8 ms·

E.P.A. Dismisses Academic Scientists from Major Scientific Review Board

132 points by hackuser 9y ago

tbabb 9y ago
Once upon a time there was a public pool. Everyone used the pool and enjoyed it, but very soon it became apparent that a few of the pool-goers were relieving themselves in it. The pool quickly turned yellow and smelly. So the community got together and formed the pool-pissing committee; the goal of which was to cut down on the general amount of pool-pissing that was being done. They would do this by hiring some local experts from the town to measure the pool water regularly, and tell everyone when somebody had taken a leak in it, and to the best of their ability, who was responsible. Right away, some chronic pool-pissers were caught and yanked from the pool. This was very embarrassing for them, so everyone paid attention when it happened, and so the new standards of pool play caught on very quickly and were known by everyone. Soon the water cleared up, and people were able to enjoy the pool again. It wasn't perfectly clean, but it was much, much better than before, and it was improving every day. This worked pretty well for a long time. A few people didn't like the pool-pissing committee. Some people didn't like the idea that someone could tell them what they could and couldn't do in a pool. Others were mad because every once in awhile, the committee would accuse them of having peed in the pool when they had only peed a little bit, while Jimmy over there drank a whole 2 liter bottle of mountain dew before he swam and let it all out through his bladder, but the committee didn't catch him and that wasn't fair. But by far, the people who hated the pool-pissing committee the most were the biggest pool-pissers. The pool-pissing committee was always bothering them, they complained, embarrassing them in front of their friends, and cruelly yanking them out of the pool. All they wanted to do was play in the pool, and didn't they have a right to do that? So what if a little pee leaks out every now and then. Worse (they argued), if the committee was allowed to yank anyone who peed out of the pool, then pretty soon the pool would be empty and the community center would be bankrupt. Of course the solution was simply to not pee in the pool (as most of the rest of the community was able to handle this just fine), and to hold it until afterwards, but that really cuts into out pool-playing time, the pool-pissers whined. So the pool-pissers got together a plan: They would band together and take over the pool-pissing committee-- but first they had to convince the other pool-goers that this was a good idea. "The system is rigged!" the pool-pissers squawked. "The pool-pissing committee gets paid to test the pool! So you see, they all have a stake in the outcome of the piss tests! This is a conflict of interest! They're on the take!" A lot of the swimmers began to nod their heads-- this sounded really unfair. They started to worry if the pool-pissing committee could be trusted. "We're being paid to do our jobs," said the pool committee. "That's not a conflict of interest. And we all signed up for this job because we care about having a clean pool." But the swimmers didn't hear them, or maybe they didn't care because they were all very worried that something unfair might be happening. And they were right, something very unfair was happening, but it wasn't what they were thinking of. "We should kick out these crooked pool experts from the pool committee," said the pool-pissers. "They don't know the reality of what it's like to be a swimmer, or how hard it is to hold your pee. Besides, us swimmers have the biggest stake who stays in the pool. It would be much more fair to put swimmers on the pool committee". This sounded reasonable to everyone and soon enough the pool experts were sent away, and the pool committee was filled with swimmers. Someone noticed that everyone on the pool committee happened to be swimmers who had been caught many times pissing in the pool, but it was decided that this was okay because they knew the most about pool-pissing, so it made sense that they were on a committee about pool-pissing. Almost immediately, the pool turned bright yellow and smelled rancid. Nobody was really sure why. Some swimmers kept saying something about strengthening the pool committee, but it seemed clear that pool committees didn't work, because we have a pool committee, and look how yellow the pool is. Many people got very sick, and the mystery of why the pool turned yellow remains to this very day.
chmaynard 9y ago
After Trump and his gang are finished gutting the EPA, there will be a much wider purge of scientists and intellectuals from all facets of the executive branch. The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible.
- rfrank 9y ago
  > The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible. Why is that the ONLY rational response? What removal mechanism do you propose?
- skybrian 9y ago
  Midterms happen first. Seems like these folks have a plan: https://swingleft.org/ https://swingleft.org/
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That's a good link, but midterms are 18 months away. What do you mean they 'happen first'? Do you mean they have to take place so impeachment proceedings become possible? I disagree with that contention.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      The Republican congress might impeach the president if a huge scandal became impossible to deny. They aren't going to impeach the president for doing things they largely agree with.
      - plaguuuuuu 9y ago
        Reminder that if Trump is impeached, next in line is Mike Pence.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        They will if people make their lives miserable enough.
Preemo 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854
segmondy 9y ago
Time to start an alternative to EPA. Perhaps volunteer effort by academics, non profit. no government dependency.
- daveguy 9y ago
