EPA IG: The agency “lacks a due diligence process for potential fraudulent environmental data”

posted at 8:41 pm on May 29, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Is it me, or does it feel like the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General is kept uncommonly busy? (Hat tip to the WFB):

The EPA lacks a due diligence process for potential fraudulent environmental data. The agency has three policies and procedures that address how to respond to instances of fraudulent data, but they are all out of date or unimplemented. Our survey of EPA regional offices disclosed that a majority of respondents were unaware there was a policy, and approximately 50 percent expressed the need for such policies and procedures. The EPA plans to issue revised policy by fiscal year 2017. Until then, unimplemented and out-of-date policies and procedures—and lack of EPA staff awareness of those policies that do exist—create risk that EPA staff will fail to properly communicate the information regarding fraudulent data to appropriate program offices and data users; review and analyze the data for potential impacts to human health and the environment; or review and amend, if possible, past environmental decisions that were based on fraudulent data. According to staff of the federal agencies and states we contacted in this evaluation, they also do not have formal, written due diligence processes. …

I grow rather weary of finding out that the bureaucratic arm of The Most Transparent Administration, Evah — tasked with carrying out most of President Obama’s deeply expensive climate-change agenda and well known for trying to sneak hugely impactful carbon pricing rules into obscure regulations concerning microwave ovens — does not quite have all of its disclosure ducks in a row. Just earlier this month, you’ll recall, the EPA’s OIG reported that the EPA’s “Office of Homeland Security” was acting “rogue law enforcement agency” and was being deliberately uncooperative with their fraud investigations.

The EPA agreed with the OIG’s report and has committed to take action to correct the problems — so good of them, truly — and yet why am I not instilled with confidence in looking ahead to the administration’s forthcoming power-plant emissions regulations?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s a feature, not a bug.

rbj on May 29, 2014 at 8:49 PM

Yo,
EPA

Make it easy for you free on the web..

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

Heck even the East Anglia University e-mails are there on line.

Dirty Deeds Done Cheap.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 29, 2014 at 8:53 PM

The EPA agreed with the OIG’s report and has committed to take action to correct the problems

“We’ll get better at lying.”

Bitter Clinger on May 29, 2014 at 8:55 PM

ps

On the dumb a$$ windmill fraud.

France: Windmils that are not useful due to lack of wind taken down by thieves and the copper sold for scrap.

Now mr epa, mr blm, mr mike mann, out in the wild no where of west Texas stand windmills idle… add in a few illegals in the copper theft bussiness…..

It is a two fer by the commie dumb a$$ Democrats.

Obama can not pour pi$$ out of his boots with the instructions read by Val Jarrett….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 29, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Whatever changes they make by 2017(convenient) will be designed to negate attempts to refute fraudulant data.

wolly4321 on May 29, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Why would they even want one?

The EPA and their anti-human, civilization-hating, neo-Luddite friends have been progressively destroying our country’s ability to feed, clothe, and sustain itself for nearly half-a-century. And their most powerful weapon is The Study That Justifies The New Regulations Regarding (Insert Appropriate Human Activity Here).

Such studies have been repeatedly proven to have been “Verdict first, trial afterward” procedures, i.e., they started with an objective they wished to achieve on the grounds of their anti-civilization dogmas, and then conducted “research” to find evidence to support their already-conceived “conclusion”.

If they couldn’t find enough, or even any, evidence that did so, they immediately defaulted to the Mann/Bellesisles Tactic. Distort data, deliberately ignore data contrary to the objective, and if all else fails just Make Shit Up.

Therefore, a “due diligence process for potential fraudulent environmental data” would not only not be desirable from their POV, it has the potential to be outright disastrous for them.

Which probably explains why they take pains to ignore it as much as possible.

After all, Goebbels wasn’t a big fan of the polygraph.

clear ether

eon

eon on May 29, 2014 at 9:10 PM

So their data is in question and their regulations obscure sounds like a recipe for abuse and curruption.

sorrowen on May 29, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Don’t forget Climategate and Hide the Decline.

