Leftist "environmentalists" say that revamping the EPA's rule-making procedures to be more open and honest in the public interest will be to burdensome to the EPA, which all throughout the Obama years used "secret science" to make decisions about "climate change," for instance.
Even though Pruitt's proposals are directly in-line with the EPA's long-held commitment to supporting the public's "right to know," the greenies on the left are apparently avert to positive change – especially when it comes from an appointee of President Donald Trump.
According to reports, the changes will require the EPA to make public all scientific data and research models that are "pivotal" to a major regulatory decision. In other words, when the EPA wants to change something that will affect average Americans in a major way, it will now have to prove, using science, that the decision is necessary and justified.
But climate fanatics who have long been used to simply making declarations about science without any evidence claim that this newfound transparency at the EPA will "undermine" climate science. They would rather have decisions pertaining to climate change be made in EPA backrooms without public purview, in other words.
"Despite existing rules on government use of scientific research, federal agencies routinely mask politically driven regulations as scientifically-based imperatives," writes Diane Katz for The Heritage Foundation.
"The supposed science underlying these rules is often hidden from the general public and unavailable for vetting by experts. But credible science and transparency are necessary elements of sound policy."
Many will find this vehement opposition to climate transparency by the left hilariously ironic and hypocritical, seeing as how liberals are constantly droning on about how conservatives are supposedly the party of secrecy and "climate denial." If climate dogma as the left insists is undeniably true, then what are they afraid of when it comes to making climate science public?
After all, since climate policies that involve massive global taxation plans and major restrictions on people's use of vehicles and other "carbon polluters" are decided upon, at least in part, by the EPA, shouldn't the public that's affected by such rules at least get the chance to take a look at the rationale behind it all?
Not according to liberals. They would rather give the EPA free reign to scheme out new public policy in private, using whatever criteria it wishes in doing so – which is completely incongruent with the standards of openness that one would expect in a constitutional republic that's operated by and for the everyday man and woman.
But again, what the liberal left claims to stand for – human rights, transparency in government, and sound public policy – doesn't match what the liberal left actually stands for – human slavery, secrecy in government, and special interest public policy.
"The opposition from greens and much of the media greeting Pruitt's announcement is, frankly, hypocritical in the extreme," adds Katz. "Opponents claim that the EPA's regulatory power would be unduly restricted if the agency is forced to reveal the scientific data and research methodologies used in rule-making."
"But that is precisely the point. The EPA should no longer enjoy free rein to impose major regulations based on studies that are unavailable for public scrutiny."
To keep up with the latest news in climate lunacy, visit ClimateScienceNews.com.
Sources for this article include: