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This discussion has been archived.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.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(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?