Pruitt: Scientists receiving federal grants will be cut from EPA advising roles

[dennishoddy]

Finally, someone gets it.

(CNN) Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt says scientists who sit on EPA advisory boards and committees who have also received federal grants for studies could be cut from their roles as soon as next week, citing a lack of objectivity in their research.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Tuesday, Pruitt said that scientists who serve on those advisory boards who have also received funding from the EPA may not be "objective."

"There are dozens and dozens of these folks. Over the years these individuals, as they've served in those capacities, guess what's also happened? They've received monies through grants, and often substantial monies through grants," he said.


Pruitt said having individuals on EPA advisory boards who have received grants from the agency raises red flags.

"That to me causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way," he said.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/17/politics/pruitt-epa-science-adviser-cuts/index.html

 

[Model 70]

Can you hear that huge sucking sound? The swamp is shrinking!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LightningCrash]

Can you hear that huge sucking sound?

Yeah, but it's not the swamp shrinking.

 

[Model 70]

Yeah, but it's not the swamp shrinking.

Just curious, how would you define it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rc508pir]

Just curious, how would you define it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lips being pulled from someone's 4th point of contact

 

[C_Hallbert]

Finally, someone gets it.

(CNN) Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt says scientists who sit on EPA advisory boards and committees who have also received federal grants for studies could be cut from their roles as soon as next week, citing a lack of objectivity in their research.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Tuesday, Pruitt said that scientists who serve on those advisory boards who have also received funding from the EPA may not be "objective."

"There are dozens and dozens of these folks. Over the years these individuals, as they've served in those capacities, guess what's also happened? They've received monies through grants, and often substantial monies through grants," he said.


Pruitt said having individuals on EPA advisory boards who have received grants from the agency raises red flags.

"That to me causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way," he said.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/17/politics/pruitt-epa-science-adviser-cuts/index.html

Thanks for posting this. For YEARS these ‘Guns for Hire’ so-called Scientists have been pumping out questionable or fictitious Reports based on Studies that they are shaped to fit the desired (or convenient) results desired by the Politically Biased Agencies or Special Interest Groups that fund them. Studies on Global Warming, Fracking, Gun Deaths, etc are all suspect. They blend enough truth in their interpretations to make them plausible. A PhD. Marine Biologist who frequently worked on Environmental Impact Studies (brother of a girl I used to know) told me, “We can make a Report say whatever the client wants.”; and “When there are problems with data not leading to the desired conclusion, we can ‘make up’ words.” He said that he hated the people who owned the laboratory where he worked. Unfortunately, this kind corrupt science is profitable. It also makes a person wonder about things like DNA (for instance) in High Profile Trials. Anyway,the Trump Administration my be controversial, but they are trying (at least) to put an end to these kinds of expensive, parasitic relationships that the government has engendered. I’m afraid that his opposition will hire out to obtain a report with ‘Conclusive Evidence’ that the President is incompetent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gerhard1]

Finally, someone gets it.

(CNN) Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt says scientists who sit on EPA advisory boards and committees who have also received federal grants for studies could be cut from their roles as soon as next week, citing a lack of objectivity in their research.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event on Tuesday, Pruitt said that scientists who serve on those advisory boards who have also received funding from the EPA may not be "objective."

"There are dozens and dozens of these folks. Over the years these individuals, as they've served in those capacities, guess what's also happened? They've received monies through grants, and often substantial monies through grants," he said.


Pruitt said having individuals on EPA advisory boards who have received grants from the agency raises red flags.

"That to me causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way," he said.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/17/politics/pruitt-epa-science-adviser-cuts/index.html

What Pruitt is doing makes sense to me. The only reason the AWG advocates would oppose it is because it makes their grant money harder to get. Then idea of a 'red-team--blue-team' approach is especially sound, I think.

 

[Dumpstick]

A family member of mine is a PhD, and teaches at a large Midwestern University. This family member told me that a great deal of the job is finding/getting "research" grants. These grants ALL come from .gov.
Once, during the Obama administration, we were arguing about the coal industry (and the war on it declared by Obama), and I cited certain reports to buttress my argument.
This family member said '...those reports cannot be trusted, as they were funded by the industry.'
I asked who it was that funded the opposition research (as if I didn't know..), and was rewarded with a blank stare.

My point was made.

 

[gerhard1]

A family member of mine is a PhD, and teaches at a large Midwestern University. This family member told me that a great deal of the job is finding/getting "research" grants. These grants ALL come from .gov.
Once, during the Obama administration, we were arguing about the coal industry (and the war on it declared by Obama), and I cited certain reports to buttress my argument.
This family member said '...those reports cannot be trusted, as they were funded by the industry.'
I asked who it was that funded the opposition research (as if I didn't know..), and was rewarded with a blank stare.

My point was made.

Good point. I have tried to explain that the more alarmist the pro-AGW folks make heir predictions the more money they get to study it. But our media 'friends' completely ignore this conflict of interest. I wonder why.

 

[Shadowrider]

I got a couple of family members that are PhD's out of UC Berkley. Marine biologists. They take the actual science very seriously but it gives me a chuckle in that they only focus in areas that shore up their liberal ideology. Last I heard they were working on the evolution of fish brains, but they won't go near anything that isn't "safe" to their views on environmentalism. It's kind of comical actually.