House, Senate ask EPA to declassify air pollution ‘secret science’

JunkScience has been after EPA to do this for 16 years.

Click for the letter.

The House Science Committee media release is below.


Smith, Vitter Reiterate Call for Transparency and Release of EPA Secret Data

MAR 4, 2013

Washington D.C. – House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member David Vitter (R-La.) today sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation, Assistant Administrator, Gina McCarthy, seeking the science underpinning new air quality rules and criticizing the agency’s lack of transparency and use of secret data.

“EPA has continually refused to make public the basic scientific data underlying virtually all of the Agency’s claimed benefits from new Clean Air Act (CAA) rules. Everyone agrees on the importance of clean air, but EPA needs to release the secret data they use in formulating new rules,” Rep. Smith and Sen. Vitter wrote. “The EPA’s new CAA regulations are expected to be some of the most costly the federal government has ever issued. Relying on secret data to support these rules is not acceptable. The public and outside scientists must be able to independently verify the EPA’s claims, especially when the results are contradicted by so many other studies.”

The letter specifically highlights the lack of transparency behind EPA’s upcoming review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The lawmakers noted that the EPA’s reliance on “secret data” contradicts the promises of the President to be the “most transparent administration in history.”

3 thoughts on “House, Senate ask EPA to declassify air pollution ‘secret science’”

  1. I take your word about the fact that the EPA officials are lawyers and not scientists. How sad that that is relevant as lawyers do seem unable to process information logically.

    Harry Markopolos presented a logical demonstration that Bernie Madoff’s fund was a fraud to a very high lawyer at the SEC. That official could not follow the argument. What goes on in law school?

    The latest example of lawyers having trouble with reasoning was evinced in the oral argument about the re- authorization of the voting rights act’s per-clearance requirement. Chief justice Roberts got it right when he said that the fact that a higher percentage of blacks in Alabama are registered than of whites shows the act not to be needed and is thereby unconstitutional. Associate Justice argued that there was an extensive record that showed some section 2 actions prevailed. But section 2 suits are discretionary and may involve quibbles or nitpicks as well as substance. Her argument is wrong because she doesn’t understand materiality of evidence. Associate Justice Breyer, a man I greatly admire, just babbled. Justice Kagan chanted PC nonsense. Even Scalia was off the mark as the Senate votes he cited don’t prove much of anything. There were tears in my eyes while listening to them.

  2. The problem with the EPA is that the people in charge are lawyers, not scientists. Look at the EPA director, and all the regional directors. Is even one of them a scientist?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.