Jo Nova did a post titled: Yale says “Global Warming” is a better misused-phrase for propaganda — dump “climate change.” The point made: “global warming” is scarier than “climate change.”
My comment:
The top question of the Chicken Littles is not at all about what is true, but about what scares people the most. Note that the shameless scare mongers often think in terms of directing their “scary scenarios” at children. But juxtaposition their laughable climate models showing skyrocketing temperatures over the last 20 years against the reality of flatlining, or declining temps, and you see that they are in a pickle: “global warming” may scarier, but the people eventually are going to hear the truth…
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Envinronmental Studies, UCSB
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“Winter with strong frosts and lots of snow.. will [in a few years] cease to exist at our latitudes.” -Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute, 2000
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Exectuive Director of the UNEP

anotherJoe on May 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Please! Tell me when this administration does something open, honest and worthwhile.

That would be news.

FOWG1 on May 29, 2014 at 9:15 PM

I would hazard a guess, that right at this moment, there are Russian Mob groups that are *carefully* studying the US Federal Government for Best Business Practice.

a5minmajor on May 29, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Obey.
It’s settled science.
97% fiber
3% no fat by product
Tastes like warm sh*t

OTTO on May 29, 2014 at 9:20 PM

As to the EPA in particular;

If no one here has ever been to DC, when you go, walk the perimeter of the FBI building, and then the EPA building.

You’ll immediately see what I’m getting at, at about the half-way point for the latter, especially when compared to the former.

This has to stop. Soon.

a5minmajor on May 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Dismantle the agency and move on.

John the Libertarian on May 29, 2014 at 9:22 PM

They don’t care. They stopped being about actual science long ago.

NotCoach on May 29, 2014 at 9:27 PM

You know, we could really give our economy a kick in the butt by setting up private sector projects to verify the processes and procedures, along with efficiency and cost-effectiveness, of government agencies.

Just for a few years. To draw back on the system abuse. And as a way to cut the process fat out of the system.

lineholder on May 29, 2014 at 9:30 PM

and yet why am I not instilled with confidence in looking ahead to the administration’s forthcoming power-plant emissions regulations?

Because you recognize an insane off the rails crazy train totalitarian bureaucracy when you see one?

oscarwilde on May 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM

You know, we could really give our economy a kick in the butt by setting up private sector projects to verify the processes and procedures, along with efficiency and cost-effectiveness, of government agencies.

Just for a few years. To draw back on the system abuse. And as a way to cut the process fat out of the system.

lineholder on May 29, 2014 at 9:30 PM

That’s it missy, off to the reeducation camp with you…

oscarwilde on May 29, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Until 2017, the EPA will have that other Great Governing Body (SCOTUS) to try to buffalo into allowing it’s failed science to pass muster and implement it’s failed socialist crap-and-tax cap-and-trade policies.

Newtie and the Beauty on May 29, 2014 at 9:42 PM

oscarwilde on May 29, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Haha. Yes, yes, I know, just too far out of the box, isn’t it?

All we get every year is jacked up budgets that leave these agencies more money to waste.

We can’t go cold turkey on eliminating the agencies. Some of them do serve a positive purpose in society. We just don’t necessarily know which ones and in which ways any more.

So, send some efficiency folks in there, cut back on the excess fat of the system (like eliminating…oh I don’t know…80 of the 81 agency offices who get funding for Teacher Quality). Moves in the direction of both smaller (in size at least) and more efficient government at the same time.

The idea does have some merit to it, OW.

lineholder on May 29, 2014 at 10:00 PM

as others have pointed out, the data don’t matter.

it is all about money and power, very simple. There is no support for ethanol…there’s lots of problems. But the corn growers are getting rich…that’s enough

RPS will hobble many states…the sustainable communities
initiative is well on its way to transform the way we live

we’ll be a poorer nation in 20 years, people will be lucky to have a job, and grateful for the sub-standard h/c they’ll get.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/chairman-un-white-house-climate-reports-an-excuse-to-control-the-american-people/?singlepage=true

r keller on May 29, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Ooh, I can’t WAIT until someone gives the “Atomic Cafe” treatment to these folks…it will make for an interesting time capsule study between just how gullible they thought we were and how intelligent some of us REALLY were…

Newtie and the Beauty on May 29, 2014 at 10:06 PM

The LAST thing the EPA is concerned about is honesty. They have an agenda to push.

