the EU's Chief Science Officer because the current holder supports GM :bleeding:
I don't see an issue with House chairs having those powers.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
See the EU Parliament abolishing the EU's Chief Science Officer because the current holder supports GM :bleeding:
Guess he should have bought an Accord. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2015, 01:06:01 AM
The scandal of F&F was the government participating in the subversion of its own firearms control laws.
Weenie ass cowardly prosecutors didn't help much, either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 15, 2015, 01:06:01 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 14, 2015, 07:29:27 PM
Most of that stuff is bullshit, but I am surprised that Fast and Furious didn't become a bigger scandal.
It isn't surprising at all. The scandal of F&F was the government participating in the subversion of its own firearms control laws. But those are the very laws that the most vocal attackers of the President want to weaken themselves. So instead the line of attack was to suggest is was some complex but diabolical conspiracy to tighten regulation and take away everyone's guns. :tinfoil: Thus undermining its political value as a scandal other than for the already converted.
Weren't two cops killed? That's more then enough to make hay.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
I love how your partisan stance is entirely unencumbered by any principles.
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 10:21:30 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
I love how your partisan stance is entirely unencumbered by any principles.
Go on.
Quote from: derspiess on January 14, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Elections have consequences.
In this case, crappy ones.
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
LOL, I don't think there's any "semi" about it. Unless it has 18 wheels' worth of troll. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2015, 12:02:53 PM
LOL, I don't think there's any "semi" about it. Unless it has 18 wheels' worth of troll. :D
You could hitch a trailer to that thing, no problem.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
But it isn't really a troll, since it actually aligns very nicely with your generally stated views on politics.
Quote from: Berkut on January 15, 2015, 12:54:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
But it isn't really a troll, since it actually aligns very nicely with your generally stated views on politics.
That's what makes it "semi-". He knows it'll get a reaction as if he was straight up trolling, but it pretty much fits with what he thinks; but the the main reason to throw it out there is for the reaction.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2015, 09:13:21 PM
Well V did just mimic the reasoning that leads the young apathetic voter not to vote.
I always vote. But Congress has not been functional in years. My faith in them is not being helped by continuing to add a bunch of amateurish ideologues. Sorry if that makes me an ignorant asshole of some sort :P
They are about to have a showdown over that Keystone Pipeline thing for Godsake.
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2015, 01:44:26 PMI always vote. But Congress has not been functional in years. My faith in them is not being helped by continuing to add a bunch of amateurish ideologues.
:hug:
QuoteSorry if that makes me an ignorant asshole of some sort :P
What you said made you
sound like one, but your actions proves otherwise :)
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2015, 01:44:26 PM
They are about to have a showdown over that Keystone Pipeline thing for Godsake.
Nice timing too.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
Then why do all those guys at that Breitbart site say the same thing? Who the hell are they trolling?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 02:59:10 PM
Then why do all those guys at that Breitbart site say the same thing? Who the hell are they trolling?
The liberals?
Just because liberals don't read Breitbart first-hand doesn't mean the Breitbart people can't troll-gloat from a distance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2014, 07:31:12 PM
It seems to be a strategy of all governments to deal with the inconvenient truths of science.
What inconvenient truths?
Climate change is tool of progressives and communists against free market capitalism and liberty, designed to grow gubmint at our expense.
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2014, 07:31:12 PM
It seems to be a strategy of all governments to deal with the inconvenient truths of science.
What inconvenient truths?
Climate change is tool of progressives and communists against free market capitalism and liberty, designed to grow gubmint at our expense.
That makes no sense. Free Market Capitalism can easily make emission free products. And we will, shortly. It is the Communists who turn everything into a smog filled shithole.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
Then why do all those guys at that Breitbart site say the same thing? Who the hell are they trolling?
You seem to go there more often than I do, so I guess they're trolling you. Got a link, btw?
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 03:26:59 PM
What inconvenient truths?
Climate change is tool of progressives and communists against free market capitalism and liberty, designed to grow gubmint at our expense.
You are a tool designed to grow government expense.
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 03:32:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 02:59:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 15, 2015, 11:59:05 AM
:D
Anyway, Berkut-- that was an Obama quote from 2009 when he was lecturing GOP lawmakers. I like to throw it back occasionally as a semi-troll.
Then why do all those guys at that Breitbart site say the same thing? Who the hell are they trolling?
You know where there website is.
You seem to go there more often than I do, so I guess they're trolling you. Got a link, btw?
Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2015, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Siege on January 15, 2015, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 24, 2014, 07:31:12 PM
It seems to be a strategy of all governments to deal with the inconvenient truths of science.
What inconvenient truths?
Climate change is tool of progressives and communists against free market capitalism and liberty, designed to grow gubmint at our expense.
That makes no sense. Free Market Capitalism can easily make emission free products. And we will, shortly. It is the Communists who turn everything into a smog filled shithole.
I believe that conspiracy theory has been the undercurrent to a great deal of climate denialism.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 04:33:06 PM
I believe that conspiracy theory has been the undercurrent to a great deal of climate denialism.
I'm impressed that the conspiracy has the resources to melt glaciers, melt polar ice and set global temperature records year after year. Anybody with the resources to fake environmental change on this scale probably doesn't need the government spending more money.
I've always wondered what the purpose of all these people making up data about climate change might be...I can certainly understand the motive of the deniers - they don't want anyone interfering with businesses need to make the 1% more money.
But they don't seem to even bother trying to come up with a credible motive for the world-wide conspiracy to manufacture this crisis. Which is why I don't even really believe that the deniers actually believe what they are saying - it is too stupid to be believed.
Rather, I think they mostly just don't care.
A sense of humor.
Quote from: frunk on January 15, 2015, 04:43:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 15, 2015, 04:33:06 PM
I believe that conspiracy theory has been the undercurrent to a great deal of climate denialism.
I'm impressed that the conspiracy has the resources to melt glaciers, melt polar ice and set global temperature records year after year. Anybody with the resources to fake environmental change on this scale probably doesn't need the government spending more money.
That's nothing. They got black man elected President of the United States.
I don't get what's so objectionable about 'elections have consequences'. It was right when Obama said it, it's right now.
That doesn't stop the GOP being batshit on the environment.
Raz, wtf are you still doing at Breitbart's site? The guy's been dead for years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2015, 10:05:13 PM
I don't get what's so objectionable about 'elections have consequences'. It was right when Obama said it, it's right now.
That doesn't stop the GOP being batshit on the environment.
Nothing objectionable per se, but objectionable, IMO, in the context of this subject.
I don't mind that elections have consequences, but the idea that suborning the purpose of government and be ok with that because it is your tribe doing it is certainly objectionable.
To be honest, I had that one in the holster since early November and was just dying to use it.
It's an interesting counter-factual to speculate what would have happen in Obama had made real efforts to schmooze the congressional GOPers. I can see the arguments both ways on effectiveness.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 15, 2015, 11:57:22 PM
Raz, wtf are you still doing at Breitbart's site? The guy's been dead for years.
Sometimes I want to get a feel for the pulse of what real conservatives want.
If you really want some laughs go read comments on The Blaze :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2015, 05:51:22 PM
Sometimes I want to get a feel for the pulse of what real conservatives want.
They want the same thing you do, to make the opposition look as ridiculous as possible.
Quote from: derspiess on January 16, 2015, 05:56:52 PM
If you really want some laughs go read comments on The Blaze :lol:
I read infowars and listen to coast to coast AM.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2015, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2015, 05:51:22 PM
Sometimes I want to get a feel for the pulse of what real conservatives want.
They want the same thing you do, to make the opposition look as ridiculous as possible.
That's not what they say.