SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:07PM
from the we-can-find-no-longer-find-data-against-our-plans dept.
from the we-can-find-no-longer-find-data-against-our-plans dept.
You were warned. Now it begins: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on changes to its Web properties:
The EPA's extensive climate change website now redirects to a page that says "this page is being updated" and that "we are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt." It also links to a full archive of how the page used to look on Jan. 19, before Trump's inauguration.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:26PM (10 children)
That's how democracy works.
Science is not a democracy.
Or do you think the EPA should be an independent agency and not accountable to the electorate?
The whole reason we have elected officials is because direct democracy doesn't work well for making ALL decisions. People can't be educated all about all possible things the government is involved with -- and for that matter, neither can presidents. Which is why presidents traditionally depend on experts to help them make decisions. Military experts inform them about the best strategies for winning a battle. Financial experts inform them about the potential consequences of economic policy. And science experts advise on a great number of topics, too. Most of these decisions would NOT be better if "the electorate" was micromanaging things. Should we take a vote on the best battle plan too?
A president is elected who does not believe climate change is as big a risk as the previous administration thought.
The previous administration was an embarrassment on environmental issues too. The rhetoric was better, but the action was not significant. At least this administration is being more honest about it. So, my best hope is that seeing truly terrible environment policy and anti-science rhetoric might actually wake some more people up.
But I doubt it. The real bad effects are likely still a few decades off. Business leaders these days can't generally see further than a five-year plan, if that. Executives are worse, because they often jump ship and do something else when the business threatens to go down. If they're a CEO, they just take a golden parachute and live out their retirement in luxury. Trump is such a person. Unfortunately for us, his "company" is now the U.S., and his environmental policy affects the entire planet. "Jumping ship" is not an option for most of us when his four-year plan is not sustainable, but we only see the business collapse decades from now.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:50PM (2 children)
Seems like there are two responses here.
1 - I've heard the word consensus bandied about from time to time in relation to science. If having majorities (of the scientists) matters so much, how can you say that science is not a democracy?
2 - The EPA is an agency that makes and implements Policy. That places in to the literal realm of politics and not of science. In the USA, politics is (or pretends to be) driven by democracy. Why pretend otherwise?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 30 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
I've heard the word consensus bandied about from time to time in relation to science. If having majorities (of the scientists) matters so much, how can you say that science is not a democracy?
If all the voters have a PhD or better in the relevant field, then yes a consensus on the matter in question may matter. Otherwise not.
The EPA is an agency that makes and implements Policy. That places in to the literal realm of politics and not of science. In the USA, politics is (or pretends to be) driven by democracy. Why pretend otherwise?
The EPA should decide on what to do to keep the environment in good shape. If the presidential administration wants to send a new directive like "drop the environment and keep out of any profiteering enterprise". Well that's their privilege. To tell EPA how to protect the environment is just messes things up.
I wonder how long it takes before some physical reality that won't budge at all to do the administration in. It tends to be consequential without any discrimination whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:28PM
First of all, consider how you get a PhD. You have to toe the line. Your work gets reviewed by people already in the field, with a bias toward not showing their own ideas to be wrong.
Second of all, consider funding. In all fields, "The sky is falling, and we need to study this more!" is how you get funding. Try with "There is nothing serious." or "Previous research already figured things out." and see how much you get funded.
Third of all, consider the mindset needed to devote your life to an impractical profession that offers low pay, probably futile struggle for position (tenure), and lots of liberal/office politics. This is something only a liberal could love. It's like joining the Peace Corps or running off to Hollywood in search of stardom. Liberals dominate both ends of the education spectrum. Conservatives, with their practical mindset, tend to get a bachelor's or master's degree in something like economics or engineering. They then get married, buy a house, and pop out kids. Being a PhD (or a high school drop-out) almost requires a liberal mindset.
Fourth of all, consider the hiring and tenure process. (a typical motivation for getting the PhD) Faculty are openly biased against conservatives. Why bother with the PhD if the deck is stacked against you?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:10PM (6 children)
"Science is not a democracy."
Well it's a good thing that SCIENCE itself is not under attack, then, and that the EPA is NOT "SCIENCE Inc." but an organization that is headed by an appointee made via a democratic process.
You jokers and your "I fucking love science" facebook-tier arguments. Trump is not attacking this very un-funny "SCIENCE" meme that you've been dragging along since Portal 10 fucking years ago, he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies. The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.
"Well the states are weak! Big government has all the power!"
Guess whose political party is responsible for that.
