I do like these people–Lawrence Kogan is the leader. The importance of a strategy to stop EPA aggressive regulatory behavior cannot be overestimated.
Category Archives: Scientific method
Here’s a guy who has given up on the Weather Channel–it is a fever swamp for sure.
Who am I to even comment on the eloquence of Richard Lindzen, who has tried–lord how he’s tried, to educate people on climate science done by real scientists.
I have become a fan of Lawrence Kogan and his work becuase he has some important insights and strategies on the EPA overreach and overregulation train wreck.
Here is a link to an insightful discussion of the post modern/politically driven/Socialist view of science–how to use it to further political agendas.
Excerpts I though very cogent from Kogan and Otis:
Perhaps a more thoughtful way to address this matter would be to question the President and his Chief Science Adviser, John Holdren concerning which paradigm of science they subscribe to. Is it the evolved modern notion of quantitative science built on the firm empirical principles of Newtonian physics or is it a new postmodern brand of qualitative science incorporating precautionary and other subjective concepts—all infused with a certain sense of intellectual ascendency.
If they subscribe to Enlightenment-era science, they should legitimately ask whether the myriad scientific uncertainties discussed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports, and by extension, the administration’s national climate assessments, provide reason to question whether science has clearly identified the necessary causal links definitively establishing that humankind’s activities are primarily, if not exclusively, responsible for all or most current global warming—both observed prior and future computer modeled global warming.
If however, they subscribe to what ‘futurist’ Jeremy Rifkin describes as “a radical new approach to science and technology based on the principle of sustainable development and global stewardship of the Earth’s environment” premised on “[t]he precautionary principle, [which] is designed to allow government authorities to respond pre-emptively, as well as after damage is inflicted, with a lower threshold of scientific certainty than has been the rule of thumb in the past,” they are likely to interpret the uncertainties reflected in the IPCC and administration-developed climate science assessments differently. It would certainly explain why the President has argued that immediate regulatory actions are necessary, notwithstanding the current costs, because the possible future endangerment to human health, the environment and the economy posed by inaction is unacceptable.
This new postmodern regulatory science paradigm relies more on politics and notions of policy-based science informed by environmental and social justice concerns rather than on science-based policy.
As a second question, one would ask how this shift is coming about. Mr. Holdren’s response would likely be more complex and nuanced. There are multiple mechanisms at play, ranging from moral suasion to fear mongering to nudged behavior modification to weakened scientific peer review processes.
In an ideal world, Mr. Holdren and other Administration officials would acknowledge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have done a less than stellar job of conducting proper and robust peer review of the climate science underlying EPA’s 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment findings. But we do not live in such a world. Indeed, they seem to have forgotten or conveniently explained away their obligation under the federal Information Quality Act to ensure each of the 28 highly influential scientific assessments summarizing and synthesizing IPCC ‘climate science’ supporting those findings had been adequately validated. This would not have been an insignificant undertaking yet it was required to detect serious systemic violations of the letter and spirit of the Act and is a serious omission.
Overwhelming evidence produced by the nonprofit Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) demonstrates how EPA and NOAA, under Mr. Holdren’s stewardship of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy-led interagency US Global Change Research Program, systematically circumvented the Information Quality Act’s most rigorous and least discretionary peer review, objectivity/bias, transparency and conflict-of-interest standards. Such evidence is contained in a recast 145-page annotated FOIA request ITSSD filed with EPA on June 30, 2014, and in a clarified FOIA request ITSSD filed with NOAA in May 2014.
As InsideEPA reported, the new EPA FOIA request seeks disclosure of “documents reflecting four different levels at which EPA should have followed IQA requirements”. By comparison, the EPA Office of Inspector General’s 2011 investigation of agency GHG endangerment finding data quality processes had been limited to only one of these levels. And as we previously reported in the Washington Times, the clarified NOAA FOIA request described how the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science had hand-selected scientists affiliated with universities receiving NOAA climate research grant monies to peer review six NOAA-developed climate assessments, presenting a significant appearance, if not actual conflict-of-interest in violation of the IQA.
We arrive, then, at a point where ends seem to justify means, fair and transparent processes fall by the wayside, and critics become villains. Partisans lob amusing but ultimately unsatisfying barbs at each other while the rules of science shift behind the curtain. Given the global economic and environmental challenges faced by our nation, we should expect and demand better.
Lawrence A. Kogan is chief executive of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development and managing principal of The Kogan Law Group, P.C. Richard D. Otis Jr. is an environmental-policy expert and has held senior positions at the EPA.
A nice report on the watermelons, as Delingpole dubbed them.
Einstein proven right again? This time on time dilation–motion makes time slow.