House Dems fight subpoena seeking to liberate EPA’s secret science’

Here’s why House Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson opposes the Committee’s recent vote to subpoena EPA’s secret science.

Summarized from her August 6 letter. [Our comments in bold brackets.]:

  1. The subpoena was issued on a party-line vote. [Anyone remember Obamacare?]
  2. The GOP refused to identify who would get the data. [Maybe the data will just be made freely available to the public that is burdened by the costly, good-for-nothing EPA rules.]
  3. Dr. Stan Young asked for the data as an individual, not on behalf of his employer the National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS). [Why can’t Stan with his PhD in statistics see the data?]
  4. Medical privacy of study subjects would be violated. [False. The data at issue involve no personal medical records. The data were gathered by 70,000 American Cancer Society volunteers who asked their friends, neighbors and relatives personal health questions like how much they smoked, drank, ate, etc. There is no recognizable expectation of privacy in these data.]
  5. Data requester Jim Enstrom was terminated by UCLA. [While there is an ongoing lawsuit about Entrom’s termination, UCLA terminated him because of his politically incorrect views on air pollution.]
  6. Some of Jim Enstrom’s work on secondhand smoke was funded by the tobacco industry and so giving him the American Cancer Society health data is just giving it to the tobacco industry. [What?]
  7. As a nurse, Rep. Johnson saw people die from heart disease and cancer, which she knows was caused by air pollution. [Show us a body, Eddie!]

There’s more in this letter before Rep. Johnson accuses the GOP of causing “irreparable harm to our Committee and our country,” but instead of fertilizing my garden next year, I thinking of having Rep. Johnson come over and read this letter to it.

3 thoughts on “House Dems fight subpoena seeking to liberate EPA’s secret science’”

  1. What a strange letter! She is a member of the Science committee. The committee decided, quite properly to subpoena the information that it required. She says that the objections (or many of them) which she raised in the letter were were brought forward at the committee meeting.

    It seem to me that this letter need not to be responded to. It is for the committee to decided how it handles confidentiality. The EPA should hand over the requested information to the extent that it has the information. It is not for the EPA to defend Harvard.
    As a member of the Science committee she should be supporting the committee and not attacking it. If she does not like what the committee decided, she should resign.

  2. Its the beginning of the end! Rep. Johnson who states,

    ”Rep. Johnson accuses the GOP of causing “irreparable harm to our Committee and our country”

    Knows full well that once the ” JUNK SCIENCE” is exposed all of EPA’s so called reputation is GONE and with it its regulatory powers!

    We all remember the EPA study on environmental tobacco smoke!

    Theres no better source to show the ability of EPA to be a political science den of shame! Junk Science doesnt even begin to describe this and many other agencies have done to smokers and others worldwide because of their collective abuse and powers to regulate.

  3. Character assassination, guilt by association, appeal to authority. Are there any other weak argument methods I missed? I see evidence of a weak mind at work.
    As for the Veteran hospital experience Rep. Johnson mentions, taking my Korea War veteran father to the local facility exposes me to many OLD MEN, who, due to their advanced age are suffering from heart disease and other late life diseases. What did she expect to see in an pensioners hospital?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.