House Science Committee threatens to subpoena EPA ‘secret science’ has been after EPA for its “secret science” for more than 15 years…. now the House of Representatives is, too!

For Immediate Release
July 22, 2013
Media Contacts: Zachary Kurz, Kim Smith Hicks

Committee Threatens to Subpoena EPA Secret Science

Washington, D.C. – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart (R-Utah) today sent a final letter to newly confirmed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy demanding the release of “secret science” that the agency has used as the basis of costly regulations. The Committee has repeatedly requested the data EPA uses to justify virtually every Clean Air Act regulation proposed and finalized by the Obama Administration.

“If EPA has nothing to hide, why not provide this information to Congress and the American people?,” Chairmen Smith and Stewart asked. “We are concerned that EPA’s reluctance to respond to Congressional requests or to obtain and assess the data to assure the legitimacy of claimed benefits may reflect weaknesses in the studies…Recent claims by the agency that it is working to obtain the data from certain academic institutions ring hollow, given the years of delay and excuses.”

For more than two years, the Committee has sought access to the data, sending six letters to the EPA and other top administration officials. But the administration has refused to substantively respond to the request. The data sets in question are used to justify major costly new air regulations. As one example, the EPA’s proposed limits on ozone are expected to be some of the most costly the federal government has ever issued. In the EPA assessment of this standard, it cited studies based upon these hidden data sets more than a thousand times.

“Despite a commitment you made in testimony before this Committee more than 20 months ago [VIDEO], and multiple requests since that time, EPA has failed to provide the information in a manner that would allow for independent scientific verification,” the lawmakers wrote. “Given the central role of these publically-funded analyses in providing justification for major, costly EPA regulations, it is imperative that this information be open and transparent. The American people are going to be forced to foot the bill. They have a right to know whether EPA’s new rules are based on sound science or a partisan agenda.”

Chairmen Smith and Stewart gave the EPA one last chance to comply with the request, saying that “failure to provide the requested documents will result in a subpoena to ensure disclosure.” The Chairmen demand EPA provides the data by July 31, 2013 to avoid a subpoena.

In July, President Obama gave a speech proclaiming that “for the first time in history, we’ve opened up huge amounts of government data to the American people, and put it on the Internet for free.” In that spirit, this administration should make public the data that underlies these critical taxpayer-funded studies.

The full letter can be found HERE.

Read “Uncovering EPA’s Secret Science.

3 thoughts on “House Science Committee threatens to subpoena EPA ‘secret science’”

  1. OH, this is rich!

    The EPA’s own scientists found CAGW was hogwash so they decided to go with IPCC as ‘support’ for their findings instead. Unfortunately for them you have Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé

    Fred H. Haynie commented:

    I did research at EPA for over twenty years and one reason I retired early (over 20 years ago) was
    the growing amount of political control over scientific research and research reports. The Supreme Court did not tell EPA that CO2 was a pollutant. It told them to determine if it was a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act and regulate accordingly. Their finding was based on the bad science of the IPCC and and some “sponsored research” like the PI grants. If they had followed the guidelines of the Clean Air Act and done good objective research, they could not have found CO2 to be a pollutant, much less devise a plan to control it. Alan Carlin told them as much and continues to do so. I’ve put my two cents in as well.( )The real problem is that subjective research is being promoted and controlled by several layers of political appointees in agencies that are supposed to be doing objective research.

    Another of his comments

    To all concerned,

    One reason I retired early from research at EPA years ago was good science was beginning to be sidetracked for political purposes. In this case EPA has been completely derailed. I have spent the last four years of my retirement studying all the data I could find to get to the truth about climate change. I just finished a presentation that shows ample evidence that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming. Carbon dioxide has been falsely convicted on circumstantial evidence by a politically selected jury. A just retrial could overturn this conviction before we punish ourselves by trying to control emissions that will have no effect on climate change. You can view the presentation and be your on judge and jury at http:\www.kidswincom.netclimate.pdf

    .pdf Sincerely,

    Fred H. Haynie
    Retired Environmental Scientist

  2. To the best of my knowledge, any information paid for by the government is public domain. Classified documents being the only exceptions. On the other hand, if the raw data and the analysis technique is secret, is it really science? Proprietary information is not compatible with either science or government. In both cases, the public is entitled to check your work, if you want us to accept your conclusions.

  3. The concept of “work for hire” is that the one who pays the tab owns the work. This affects me in my own work; if I create a database for a client, I can’t just sell the same product to someone else.
    If Congress and the taxpayers have funded EPA, the only secrets EPA has any business keeping are those that relate to actual national security. Their data to drive endangerment findings and regulations woudn’t qualify.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.