Activists on the left, supported by their allies in media, the arts, and academics, are throwing a collective fit over the passage of the HONEST Act in the US House.
Why the upset?
It’s pure political whiplash in the ongoing tirade over Democrats’ loss of the White House. Media reportage has been less than honest.
The Act actually protects Americans. It isn’t lengthy or complicated. The intent is simple.
The “Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017” (H.R. 1430) requires that the Environmental Protection Agency administrator:
“shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is—
“(A) the best available science;
“(B) specifically identified; and
“(C) publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results, except that any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.”
Media have covered this in the usual manner. Here’s a header from The Hill about the Act:
“House votes to restrict EPA’s use of science”
The requirements in the bill are more supportive of real science than the ‘consensus science’ so common among experts and academics today. The language protects trade secrets, eliminating concerns about property rights. In no way does this bill “restrict” the use of science.
There is no good reason to assail this bill. There are many reasons every American should applaud it, starting with the keyword in the title—demanding our government be “honest.”
Consider the lack of transparency and honesty among the anti-carbon fanatics. Regulations based on group think conclusions about carbon, global warming, and global cooling have cost us plenty in terms of personal income. Yet we have little access to much of the data experts rely on when making statements supporting the idea carbon is the greatest culprit on the warming stage.
Billions in US taxpayer dollars and in Americans’ personal income have been spent in response to regulations set on the basis of policy established with little transparency.
Reflections on Dr. Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann
The website WattsUpWithThat? features this lengthy analysis of some of the anti-carbon leader’s ‘research’ and claims. Worthwhile reading regardless of your stance on fossil fuels, with keen insight into claims by loyalists to Mann, a cult-like sector I have dubbed ‘MANNequins’.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/March 31, 2017)