Greenpeace Co-Founder Slams Species Extinction Scare Study - 'peer-review process has become corrupted'
Moore: 'I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar 'sixth mass extinction' article in February 1999'
GOP-led House hearing brings cross-examination of EPA's regulations
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson faced pointed questioning during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing about the agency's climate rules and other regulations such as oil containment to water quality. "I believe EPA is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority it's been granted," said House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky
"I believe EPA is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority it's been granted,"Since so much of the legislative authority given to the EPA has been from the courts and not from the Congress, and the Congress has done nothing about it for 41 years, I have to ask. Who's at fault for that? It isn't like anyone could have missed the fact that they have been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations since they came into existence. They are not now, nor have they ever been, an agency in love with science, or truth for that matter. They were created by Nixon to be a political entity and that is what they are.
First, review every regulation and every piece of legislation implemented for them and by them. Secondly, get rid of them because they can't be re-trained to be anything except what they are.
You know the story about the scorpion and the fox. The scorpion asked the fox to carry him over a river. The scorpion stung the fox and as he was dying he said; you promised not to sting me, why would you do such a thing? Now we will both die. The scorpion replied; you knew what I was, why did you trust me?
A scorpion will always be a scorpion, and the EPA will always be out of control if allowed to exist. RK
Overstated chemical risks can lead to bans
Chemicals such as bisphenol A are unnecessarily scrutinized by regulators with "limited scientific knowledge," according to Jon Entine, a senior fellow and director of the Genetic Literacy Project at George Mason University. Restrictions on chemicals can cause much more harm than good, he argues. "Chemicals get a bad rap. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish genuine risks from chemophobia," Entine writes.
This will never end until the greenies are no longer funded by the public and they can be sued for making false claims and prosecuted for the end result of their actions if it results in the loss of life or property. I don't see this any differently than when ELF or one of the other "really radical" environmental terrorist groups burns down millions of dollars of private property.