| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Common Sense makes startling appearance in Washington! |
| 2003-08-29 |
| WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to require federal agencies to submit for scientific peer review all significant research done in preparation for issuing new regulations and other actions. The Office of Management and Budget is expected to announce the move Friday. It represents a major victory for the administration’s business allies, who have raised concerns about the science underlying agency actions on issues such as workplace ergonomics and second-hand smoke. But already Thursday, the move was stirring concerns among some |
| Posted by:Norman Rogers |
| #7 Okay.... Which one of youse guys is hidin' Delay? Is it you, Steve? Anyway, NMM-- your position seems to be that it's a bad thing to have scientists review the work of bureaucrats because some scientists do junk science. Is that a fair summary? If so, your position is, er, idiotic. |
| Posted by: TPF 2003-8-29 6:57:41 PM |
| #6 Peer Review?! I bet RJ Reynolds paid scientists will be "peer reviewing" smoking issues; Archer Daniels Midland GOP! |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-8-29 5:26:20 PM |
| #5 Maybe somebody's getting some cojones in the EPA didn't Christie Whitman just |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-29 5:15:37 PM |
| #4 Every little bit of change to the process helps. Prior to this EPA would make rules without even publishing the supporting data, forcing industry to pursue long, expensive lawsuits to get their hands on the data. By the time it was released, the rule had been on the books too long to change anything. This, combined with the Data Quality Act, will be a big help. It's also a good sign that the Administration went ahead with the Clean Air Act changes to NSR (started under Clinton, by the way) and have just rejected the silly notion that CO2 is a pollutant. Maybe somebody's getting some cojones in the EPA. |
| Posted by: RonB 2003-8-29 1:02:15 PM |
| #3 Yeah, why let hard science get in the way of regulations. After all, we are doing it for The Children(tm). |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-8-29 9:50:27 AM |
| #2 *Shakes head* Doesn't mean a blessed thing: There is a lot of evidence that "scientific" journals that champion "Global warming" use a biased peer review process, sending ALL papers, pro AND con, ONLY to "Global Warming" advocates, who (obviously) warmly praise junk papers supporting their position and erecting artificially high hurdles when the papers present empirical evidence otherwise. (The people whose papers are rejected are not told who peer reviewed them, but at conferences, they swap notes and realized none of their number were ever sent a paper to peer review that was on global warming.) The vast majority of anti-global warming sceintists are active meteorologists and experimental Climatologists: the very ones who deal with the raw data. The majority of global warming advocates are theoreticians who pay more attention to their computer simulations and use carefully selected historical data to "calibrate" their "models". Believe me, I've been in the academic jungle, and have seen how the food chain is set up. You'll always find a "researcher" at some prestigious university who's willing to prostitute themselves for a grant. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-8-29 9:43:42 AM |
| #1 Best government money can buy... |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-8-29 8:47:33 AM |