  No government "dependency" means no enforcement.
  - SteveNuts 9y ago
    That's why we have the 2nd amendment
    - txru 9y ago
      We have the Second Amendment because the Governor of Massachusetts, Bowdoin, couldn't raise enough guns during Shay's Rebellion to safely take down the rebels. I don't think it had much to do with permitting citizens to enforce Federal policy that the government could be doing, but isn't.
    - a3n 9y ago
      Please explain. Are individuals going to, at their discretion, point guns at people to enforce individual environmental preferences? I don't see anything that implies that in the 2nd Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
      - nickpeterson 9y ago
        No, I believe the connotation is that it's easier to intimidate people than convince them.
  - a3n 9y ago
    I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment." I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.
notadoc 9y ago
And who will take their place? Lobbyists?
- passive 9y ago
  Pruitt has stated he would like to see officials from the industries being regulated taking these positions.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Better than lobbyists - just let the corporations we regulate write the laws! (edit: clarity)
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      What do you mean by 'let'?
  - moomin 9y ago
    I don't think I've ever seen regulatory capture being advocated before.
- joshmaker 9y ago
  "A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate" sounds like it
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    This sentence scares me. Although it makes total sense. It seems the only people who are supposed to have a say in this administration are from industry. Nobody else matters.
    - elihu 9y ago
      It sounds like they're making regulatory capture into an explicit goal.
culiuniversal 9y ago
Any tbh
- rfrank 9y ago
  So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?
  - moomin 9y ago
    Plenty of people seem to be fine with foreign governments interfering with US elections. What is OK with people is a mystery that only continues to deepen.
    - rfrank 9y ago
      And with the US interfering in foreign elections. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obam... http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses-macron-zw-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses... EDIT because I'm rate limited by this joke of a site again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
      - hackuser 9y ago
        An open endorsement is not at all comparable to breaking the law, stealing information, turning it into misinformation, and leaking it anonymously. You also could say that Muhammad Ali and I both have thrown punches and that Linus Torvalds and I both have contributed to FOSS projects, but what would it mean?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Why don't you try being constructive instead of nitpicking and reaching straight for the edge cases? Like, try offering more moderated but credible alternatives to achieve the implicit end of having governance be informed by science.
blintz 9y ago
Republican House member Lamar Smith: "The E.P.A. routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is clear." Yes, how dare they put scientists on the "Scientific Advisory Board". What we really need is businesspeople from the coal industry! Is there no shame? No limit to the blatant disregard for science and public safety in favor of coal companies?
- perfmode 9y ago
  Yeah. Pretty sure shame is null.
- a3n 9y ago
  > Is there no shame? No. I'm quite sure men in the smoke filled rooms are right now bellowing "This is OUR TIME! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"
  - bdamm 9y ago
    You're downvoted but I think you're right. Climate change won't wipe out everyone; it'll be a long process that takes hundreds or thousands of years, during which time there will be an enormous concentration of power to war-lords and the creation of a new slave class. This is the outcome that I believe is being banked on by some of the most powerful people. There are others who believe in the "rising tide floats all boats". Game on for the ultra-powerful. The rest of us are mostly bystanders.
    - a3n 9y ago
      "rising tide floats all boats" is just attractive psuedo-logic made up by "supply siders" (which is cover for "hyper rich") or their shills (Congress and the President) to lull have-nots into taking on a larger share of the tax burden. If you're not a cynic, you're still fucked.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
philipkglass 9y ago
The Collapse of the Cod Fishery of the Grand Banks http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm "The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) formulated a mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept which was called optimal yield. ... In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,000 tons. In the course of DFO management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was catastrophic. In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons. By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped." 25 years later, the cod haven't recovered to healthy levels. In 1989 the industry representatives probably thought that getting politicians to discount the scientists' advice was a victory.
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  I don't mean to in any way challenge the analysis here (obviously the overfishing was catastrophic), but FWIW the atlantic cod fishery is actually recovering (at last): https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-decline-cod-and-community-rebound-newfoundland/oNxKF14RpE47yc65OOAy6O/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-dec... There was some concern that Cod had been permanently dislodged as a predator in the ecosystem, but there has been good news recently.
tn135 9y ago
Was it Bill Nye ?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

