The EPA’s Science Office Just Removed the Word “Science” From Its Mission Statement

[Techno-Druid]

https://futurism.com/the-epas-scienc...ion-statement/

As President Donald Trump took office in late January, his administration began changing the language on government websites. Changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pages were among the more notable modifications, including the deletion of “science” from the mission statement of the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OST).

These changes and others have been documented by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI). On March 7, EDGI shared this deletion with the New Republic and Gretchen Gehrke, a member of the EDGI website tracking team, provided some commentary on the change.

“This is probably the most important thing we’ve found so far,” Gehrke told the New Republic. “The language changes here are not nuanced — they have really important regulatory implications.”

The OST of the EPA has historically been tasked with developing clean water standards for states. Until January 30, 2017, the OST’s portion of the website described the standards as “science-based,” in that they were founded on scientific, peer-reviewed recommendations for safe levels of water pollutants for drinking, fishing, or swimming. As of January 30, OST says it develops “economically and technologically achievable standards,” not “science-based” standards.


Earth & Energy
The EPA’s Science Office Just Removed the Word “Science” From Its Mission Statement

by Karla Lant

Steve Snodgrass/Flickr
Stepping Back from Science

As President Donald Trump took office in late January, his administration began changing the language on government websites. Changes to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pages were among the more notable modifications, including the deletion of “science” from the mission statement of the EPA’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OST).

These changes and others have been documented by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI). On March 7, EDGI shared this deletion with the New Republic and Gretchen Gehrke, a member of the EDGI website tracking team, provided some commentary on the change.

“The language changes here are not nuanced — they have really important regulatory implications, ” Gehrke said.
“This is probably the most important thing we’ve found so far,” Gehrke told the New Republic. “The language changes here are not nuanced — they have really important regulatory implications.”

The OST of the EPA has historically been tasked with developing clean water standards for states. Until January 30, 2017, the OST’s portion of the website described the standards as “science-based,” in that they were founded on scientific, peer-reviewed recommendations for safe levels of water pollutants for drinking, fishing, or swimming. As of January 30, OST says it develops “economically and technologically achievable standards,” not “science-based” standards.


Credit: EDGI
The importance of using science and evidence to make decisions about the future of society and our world is widely understood. For example, although the tension between policymaking and science has been recognized by both scientists and public servants, many tools have been developed for policymakers, such as “Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims,” a primer on understanding science, and “Bridging the gap between science and decision making,” another basic reference for policymakers. The existence of these resources highlight the importance of science-based policymaking.

Signaling Different Priorities

Gehrke told the New Republic that the move away from “science-based” and toward “economically achievable” refers to ongoing conflicts over regulating environmental polluters — mostly businesses. Performance-based regulations are often pushed by environmentalists; these regulations require that air and water meet certain quality standards, no matter the economic cost. The shift means technology-based standards instead, where using certain types of technology is enough, even if air and water quality no longer meets the same high standards as before.

Some fear that these changes reveal a new purpose for the EPA: the prioritization of business interests over public health and the environment. New EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has close ties to fossil-fuel companies and has repeatedly failed to mention public health or environmentalist stakeholders as agency concerns. Recent decisions to end emissions reporting requirements for businesses and Pruitt’s statements about CO2 emissions, which directly contradict established scientific consensus, seem to support these concerns.

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’s Center for Science and Democracy said his organization shares these concerns and cites prioritization of the “economically achievable” for businesses over the best science a “major change in direction.”

“The role of the EPA is to protect public health and safety,” Rosenberg said in an interview with the New Republic. “So what you want a science office to do is make sure you’re using the best science available, and what’s safe for the public. That’s a pretty critical role.”

I think this is a move in the wrong direction, despite what many Republicans think, the EPA is a critical federal agency that goes into protecting the American people. You're free to disagree with me on this, but I believe a government which prioritizes the economy over the health of its people is a government going in the wrong direction.

[Milchshake]

Well if there's no science, no one can complain about "clean water" anymore. Fake water for everyone!

[BannedForViews]

They haven't cared about science for decades, might as well reflect that in the literature.

[NED funded]

For some reason a website called futurism doesn't ring me as something worth taking my news from, as for the news itself, might as well do it now that Scott Pruitt is in charge.

[Barnabas]

That's good. It's keeping the EPA honest. It's hard to believe their "science" when people like Gina Mccarthy started spouting nonsense that methane is some huge contributor to "climate change." Most of the "climate change" earth experiences is the caca coming from her mouth.

[Polyxo]

That's good. It's keeping the EPA honest. It's hard to believe their "science" when people like Gina Mccarthy started spouting nonsense that methane is some huge contributor to "climate change." Most of the "climate change" earth experiences is the caca coming from her mouth.

Methane has a higher level of radiative forcing than most other greenhouse gases.

