President Obama has stated he wants to “restore science to its rightful place”. Now we are left to wonder how he squares that statement in view of his promotion of the man-made global theory (see Cap and Trade). Moreover, it seems that he will tolerate more anti-science doings in his administration—-specifically in OSHA. David Michaels is Obama’s nominee to head OSHA.
A Washington Times Editorial tells us that in the Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals all 9 justices …”agreed that trial judges could hold hearings without juries present to determine if proposed ‘expert testimony’ is “relevant and reliable,” based on objective criteria such as use of scientific method and peer reviews. This way, a trial can be protected from being polluted by hired guns who may look and sound impressive enough to sway a jury that has no particular scientific expertise but who actually are peddling bogus theories or trumped-up evidence.”
Michaels has railed against this, saying that the ruling created a social imbalance away from the interests of plantiffs and their lawyers. He also heads a group funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute. The group, Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, was initially funded by a trust fund created from the silicone breast transplant scare (which subsequent studies have shown the scare was unfounded).
See the full story here.
Which brings me to the EPA. A suit was filed by Massachusetts against the EPA saying that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases. In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had a good case and the EPA was charged by the Supreme Court to make a finding that CO2 was or was not a hazard. The EPA‘s preliminary finding was that it is a hazard and should be regulated. The EPA admits that they did not do any scientific study of their own but relied upon the IPCC 2007 report that concluded that man-made warming will result in a global catastrophe in the future. The EPA is soon to issue final ruling.
I don’t know what is more threatening, passage of a Cap and Trade bill in the Senate to go along with the one passed in the House of Representatives or letting the EPA come up with regulations on how to reduce atmospheric CO2. I have been predicting that the legislators would not enact cap and trade because they would be in danger of not being re-elected when the cost of that legislation was felt by the US citizens. So, they would take the easy way and let the blame fall on the EPA if things turned out badly.
Now enter the US Chamber of Commerce which argues that the before a final decision is made that the EPA must be required to defend it scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. The EPA has said they don’t see the necessity of this. The following is statement by Senator James Inhofe, (Ok-R):
“Why would anyone oppose a full, open, transparent hearing to determine whether evidence supporting the most consequential regulatory decision of our time—affecting schools, hospitals, farms, apartment buildings, restaurants, nursing homes, and thousands of other sources—is up-to-date, accurate, and reflective of the best available scientific research? And why wouldn’t the Obama Administration, and its supporters in the environmental community, faced with a decision potentially imposing billions of dollars of costs on consumers and small businesses, favor a process that ensures maximum public participation and stakeholder input?”
“The answer is simple: in dismissing the Chamber’s petition as “frivolous,” EPA has made clear that, even before finalizing its regulation and considering thousands of public comments, it has already decided the question of endangerment. And in so doing, it has ignored, either deliberately or through omission, reams of scientific data, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rigorously identified, undermining the case that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
EPA has also made clear that it doesn’t want to hear dissenting voices on this important question. This runs contrary to President Obama’s speech last December, in which he expressed his views on scientific integrity in the administrative process. As he said, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” (Emphasis added by Cbdakota)
Read Senator Inhofe’s full comments here.
Now that the President is on record for “restoring science etc……” and “…..listening even when it is inconvenient” shouldn’t you let him know that you want him to direct the EPA to have the hearing.