132 points by hackuser 9y ago

Once upon a time there was a public pool. Everyone used the pool and enjoyed it, but very soon it became apparent that a few of the pool-goers were relieving themselves in it. The pool quickly turned yellow and smelly. So the community got together and formed the pool-pissing committee; the goal of which was to cut down on the general amount of pool-pissing that was being done. They would do this by hiring some local experts from the town to measure the pool water regularly, and tell everyone when somebody had taken a leak in it, and to the best of their ability, who was responsible. Right away, some chronic pool-pissers were caught and yanked from the pool. This was very embarrassing for them, so everyone paid attention when it happened, and so the new standards of pool play caught on very quickly and were known by everyone. Soon the water cleared up, and people were able to enjoy the pool again. It wasn't perfectly clean, but it was much, much better than before, and it was improving every day. This worked pretty well for a long time. A few people didn't like the pool-pissing committee. Some people didn't like the idea that someone could tell them what they could and couldn't do in a pool. Others were mad because every once in awhile, the committee would accuse them of having peed in the pool when they had only peed a little bit, while Jimmy over there drank a whole 2 liter bottle of mountain dew before he swam and let it all out through his bladder, but the committee didn't catch him and that wasn't fair. But by far, the people who hated the pool-pissing committee the most were the biggest pool-pissers. The pool-pissing committee was always bothering them, they complained, embarrassing them in front of their friends, and cruelly yanking them out of the pool. All they wanted to do was play in the pool, and didn't they have a right to do that? So what if a little pee leaks out every now and then. Worse (they argued), if the committee was allowed to yank anyone who peed out of the pool, then pretty soon the pool would be empty and the community center would be bankrupt. Of course the solution was simply to not pee in the pool (as most of the rest of the community was able to handle this just fine), and to hold it until afterwards, but that really cuts into out pool-playing time, the pool-pissers whined. So the pool-pissers got together a plan: They would band together and take over the pool-pissing committee-- but first they had to convince the other pool-goers that this was a good idea. "The system is rigged!" the pool-pissers squawked. "The pool-pissing committee gets paid to test the pool! So you see, they all have a stake in the outcome of the piss tests! This is a conflict of interest! They're on the take!" A lot of the swimmers began to nod their heads-- this sounded really unfair. They started to worry if the pool-pissing committee could be trusted. "We're being paid to do our jobs," said the pool committee. "That's not a conflict of interest. And we all signed up for this job because we care about having a clean pool." But the swimmers didn't hear them, or maybe they didn't care because they were all very worried that something unfair might be happening. And they were right, something very unfair was happening, but it wasn't what they were thinking of. "We should kick out these crooked pool experts from the pool committee," said the pool-pissers. "They don't know the reality of what it's like to be a swimmer, or how hard it is to hold your pee. Besides, us swimmers have the biggest stake who stays in the pool. It would be much more fair to put swimmers on the pool committee". This sounded reasonable to everyone and soon enough the pool experts were sent away, and the pool committee was filled with swimmers. Someone noticed that everyone on the pool committee happened to be swimmers who had been caught many times pissing in the pool, but it was decided that this was okay because they knew the most about pool-pissing, so it made sense that they were on a committee about pool-pissing. Almost immediately, the pool turned bright yellow and smelled rancid. Nobody was really sure why. Some swimmers kept saying something about strengthening the pool committee, but it seemed clear that pool committees didn't work, because we have a pool committee, and look how yellow the pool is. Many people got very sick, and the mystery of why the pool turned yellow remains to this very day.

chmaynard 9y ago

After Trump and his gang are finished gutting the EPA, there will be a much wider purge of scientists and intellectuals from all facets of the executive branch. The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible.

rfrank 9y ago
> The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible. Why is that the ONLY rational response? What removal mechanism do you propose?
skybrian 9y ago
Midterms happen first. Seems like these folks have a plan: https://swingleft.org/ https://swingleft.org/
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That's a good link, but midterms are 18 months away. What do you mean they 'happen first'? Do you mean they have to take place so impeachment proceedings become possible? I disagree with that contention.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The Republican congress might impeach the president if a huge scandal became impossible to deny. They aren't going to impeach the president for doing things they largely agree with.
    - plaguuuuuu 9y ago
      Reminder that if Trump is impeached, next in line is Mike Pence.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      They will if people make their lives miserable enough.

