OT: "secret science" ends...

Well, that's only true if it ever started. I missed the 'started' part; was that in another article? And, was the article available as 'hot air'? Has there been disclosure of the methods and data regarding the 'secret science' hypothesis? And, was it FULL disclosure?

An appointee has instituted a rule that can keep lawyers busy arguing for an extra year or five, and this is NOT cause to applaud. Pruitt is an obstructionist, and this is evidence that he builds... obstructions.

"it?s difficult to imagine many true, scientific studies which cou ldn?t publish their underlying data, making it available for peer r eview."

Echoes of Michael Mann. The problem isn't "peer review" but rather maliciou s and destructive criticism, designed to trash a study, rather than correct real flaws.

The classic example is McIntyre's games with Michael Mann's tree-ring data

- which has been subsequently replicated over about a dozen other different temperature proxies.

McIntyre didn't like data, didn't like the result and didn't like Mann's ap proach to extracting trend data from noisy information. Sadly for McIntyre, parallel research repeatedly vindicated Mann's conclusions.

McIntyre was a vexatious nuisance, rather than any kind of useful critic.

Pruitt wants empower creeps like that, which is no surprise, since he has s pent a lot of his time being exactly that sort of vexatious creep.

The anti-intellectual, intellectual or anti-elite, elite is certainly a strange creature to behold.

There were probably engineers and scientists in Cambodia who white-knighted for the militant populist philosophies of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge whose bones are now interred with those of the colleagues they despised. They found equality, of a sort.