"Well the Federal government has all the tax money! They're the ones who need to fund SCIENCE!"
Guess whose political party is responsible for that.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:27PM (1 child)
So much bolding, so much anger.
he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies.
And he's doing that by trying to erase the science that is the evidence for those policies.
If you don't look for evidence you'll never find any evidence.
Much like how the DEA refused access to legal marijuana for anyone doing research on its beneficial properties.
The EPA is a lot more than enforcement. The EPA is a research organization [scientificamerican.com] and the websites that are being disappeared are not enforcement websites, they are science websites.
But you are also right. Trump wants to cut one third of the EPA's superfund budget. [reuters.com] Cleaning up after bankrupt polluters is enforcement over-reach! Leaving the land and water contaminated is the responsible thing to do.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:29PM
Cleaning up after bankrupt polluters is enforcement over-reach!
MAGA!
Make America Gross Again!
Are you tired of winning yet?
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)
Well it's a good thing that SCIENCE itself is not under attack, then, and that the EPA is NOT "SCIENCE Inc." but an organization that is headed by an appointee made via a democratic process.
The OP I was responding to was talking about how Trump didn't "believe in climate change" and therefore is going to change the EPA. That is a rejection of science.
Trump is not attacking this very un-funny "SCIENCE" meme that you've been dragging along since Portal 10 fucking years ago, he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies.
Well, as I already stated, the last administration already had a pretty terrible record on actual policy relating to climate science. We shall see what Mr. Trump replaces this with. If he is merely changing policy, then you might have a point. If his revised website is going to question the science (or at least remove it) and become a source of anti-climate change propaganda (as the post I was actually replying to suggested), then he will actually be addressing the SCIENCE, not just policy.
The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.
LOL. Seriously, I'd be rolling on the floor if I didn't think you were actually serious. The very idea that individual states should have their own policy on global warming?? It's bad enough that the globe is still fractured into countries who can't agree on what to do, but sure, let's add in 50 more dysfunctional governments into the picture.
Even the Founders of the U.S. understood very well that there are SOME things that the people need to band together on. That's why they founded the U.S. in the first place, rather than remaining individual colonies. The original enumerated powers in the Constitution were an explicit list of all the things the Founders understood were better handled by a larger government, rather than just addressed by local ones.
If an issue like global climate change doesn't qualify as something that we should try to have a consistent national policy on... I just don't know how to respond to that.
P.S. I completely understand the small government constitutional argument that the federal government has been acting beyond the enumerated powers for many decades. In an ideal world, we should be amending the Constitution to deal with threats to the nation (or globe) as a whole. But even IF we followed constitutional procedure, climate change is pretty much exactly the sort of things the Founders would have said we need to band together on.
Guess whose political party is responsible for that.
I hate both major parties with a passion. My previous post condemned the Obama administration as well as the current one. I'm not sure what your point is, though keep bolding and repeating it like a weird chant and maybe something will happen....
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday May 01 2017, @12:12AM
Guess whose political party is responsible for that.
The Clean Air Act [wikipedia.org] was an incredible power grab. It was passed with broad bi-partisan support in 1963. The major amendments (including creation of the EPA, also garnered wide bi-partisan support. This historic government overreach, however, fall squarely on the pinko commie sleaze, led by Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act, then created the EPA by (unconstitutional) executive order [ontheissues.org] said:
In 1990, once again those filthy liberals, like George H.W. Bush and majorities in both houses (Senate: 89-11, and House: 401-21) created more job-killing regulation, just to grab more power for themselves. [epa.gov]
We need to just bomb the next Democratic National Convention (in 2020) and get rid of of those commie pigs forever. Fucking liberals are destroying everything! Oh, wait.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)
The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.
Nope.
It seemed likely, she said, that the Trump administration and its allies in the car industry would attack California’s ability to regulate greenhouse-gas pollution from car tailpipes.
This may sound niche. But if Trump revoked the special federal waiver that gives California this power, it could hinder the ability of the United States to address climate change for decades to come, she said.
On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was exploring how to withdraw this waiver from California.
The Coming Clean-Air War Between Trump and California [theatlantic.com]
You got any more alt-facts to regale us with?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:34PM
California is hurting all non-California car manufacturers. It's like a trade war, which is supposed to be prevented by our constitution.
California is also crying wolf about cancer. Vague and useless cancer warnings are posted on every business in California and on nearly every product that might be sold in California. I'm not kidding: go to a hotel, and somewhere you'll find posted a notice that the hotel contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. It's chemphobia, and it gets people used to ignoring cancer warnings.