[callipygoustp]

There's a lot of over head that goes along with science. Huge cost savings benefits by removing science. Team Trump once again finding easy ways to save money

MAGA!

/sarcasm

[Darththeo]

Methane has a higher level of radiative forcing than most other greenhouse gases.

Hey now ... no science remember! /sarcasm

[Barnabas]

Methane has a higher level of radiative forcing than most other greenhouse gases.

Yet all your "Scientists" still haven't come to a consensus why it has risen 3% since 1985? So the EPA is using more broken "science" to come to conclusions about things to push an agenda.

[callipygoustp]

Another benefit about getting rid of the word "science" : the negativity it brings along with it because it implies a high level snobbyness, of higher educated people thinking they know more than the average person. Getting rid of heavily biased words like "science" quickly evens the playing field.

/sarcasm

[alexw]

They haven't cared about science for decades, might as well reflect that in the literature.

Its nice of you to admit that. Usually republicans go through all sorts of denials where they loudly state that they care about evidence and science, as they go on to utterly ignore it. So kudos to you for admitting what we all know to be the truth.

[breadisfunny]

That's good. It's keeping the EPA honest. It's hard to believe their "science" when people like Gina Mccarthy started spouting nonsense that methane is some huge contributor to "climate change." Most of the "climate change" earth experiences is the caca coming from her mouth.

your science teacher failed you. come see me after class you get an f for this nonsense.

[GodlyBob]

Yet all your "Scientists" still haven't come to a consensus why it has risen 3% since 1985? So the EPA is using more broken "science" to come to conclusions about things to push an agenda.

I don't think you're scienceing right.

- - - Updated - - -

your science teacher failed you.

The caca coming form her mouth would only influence local weather, not climate ^.^

[BannedForViews]

Its nice of you to admit that. Usually republicans go through all sorts of denials where they loudly state that they care about evidence and science, as they go on to utterly ignore it. So kudos to you for admitting what we all know to be the truth.

I was referring to the EPA. Was pretty obvious. Nice attempt troll.

infracted - minor spam

[GodlyBob]

I was referring to the EPA. Was pretty obvious. Nice attempt troll.

I think there's a good superman gif for this type of occasion.

[breadisfunny]

I was referring to the EPA. Was pretty obvious. Nice attempt troll.

nice ad hominem and personal attack that does nothing to address the point.

[Masark]

Yet all your "Scientists" still haven't come to a consensus why it has risen 3% since 1985?

Why what has risen?

[talwynn]

Yet all your "Scientists" still haven't come to a consensus why it has risen 3% since 1985? So the EPA is using more broken "science" to come to conclusions about things to push an agenda.

Scientists have known about the man made effects on the environment due to burning fossil fuels since 1896. And no that's not a type. Svante Arrenius began studying those effects in 1896. "The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." Quote from his book Worlds in the Making published in 1908 in English.

[alexw]

That's good. It's keeping the EPA honest. It's hard to believe their "science" when people like Gina Mccarthy started spouting nonsense that methane is some huge contributor to "climate change." Most of the "climate change" earth experiences is the caca coming from her mouth.

Errr it is. Its absorption region is in a part of the IR spectrum which is transparent with respect to the rest of the components of the atmosphere. Thus it takes very little of it to cause substantial warming.

Think of it this way, think of the rest of the gasses that compose the atmosphere as forming a gauze or lattice covering the earth. The holes in that lattice are the wavelengths of light (energy) that can escape the Earth unhindered, thus there is a natural mechanism that will always allow some energy to escape easily into space. When CO2 is added it makes the lattice incrementally thicker meaning the energy traveling through the gauze has farther to travel, whereas adding methane acts to block a substantial number of those holes. Thus methane ends up having a vastly greater effect.

[Barnabas]

Scientists have known about the man made effects on the environment due to burning fossil fuels since 1896. And no that's not a type. Svante Arrenius began studying those effects in 1896. "The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." Quote from his book Worlds in the Making published in 1908 in English.

Yet they have no consensus why methane presence has increased in the atmosphere since 1985. Try at least remaining on topic when you reply.

- - - Updated - - -

Errr it is. Its absorption region is in a part of the IR spectrum which is transparent with respect to the rest of the components of the atmosphere. Thus it takes very little of it to cause substantial warming.

Think of it this way, think of the rest of the gasses that compose the atmosphere as forming a gauze or lattice covering the earth. The holes in that lattice are the wavelengths of light (energy) that can escape the Earth unhindered, thus there is a natural mechanism that will always allow some energy to escape easily into space. When CO2 is added it makes the lattice incrementally thicker meaning the energy traveling through the gauze has farther to travel, whereas adding methane acts to block a substantial number of those holes. Thus methane ends up having a vastly greater effect.

Still no consensus of scientists stating unequivocally it has anything to do with coming from man. When you guys actually find one then link it until then good luck with your circular arguments.