I hope the "king of science" gets his comeuppance with this Chevron ruling. So many people died during Covid pandemic that could have been saved. Remdesivir was his pet drug. Lots of money to be made on drugs, especially ones the hospitals are incentivized to use.
Experts who cannot explain their theories and proposed solutions to non-experts or anyone outside of their fields do not actually understand their subject matter and have no basis for imposing them on anyone else. Unfortunately, in our modern age experts have become accustomed to wielding the power of their expertise and credentials unhindered by consideration for others. If they are to say "follow me" rather than "do this or else", though, they must persuade not only courts, but We the People of their good will, practical wisdom, and integrity.
Hopefully this will bring to an end the ridiculous proposals the EPA has put forward to cripple our domestic fossil fuel based power generation industry.
John…next up should be the Climate Change narrative. We finally should insist that the “emergency” be turned over to the Scientific Method. Agencies seem to be hard over on using political science to trump up the narrative. Real science should once again save the day….Don
Don: One would hope so. However, the mantra of climate alarmists is that Climate Change is "too complex" to be subjected to the Scientific Method. We'll have to get past that first.
I have a comment, but it's rather long (several pages). I'll try to send it to you by e-mail. Please let me know if you don't get it. I post on GWR from time to time, so my e-mail address shouldn't be hard to find, but here is is anyhow:
About fifty years ago, an author characterized FDA as "the Frantic Dithering Administration."
"The other benefit of this new ruling is that scientific arguments will now be publicly made in court. Forcing federal agencies to spell out the claimed science behind their technical policies is unquestionably a good thing."
People have asked whether courts would have the expertise to do this. Of course, on their own, they don't. But honest judges would insist upon both adversaries, not just one, presenting expert witnesses.
This same manipulation of the law gave us Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. There is no science behind that ruling. It was the EPA looking to continue their reign over power generation.
The MSM is in the business of covering for the Executive Branch agencies as part of their commitment to cover for this Administration., or to cover up for this Administration. We can now see where the cover up got them. We cannot "unsee" or "unhear" what we've seen and heard.
I hope the "king of science" gets his comeuppance with this Chevron ruling. So many people died during Covid pandemic that could have been saved. Remdesivir was his pet drug. Lots of money to be made on drugs, especially ones the hospitals are incentivized to use.
SM: Yes that would be good, but we'll have to see...
Thanks for this insightful discussion.
Experts who cannot explain their theories and proposed solutions to non-experts or anyone outside of their fields do not actually understand their subject matter and have no basis for imposing them on anyone else. Unfortunately, in our modern age experts have become accustomed to wielding the power of their expertise and credentials unhindered by consideration for others. If they are to say "follow me" rather than "do this or else", though, they must persuade not only courts, but We the People of their good will, practical wisdom, and integrity.
RS: Yes, and the Chevron decision protected those so-called experts from real scrutiny.
Hopefully this will bring to an end the ridiculous proposals the EPA has put forward to cripple our domestic fossil fuel based power generation industry.
Ken: Maybe, but someone needs to sue the EPA first, to get their prior verdict overturned...
John…next up should be the Climate Change narrative. We finally should insist that the “emergency” be turned over to the Scientific Method. Agencies seem to be hard over on using political science to trump up the narrative. Real science should once again save the day….Don
Don: One would hope so. However, the mantra of climate alarmists is that Climate Change is "too complex" to be subjected to the Scientific Method. We'll have to get past that first.
John,
I have a comment, but it's rather long (several pages). I'll try to send it to you by e-mail. Please let me know if you don't get it. I post on GWR from time to time, so my e-mail address shouldn't be hard to find, but here is is anyhow:
buell@interserv.com
Jim Buell
Jim: OK, TY.
About fifty years ago, an author characterized FDA as "the Frantic Dithering Administration."
"The other benefit of this new ruling is that scientific arguments will now be publicly made in court. Forcing federal agencies to spell out the claimed science behind their technical policies is unquestionably a good thing."
People have asked whether courts would have the expertise to do this. Of course, on their own, they don't. But honest judges would insist upon both adversaries, not just one, presenting expert witnesses.
VS: yes, both sides would make their best case, in public.
This same manipulation of the law gave us Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. There is no science behind that ruling. It was the EPA looking to continue their reign over power generation.
Jim: Exactly.
Great post, John.
The MSM is in the business of covering for the Executive Branch agencies as part of their commitment to cover for this Administration., or to cover up for this Administration. We can now see where the cover up got them. We cannot "unsee" or "unhear" what we've seen and heard.
ED: TY