By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
Who's Afraid of Sound Science?
Posted by Chris Horner · 17 September 2004 · Climate
The data quality, or information quality, act required OMB and federal agencies to establish guidelines for the data that they data they disseminate in order to maximize quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of information. The goal was to limit the practice of "regulation by publication," or using the governmental impramatur to, e.g., scare Alar off the shelves, or provide trial lawyers fodder for the rash of pending "global warming" lawsuits to require U.S. industry to pay for Third World weather. Although every single request for correction has been rejected, as has every appeal, even the potential threat of information quality guidelines is apparently just too much for global warming alarmists. See the following e-mail received from Hill staff in the know. It looks like someone -- whom the author speculates to be Senator McCain -- has sneakily inserted an exemption for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to make it the only executive agency excluded (de jure) from informtaion quality requirements. "We have just learned of a troubling rider included in the CJSJ appropriations bill marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 19. The rider would exempt NOAA--and climate research--from the sound science requirements of the data quality act. The data quality act has revolutionized the role of science in policy making by ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of scientific information federal agencies use. By exempting NOAA, the lead federal agency conducting research into the existence and effects of climate change, this rider prevents an honest evaluation of the science of climate change from occurring and ensures that future policy decisions are based not on sound science but rather on junk science. If approved, NOAA would be the ONLY executive branch agency exempt from data quality requirments. Obviously, this issue is tremendously important. CJSJ is not expected to come to the Senate floor in the near future, so we will have to monitor this issue in the context of the CR and, potentially, an Omni. The rider is on page 52 of the .pdf version of the CJSJ approps bill as marked up 9-15-2004. It is included in the NOAA Operation, Research, Facilities and Systems Acquisitions section of the bill. Provided further, That section 515 of Public Law 106-554 and any regulations and guidelines promulgated under such authority shall not apply on or after the date of enactment to research and data collection, or information analysis conducted by or for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." Doesn't the desire to liberate climate science from the horrors of sound science requirements say all one needs to know about its proponents' level of confidence in its utility?
|