SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times and HuffPost and many others report on EPA abruptly blocking three agency scientists from giving talks on climate change - specifically in the context of a Rhode Island event, with the subject of discussing a report on current conditions in Narragansett Bay and future threats that include climate change.
The New York Times (the origin)
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.
John Konkus, an E.P.A. spokesman and a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed that agency scientists would not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Providence. He provided no further explanation.
Scientists involved in the program said that much of the discussion at the event centers on climate change. Many said they were surprised by the E.P.A.'s last-minute cancellation, particularly since the agency helps to fund the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which is hosting the conference. The scientists who have been barred from speaking contributed substantial material to a 400-page report to be issued on Monday.
...
Monday's conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region's tourism and fishing industries. Rhode Island's entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Mr. Pruitt, will be among the speakers.Scientists there will unveil the report on the state of the bay, which E.P.A. scientists helped research and write. Among the findings will be that climate change is affecting air and water temperatures, precipitation, sea level and fish in and around the estuary.
The HuffPost article provides some context:
The researchers were booked to appear Monday in Providence at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed workshop, an event highlighting the health of New England's largest estuary, where temperatures have risen 3 degrees Fahrenheit and water has risen up to seven inches over the past century.
...
The move comes days after the EPA scrubbed dozens of links from its website to materials that helped local governments deal with the effects of climate change. Administrator Scott Pruitt has said he does not believe greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels cause climate change, and has scrapped or proposed eliminating numerous regulations to reduce emissions. Two weeks ago, he proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, the federal government's primary policy for slashing utilities' output of planet-warming gases.
...
The sudden cancellations on Sunday inflame concerns that the agency is muzzling scientists to further the White House's political interests.
I have a hunch Rhode Island isn't included in Trump's list of American places to be "made great again".
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:24PM (19 children)
Suppose you run a company called FooCorp. Some of your employees go off to speak at a conference, being billed as FooCorp insiders, and they intend to speak about all sorts of things that conflict with what the FooCorp marketing materials and shareholder materials say.
It would be the height of stupidity to allow that. Probably you should fire them for even considering it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:34PM
You're analogy does not apply. You work for trump or something? Or just another dedicated ancap fool?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:38PM (10 children)
Sounds like the problem is the shareholder and marketing materials in that case, not what the scientist has to say.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:50PM (8 children)
Two problems there:
First of all, you're engaging in the inappropriate trust of somebody who is supposedly a scientist. Scientists are not inherently unbiased, free of fraud, expert in all fields, and unable to make mistakes. You simply assume that the scientist is correct, and that this can not be questioned.
Second of all, yes it is a problem when employees publicly go off-message in opposition to the organization while being known as employees of that organization. Such people have the option to NOT be employees, and some may need to be assisted in becoming non-employees. I assure you, Wells Fargo doesn't have lawyers or accountants going off to talk about how the company rips off customers and ought to be sued out of existence.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:53PM
Annnd we just found out why pyramid structures are bad, congrats. Employee owned businesses are the way of the future, Hoping that King Fuckhead at the top of the pyramid is 100% competent in all things is the opposite end of what you are complaining about. Also, EPA != private business.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:03PM
There is no "message" to go off of. The EPA's message is to follow the science, not for science to follow their message. If the science turns out to be bad, well, that's the whole reason you present it to other scientists, so that they can rip it apart. Muzzling science results from an agency that does scientific research is grounds to get your ass fired.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:33PM
I assure you, Wells Fargo doesn't have lawyers or accountants going off to talk about how the company rips off customers and ought to be sued out of existence.
They don't, but they should. Why do you think people should be punished for speaking the truth?
If the company doesn't like it, they should stop ripping off customers. Is that really so hard to do?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @06:02PM
Based on decades of Dilbert I think putting your trust in somebody who is supposedly in marketing is problem here.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:43PM (1 child)
As a taxpayer, they work for me and I expect them to tell the truth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday October 26 2017, @09:27PM
a. Need a +1 delusional mod.
b. Wrong people have been put in charge, then.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:51PM
They're certainly more trustworthy than ACs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @01:56AM
Nobody, or nobody besides you, is saying this. I think you need to just sit down and shut up for a bit, while the adults discuss the unwarranted interference with science by the Trump Administration, and the Republican Party in general.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:48PM
Sounds like the problem is the shareholder and marketing materials in that case, not what the scientist has to say.
Also, it's illegal to lie to shareholders in the first place.
A scientists telling the truth shouldn't be a problem.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:46PM (5 children)
And who exactly are the shareholders of the EPA? The taxpayer. The EPA is supposed to work in the public interest.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)
We want the federal government working in our interest. The EPA is but a tiny little part of that.
We have demanded that the federal government make America great again. Some EPA employees would rather not. It sounds like they need to find employment elsewhere.
Outsourcing our carbon footprint to 3rd-world countries was doing exactly nothing for global warming anyway. All it did was take away our greatness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @04:49PM
Go back under your bridge.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
And the public has pointedly demonstrated where its interest is, by electing Trump. Do grow up and deal with that at last.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @10:42PM
Lol, yeah the public decided to elect Hillary, but our fucked up system gave us a fucked up president. I'm not complaining too much, the downfall of the US is preferable to the end-stages of empire building. Let us skip the invasion by barbarians bit and just go to "no longer the biggest shark". Also, let's just skip WW3 while we're at it.
But don't forget, the majority of voters wanted HRC but some fucked up idea from 200 years ago gave us the great cheeto in chief.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday October 27 2017, @01:59AM
What interests the public, and what is in the public interest are not the same thing. In fact, they may most often be diametrically opposed. The American public elected Trump for the entertainment value, not so that he could actually enact completely stupid Republican policy!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday October 26 2017, @07:53PM
Thanks for the information. I'll be identifying the employees in question, and taking this up with HR and their direct managers.
-- Krishnoid
E-mail: ceo@foocorp.com
http://www.foocorp.com [foocorp.com]
"Bringing the Foo directly to you."