Preemo 9y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854

segmondy 9y ago

Time to start an alternative to EPA. Perhaps volunteer effort by academics, non profit. no government dependency.

daveguy 9y ago
No government "dependency" means no enforcement.
- SteveNuts 9y ago
  That's why we have the 2nd amendment
  - txru 9y ago
    We have the Second Amendment because the Governor of Massachusetts, Bowdoin, couldn't raise enough guns during Shay's Rebellion to safely take down the rebels. I don't think it had much to do with permitting citizens to enforce Federal policy that the government could be doing, but isn't.
  - a3n 9y ago
    Please explain. Are individuals going to, at their discretion, point guns at people to enforce individual environmental preferences? I don't see anything that implies that in the 2nd Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
    - nickpeterson 9y ago
      No, I believe the connotation is that it's easier to intimidate people than convince them.
- a3n 9y ago
  I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment." I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.

notadoc 9y ago

And who will take their place? Lobbyists?

passive 9y ago
Pruitt has stated he would like to see officials from the industries being regulated taking these positions.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Better than lobbyists - just let the corporations we regulate write the laws! (edit: clarity)
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    What do you mean by 'let'?
- moomin 9y ago
  I don't think I've ever seen regulatory capture being advocated before.
joshmaker 9y ago
"A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate" sounds like it
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  This sentence scares me. Although it makes total sense. It seems the only people who are supposed to have a say in this administration are from industry. Nobody else matters.
  - elihu 9y ago
    It sounds like they're making regulatory capture into an explicit goal.

culiuniversal 9y ago

Any tbh

rfrank 9y ago
So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?
- moomin 9y ago
  Plenty of people seem to be fine with foreign governments interfering with US elections. What is OK with people is a mystery that only continues to deepen.
  - rfrank 9y ago
    And with the US interfering in foreign elections. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obam... http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses-macron-zw-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses... EDIT because I'm rate limited by this joke of a site again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
    - hackuser 9y ago
      An open endorsement is not at all comparable to breaking the law, stealing information, turning it into misinformation, and leaking it anonymously. You also could say that Muhammad Ali and I both have thrown punches and that Linus Torvalds and I both have contributed to FOSS projects, but what would it mean?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Why don't you try being constructive instead of nitpicking and reaching straight for the edge cases? Like, try offering more moderated but credible alternatives to achieve the implicit end of having governance be informed by science.

blintz 9y ago

Republican House member Lamar Smith: "The E.P.A. routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is clear." Yes, how dare they put scientists on the "Scientific Advisory Board". What we really need is businesspeople from the coal industry! Is there no shame? No limit to the blatant disregard for science and public safety in favor of coal companies?

perfmode 9y ago
Yeah. Pretty sure shame is null.
a3n 9y ago
> Is there no shame? No. I'm quite sure men in the smoke filled rooms are right now bellowing "This is OUR TIME! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"
- bdamm 9y ago
  You're downvoted but I think you're right. Climate change won't wipe out everyone; it'll be a long process that takes hundreds or thousands of years, during which time there will be an enormous concentration of power to war-lords and the creation of a new slave class. This is the outcome that I believe is being banked on by some of the most powerful people. There are others who believe in the "rising tide floats all boats". Game on for the ultra-powerful. The rest of us are mostly bystanders.
  - a3n 9y ago
    "rising tide floats all boats" is just attractive psuedo-logic made up by "supply siders" (which is cover for "hyper rich") or their shills (Congress and the President) to lull have-nots into taking on a larger share of the tax burden. If you're not a cynic, you're still fucked.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

philipkglass 9y ago

The Collapse of the Cod Fishery of the Grand Banks http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm "The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) formulated a mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept which was called optimal yield. ... In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,000 tons. In the course of DFO management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was catastrophic. In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons. By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped." 25 years later, the cod haven't recovered to healthy levels. In 1989 the industry representatives probably thought that getting politicians to discount the scientists' advice was a victory.

bpodgursky 9y ago
I don't mean to in any way challenge the analysis here (obviously the overfishing was catastrophic), but FWIW the atlantic cod fishery is actually recovering (at last): https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-decline-cod-and-community-rebound-newfoundland/oNxKF14RpE47yc65OOAy6O/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-dec... There was some concern that Cod had been permanently dislodged as a predator in the ecosystem, but there has been good news recently.

tn135 9y ago

Was it Bill Nye ?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]