Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 26 2017, @03:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-worry-die-happy dept.

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".


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:30PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:30PM (#588048)

    The 3-degree and 7-inch changes are clearly unrelated to global warming. The only tie here is that scientists face strong pressure to suggest a link to global warming.

    Well here you go:
    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=22241&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=0&highlightthresh=-1&page=1&cid=587846#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

    If you have a bunch of dishonest employees who are purposely trying to cause trouble for your organization, you fire them. Well here we have exactly that, with the organization being the US federal government, except that they haven't even been fired!

    These aren't scientists "who'd want to keep you uninformed". They are participating in a disinformation campaign. It's like negative information. The more you get, the more uninformed you are.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 26 2017, @11:51PM (#588053) Journal

    the problem: that was dishonest

    [Citation needed] (and no, a link to a post on S/N does not count as citation).

    How do you know it was dishonest?
    Have you seen the data and reports. Have you seen their arguments?
    Have you seen any arguments of how much of those 3 degrees and 7 inches are attributable to global warming and what proportion to other causes?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:48AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 28 2017, @11:48AM (#588643) Journal

      How do you know it was dishonest?

      What is "climate change"? How can you attribute an actual change in climate to it in a non-circular fashion? I gather the rhetoric is supposed to mean local climate change attributed in large part to global warming. But it is remarkably unspecific as used.

      “It’s definitely a blatant example of the scientific censorship we all suspected was going to start being enforced at E.P.A.,” said John King, a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who chairs the science advisory committee of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. “They don’t believe in climate change, so I think what they’re trying to do is stifle discussions of the impacts of climate change.”

      [...]

      “The report is about trends. It’s kind of hard not to talk about climate change when you’re talking about the future of the Narragansett Bay,” Mr. King said.

      Moving on...

      Have you seen any arguments of how much of those 3 degrees and 7 inches are attributable to global warming and what proportion to other causes?

      Exactly. Where are those arguments and why didn't they appear in the two news stories?

      Having said that, I believe this act of censorship by EPA leadership is not only wrong, but will backfire badly. The authors will give the talk elsewhere and it will receive a great deal of publicity that the paper wouldn't have received at the conference.