SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-we-for-encryption-or-against? dept.
Two Republican members of Congress sent a formal letter Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of the Inspector General, expressing concern that "approximately a dozen career EPA officials" are using the encrypted messaging app Signal to covertly plan strategy and may be running afoul of the Freedom of Information Act.
The open source app has gained renewed interest in the wake of the election of President Donald Trump.
As Ars has reported previously, all Signal messages and voice calls are end-to-end encrypted using the Signal Protocol, which has since been adopted by WhatsApp and other companies. However, unlike other messaging apps, Signal's maker, Open Whisper Systems, makes a point of not keeping any data, encrypted or otherwise, about its users. (WhatsApp also does not retain chat history but allows for backups using third-party services, like iCloud, which allows for message history to be restored when users set up a new device. Signal does not allow messages to be stored with a third party.)
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Friday February 17 2017, @03:49PM
I've only seen that from kooks.
Denial that the observed warming is proven to be human caused? That's disputed.
Geological records show a series of temp swings from much cooler to warmer than present, without any possible human input. Environmental feedback loops have been found, but not completely understood. The mechanisms are only partly discovered and understood. Localized warming confounds temp records (cities are warmer). Those altered measurements are used anyway by attempting to derive a correction however those corrections are in dispute.
Knowing that, anyone who says the science is settled is flat wrong, probably dishonestly. Much has been learned, however the size of the task to fully understand isn't yet known. There are statistical models, but they have to be 'fit' to the data and haven't been shown to be predictive. The knowns are statistical probabilities teased from the noise. There is more than enough to show something is there to study - enough to begin speculation turning into preliminary conclusions that the proponents attempt to firm up and test. That's ongoing, and weakest in identifying causes and confounding factors. The situation became politicized, which is bad for scientific progress.
So, with incomplete data the question is what now? The resources available for pollution control are finite. Expense towards reducing carbon takes away from something else. What's the best use of that effort? If the alarmists are right, the problem is long term, what's the best 100 year goal?
Ex: Fusion power is much further away than advertised, if it pans out (40 years away... for 40 years... Hmmm). Develop fission power as an Apollo/Manhattan level project. Assume all the usual idiot and thieves will be involved once anything is deployed. Our current power plant tech was paid for by military spending. Power generating without military applications was not explored. A solid effort evaluating Thorium is warranted, for example. But that'd require political left/right cooperation when divisiveness is oh so profitable. (I'm looking for something as safe as a coal plant - whose emissions do cause early deaths)
witch hunt against dissident scientists
Got any references for that?
I do remember a certain someone asking for the names of people at the DOE working on climate change or who associated with them, but that probably isn't the witch hunt you are talking about.
Is the Google broken on your Internet? How sad.
It's easy to find evidence that the issue is politicized and being treated as a religious matter. 'The science is settled' is nice damning example. Search for 'Al Gore carbon profits' - 'Al Gore may be the first Carbon Billionaire' was a headline in the first page. But he's living in a house how big? Flying private jets? That's a man who wants to kill us all isn't it?
All of this BS is a obstacle to finding the truth, and a huge one to taking the most effective action. Esp. when the .01%ers can profit from the problem. (if you look at what's DONE, not said it's hard to tell the Left/Right .01% apart...)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 17 2017, @04:21PM
I've only seen that from kooks
20% of US adults polled say that there is "no evidence".
Google broken on your Internet
You've never heard of the burden of proof? How sad.
the issue is politicized
No shit, but what does Al Gore's house and jet have to do with the "witch hunt for dissident scientists"?
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/ [pewinternet.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof [wikipedia.org]