An effort to eliminate shamans and would-be scientific pressure groups possessing no verifiable evidence from the EPA decisions
President Obama has threatened to employ dictatorial strategies and completely circumvent the lawmakers during his divine personal mission to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal our planet.
If hired by the government as a researcher, a shaman is enough to serve as an "adviser" and the basis of the EPA decisions as of today.
After all, isn't it enough to control the EPA and to borrow a Michael Mann from the Penn State [I know that the überjerk is elsewhere now] and a Peter Gleick from the State Penn and use this administrator to cripple whole sectors of the economy – while saying that this is what has healed the planet?
Well, it seems that the newly elected GOP-led Congress is aware of this blackmailing and it could have some tools at least to slow down this plan of Obama, after all. Or at least tools to try to do so.
The House has passed the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014 penned by David Schweikert, R-Arizona, and importantly backed e.g. by Lamar Smith, R-Texas. It's a very short bill that fits one screen of your Internet browser so you are invited to click at the hyperlink in this paragraph and read the whole thing! Technically, the few sentences amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to demand clarity of the documents used to support the decisions.
To say the least, the lawmakers' intent seems completely clear and desirable to me: it's nothing else than the transparency behind the EPA decisions. The EPA – The Environmental Protection Agency – should be an administrator that is deciding according to the scientific results and scientific results are those that are based on the empirical, mathematical, and logical evidence that actually exists and survives verification. In recent years, many decisions were based on testimonies claimed to be scientific but in reality, they were referring to personal and collective feelings of various people and activist organizations and their would-be authority not backed by anything tangible.
This widespread practice should be stopped. So if the EPA wants to act and be covered and requires some scientific evidence for the action, it has to refer to specific, identified documents that must contain the data needed to reproduce the conclusions. It's as simple as that. A random Hayhoe who arrives as a witness and says that she feels in some way and 97 out of her friends, not to mention Jesus Christ, agree with her – that should no longer be enough.
It's not "too much to ask". The CMS and ATLAS are two experiments that produce the largest amount of data in the world and they have no practical implications. Still, for some reasons, the public may get all the data, at least from certain runs.
The EPA has already made some insane decisions in the past that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so on. It's not clear to me whether such distortions of the political discourse that were based on pseudoscience could be undone retroactively. But my understanding is that in principle, if this bill ever came to force, no extra new action by the EPA based on the idea that "CO2 is harmful" should be possible unless an actual paper containing some reproducible evidence that CO2 is harmful emerges. Being promised all kinds of things, we've been waiting for such a paper but it hasn't materialized yet.
"Secret" scientific results – the kind of evidence that crackpots often provide us with to defend their wrong claims – should no longer be enough, much like mysterious claims about the "power of consensus" or research known to be flawed.
So you should have no doubts that the activist and political organizations whose whole power is based on fraudulent claims and science that isn't really covered by any reproducible evidence are angry and doing their best to misinterpret what the bill actually wants to achieve. See e.g. this text at Think Progress, Salon.com, and one by Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, three left-wing political websites.
These authors and others defend the usage of "secret science" by saying that "secret science" is OK because scientists may be afraid that their discoveries will be stolen. Well, these authors or scientists deserve 10 extra points in the crackpot index, rule 12. You may have various reasons to hide your research – and you may even subjectively know that the research is robust and correct – but as long as your measurements or derivations are inaccessible to the external world, the external world (e.g. the EPA) cannot consider it science (yet)! Scientific results behind a paywall are somewhere in between. If a result is important enough to determine a policy, the proponent of the policy should surely pay to make the result available to the U.S. citizens, shouldn't he? Easy enough verification by the scientific (if not general) public should be demanded to be possible if billions of dollars are at stake.
There's some sense in which the text of the bill is "obvious" and "tautological" – decades ago, it wouldn't have been necessary to write these things explicitly because people would understand that references to (someone's or someone else's) authority or consensus were not science. But many people have become completely deluded, brainwashed, or degenerated, so in 2014, the obvious thing has to be said explicitly. And the hysterical reactions are clear proofs that the "obvious thing" isn't really obvious at all.
The bill may be vetoed by the president. But it's still right for the lawmakers to try to make the right changes.
NASA's new (simulated) video showing the diffusion of CO2 (and CO) within a year (2006). The colors show the interval 370-400 ppm or so. You may see the sources and sinks and the ability of CO2 to get "almost anywhere" within weeks. The motion of the excess/surplus CO2 islands is affected by the wind etc.
The climate-panic-related comments by the narrator were mandatory.