GarandFan on May 29, 2014 at 10:13 PM

The EPA lacks a due diligence process for potential fraudulent environmental data.

Just like the rest of the federal government…..

This is by design.

This way they can just cram down what they want and then claim innocence if they get caught.

redguy on May 29, 2014 at 10:28 PM

I grow rather weary of finding out that the bureaucratic arm of The Most Transparent Administration, Evah — tasked with carrying out most of President Obama’s deeply expensive climate-change agenda and well known for trying to sneak hugely impactful carbon pricing rules into obscure regulations concerning microwave ovens — does not quite have all of its disclosure ducks in a row.

What I grow rather weary of ma’am, is the failure of the republican putos to maybe start throwing down once in a while.

arnold ziffel on May 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM

Yah think?

Perhaps their CIA spy was going to acquire one in a bit of industrial espionage?

Another Drew on May 29, 2014 at 11:10 PM

And given the fact that this Regime has been caught lying about every single number they’ve ever released about ANYTHING, it’s VERY safe to say they’re lying to get their environmentalist wacko regulations thought he EPA as well.

This Regime has gone 6 years now without telling the truth about a single issue, or number. That’s how confident they are in their State-Run media to cover for them. That’s how stupid they think Americans are. And they would be correct.

Meople on May 29, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Now when I hear “carbon pollution” I think of Ralphie’s “soap poisoning”.

Oh and screw you Lindsey Graham.

tmitsss on May 30, 2014 at 12:02 AM

The other common denominator in this story is the complete lack of any accountability whatsoever. This Regime is just despicable.

What I wouldn’t give for a Conservative President in 2016 to get in office in January of 2017 and right off the bat, furlough about half the federal government.

They can start by completely getting rid of the IRS, EPA and about 12 other government agencies we don’t need and shouldn’t be paying for.

Then, the next step, they should inform all government employees that their wages will be frozen until the private sector average is equal to theirs.

The Dims want to whine and moan about unequal pay, let’s start with the average federal government worker making twice what their private sector counterpart makes. We need to do something about THAT inequality.

Meople on May 30, 2014 at 12:18 AM

When EPA asserts non-statutory authority, only both House and Senate can stop them, acting together. They don’t need a Presidential signature, but they must be on the same page, and Reid won’t let it come up in the Senate.

There is going to be a huge mess to clean up when Obama finally leaves office, in another 966 days.

Adjoran on May 30, 2014 at 1:35 AM

How much of the raw data are withheld from public access and review, especially in cases where a) the study is funded by public money, or b) the conclusions are used as basis for regulation or law?

Kenosha Kid on May 30, 2014 at 1:50 AM

I’m sure going to miss you informative postings Erika. Thanks and good luck in your future endeavors. I hope they let you guess post from time to time.

whbates on May 30, 2014 at 7:30 AM

Just make the new rule define anything that restricts the environmental agenda as “fraudulent”. There, now they continue their trek towards total fascism.

strickler on May 30, 2014 at 10:53 AM

TRANSLATION:
There are no ‘checks and balances’ to prevent rampant fraud and ideology/agenda-driven and offers no substative evidence to support any claim that they can and/or should be be trusted.

RESPONSE:
The EPA’s authority to impose and enforce ANY ‘edicts’ should be suspended until they DO / HAVE resolved this issue by bringing all of its processes, procedures, facts, and figures up to date and is verified by the IG.

easyt65 on May 30, 2014 at 11:39 AM

“The EPA lacks a due diligence process for potential fraudulent environmental data.”

Shoot, man, if it weren’t for fraudulent data they wouldn’t have any data at all.

wagnert in atlanta on May 30, 2014 at 4:48 PM