After several decades of pioneering work, the “environmental” movement was captured by environmental extremists during the last few decades of the last century; EPA, in turn, was effectively captured by the “environmental” movement starting during the Clinton Administration and in a very accelerated way during the Obama Administration. This capture of EPA was not limited to the selection of a few supportive political appointees, but rather penetrated into the career civil service and even to the supposedly non-partisan EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) composed primarily of academic scientists. But even with the “environmental” groups’ strong influence, the Obama Administration may not have trusted the SAB to render the invalid scientific conclusions on climate alarmism they wanted in their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and failed to submit their GHG Endangerment Finding to the SAB for review despite the clear need for it to do so on such an important and influential issue.
With this history it is laudable that the Trump Administration apparently wants to change the composition of the committees back to a more balanced viewpoint, hopefully with a very strong emphasis on the scientific method as the basis for determining the science which EPA uses. Under the scientific method, for example, the so-called “consensus” so strongly advocated by the Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) should have absolutely no role in determining science–only results derived by using the scientific method, the basis for evaluating what is and is not valid science.
Because members of the SAB are appointed for periods of several years, such membership changes would require a number of years to achieve a more balanced membership on SAB. There is some evidence that this may be what the Trump EPA is trying to do with a request for nominations in the Federal Register several months ago. EPA received many nominations, including both those favoring and opposing climate alarmism and environmental extremism, and have now asked for public comments on these nominees. Comments on candidates for the Science Advisory Board should be submitted by email to Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer, no later than September 28, 2017, at carpenter.thomas@epa.gov, and to Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer, at yeow.aaron@epa.gov no later than September 18, 2017 concerning candidates for the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee. Some comments on a number of the candidates from a skeptic website can be found here.
Why Should the EPA Pay to Hear Its Own Views on Its Science?
The CIC is hard at work trying to drum up public opposition to those SAB nominees opposed to climate alarmism. See, for example, here. There are also reports that the Washington Post may soon join in. It appears likely that this is because the CIC does not believe there should be any real debate on climate science or any other science-based issue coming before EPA and that the SAB should only hear the views of those who closely support the tenets of those who are willing to overthrow science-based environmental regulation in favor of climate alarmism and environmental extremism.
The obvious question is why EPA should pay to hear the views of scientists very closely associated with the EPA’s views during the Obama Administration, a number of whom already receive very large research grants from EPA and who often support EPA’s proposed regulations. Could it be that the CIC wants the SAB to continue to be an echo chamber for its views rather than a serious arbiter of science?
I would argue that even if there were little opposition to proposed EPA regulations (clearly not the case), EPA would be better off to actively recruit serious opponents who strongly support the use of the scientific method but have reached opposing viewpoints on the science EPA is using. A scientific advisory group that supports views that EPA has previously adopted is not making any useful contribution. It is just a rubber stamp using resources for no useful purpose.
A very different view can be found in my climate/environmental book and very recently in one by Steve Milloy. If views opposed to the scientific basis of climate alarmism had been actively encouraged prior to the approval of the GHG Endangerment Finding in 2009, we would be far better off now and might well have saved many hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars that the Obama Administration wasted on climate alarmist policies with no valid scientific basis (see also here).
The Supreme Court did not tell EPA to regulate carbon dioxide; they told EPA to determine whether GHGs met the criteria for regulation under the Clean Air Act. EPA did so in 2009, but deliberately ignored the abundant scientific evidence to the contrary, as I pointed out at the time.
The proponents of climate alarmism have long worked to wrap themselves in the mantle of “clean,” but the serious question is whether climate alarmists and other environmental extremists have pushed EPA to an extreme where there is nothing to show for the added expenditures promoted by them except bigger bills for taxpayers and ratepayers.
It almost goes without saying that selecting nominees that are financially dependent on the EPA for the funds to support their research is also a bad idea since they will be much less likely to bite the hand that is feeding them. The climate alarmists falsely claim that their opponents are all in the pay of fossil fuel interests. They too often hide the fact that many of their friends are in the pay of renewable energy or regulatory interests.
As outlined in my climate/environmental book, I am just as committed to environmental protection as I ever have been, but not by misrepresenting the science. Using bad science is not justified by the potential worthiness of any objective. It rather just makes matters worse by misdirecting resources to problems that are actually non-problems such as climate alarmism. Given their actions, the leadership of the “environmental” movement apparently does not support good science or even public discussion of it. And in recent years EPA has joined them by proposing and imposing regulations based on invalid science. I have extensively documented this in my climate/environmental book and this blog with regard to climate alarmism and other forms of environmental extremism that cannot be justified scientifically. This is inexcusable. The EPA SAB can play a vital role in bringing good science back to the EPA, but only if it has members who insist on it. This is why it is so important that members are appointed whose loyalty is to good science, not EPA or environmental extremism.
Public disclosure: I am one of the candidates being considered by EPA for the SAB.
I was looking at a scientific advisory panel report from the Nixon Administration.
Among its recommendations:
Inform the public of the inevitable incompleteness of the knowledge;
Release detailed white papers to identify pros and cons supporting regulatory decisions, making clear what is not known, as well as what is.
Our knowledge is never complete; as it increases, it will make us reconsider and revise past decisions.
As to membership, 15 members.
About 8 are identified as affiliated with universities. Of these, two are economists, thus might have respect for the real world, like Doc Carlin.
At least three members with industry affiliations.
Two lawyers.
A diverse group and one mindful of the limits to knowledge.
No assumption we know all the answers because 97 percent of atmospheric scientists have faith that CO2 regulates climate and any dissent owes to corrupt motives.
A different time.
Congratulations on consideration for the SABs. Few on the planet could be a better selection. You do not twist science to curry favor with Prince Charles, George Clooney, Steven Hawking, and other celebs. Instead your pour energy into writing a 570 page book that examines the subject quite thoroughly.
“using bad science is not justified by the potential worthiness of an objective.” On this we agree. I would add a semantic caveat about “bad science. It is possible many climate studies could be technically competent in a narrow sense. Yet even if containing accurate measurements, they do not support the vastly broader claim that the earth’s climate is changing and this owes to CO2. This claim would be extremely hard to establish and those who think it has been established already have fatally shot their own credibility.
“EPA would be better off to actively recruit serious opponents who strongly support the scientific method.” The bureaucracy might not think so, because many career civil servants have a vested interest in faux risks. Leaders of the USEPA like Mr. Pruitt who want sound science and who do not want to harm the economy for needless reasons have reason to reach outside the unionized work force and seek comment from outside advisors to evaluate the merit of internally generated regulations. The reason to have a science advisory board is to enlist independent critics to ask annoying questions, rather than to staff a board with alarmists alone. A credible board does not have to be 100 percent skeptics or 100 percent alarmists. It has to have both perspectives and to hear debate.