Some of the most expansive regulatory initiatives have been undertaken in the name of “secret science”: scientific research unavailable to the public the regulations inhibit. But Scott Pruitt has the so-called “Party of Science” livid and environmentalists scared stiff with plans to expose this “science” through more transparency, thus potentially ending the EPA’s reign on environmental tyranny.
A proposed rule announced a week ago by Scott Pruitt the of the Environmental Protection Agency, and blasted by the mainstream media, is intended to bring much-needed transparency to agency rule-making. The environmental lobby is terrified about the proposal, even though it aligns perfectly with its long-held commitment to the public’s “right to know” principle. Basically, the EPA writes rules and regulations the public is forced to adhere to based on “science” that the public is also not allowed to see. Pruitt plans to change that.
The proposed regulation would require the EPA to ensure that the scientific data and research models “pivotal” to significant regulation are “publicly available in a manner sufficient for validation and analysis.”
Many mainstream media outlets claim that this new rule would “undermine” climate science. But that only happens if the science used to enforce new regulations and taxes is junk science (in which case, it should be undermined), so what is there to worry about? Plenty if your religion is climate change:
Despite existing rules on government use of scientific research, federal agencies routinely mask politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives. The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary elements of sound policy.
The opposition from greens and much of the media greeting Pruitt’s announcement is, frankly, hypocritical in the extreme. Opponents claim that the EPA’s regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making.
Despite the “science” used to declare climate change such a human problem that taxes and job debilitating regulations be enforced already much-known as “junk,” Pruitt intends to let everyone know that they’ve been duped in order to be treated like cash cows and government slaves.
Some claim that research subjects’ privacy would be violated, but that is disingenuous and completely groundless. Researchers routinely scrub identifying information when aggregating data for analysis and personal information is not even relevant in agency rule-making.
The proposed rule is not radical, in fact, it’s taking a bite from totalitarianism, yet you’ve got a huge population of sleeping sheep who would simply rather be told what to do than actually read any kind of research (or lack thereof) that leads to their own oppression.
Even though Pruitt’s proposals are directly in-line with the EPA’s long-held commitment to supporting the public’s “right to know,” the greenies on the left are apparently avert to positive change – especially when it comes from an appointee of President Donald Trump.
According to reports, the changes will require the EPA to make public all scientific data and research models that are “pivotal” to a major regulatory decision. In other words, when the EPA wants to change something that will affect average Americans in a major way, it will now have to prove, using science, that the decision is necessary and justified.
But climate fanatics who have long been used to simply making declarations about science without any evidence claim that this newfound transparency at the EPA will “undermine” climate science. They would rather have decisions pertaining to climate change be made in EPA backrooms without public purview, in other words.
“Despite existing rules on government use of scientific research, federal agencies routinely mask politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives,” writes Diane Katz for The Heritage Foundation.
“The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary elements of sound policy.”
Many will find this vehement opposition to climate transparency by the left hilariously ironic and hypocritical, seeing as how liberals are constantly droning on about how conservatives are supposedly the party of secrecy and “climate denial.” If climate dogma as the left insists is undeniably true, then what are they afraid of when it comes to making climate science public?
After all, since climate policies that involve massive global taxation plans and major restrictions on people’s use of vehicles and other “carbon polluters” are decided upon, at least in part, by the EPA, shouldn’t the public that’s affected by such rules at least get the chance to take a look at the rationale behind it all?
Not according to liberals. They would rather give the EPA free reign to scheme out new public policy in private, using whatever criteria it wishes in doing so – which is completely incongruent with the standards of openness that one would expect in a constitutional republic that’s operated by and for the everyday man and woman.
But again, what the liberal left claims to stand for – human rights, transparency in government, and sound public policy – doesn’t match what the liberal left actually stands for – human slavery, secrecy in government, and special interest public policy.
“The opposition from greens and much of the media greeting Pruitt’s announcement is, frankly, hypocritical in the extreme,” adds Katz. “Opponents claim that the EPA’s regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making.”
“But that is precisely the point. The EPA should no longer enjoy free rein to impose major regulations based on studies that are unavailable for public scrutiny.”