SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to The Missoulian (archive):
Several of Missoula's top federal fire scientists have been denied permission to attend the International Fire Congress later this month, leading conference organizers to suspect censorship of climate-related research.
"Anyone who has anything related to climate-change research — right away was rejected," said Timothy Ingalsbee of the Association for Fire Ecology, a nonprofit group putting on the gathering. Ingalsbee noted that was his personal opinion, and that the AFE [Association for Fire Ecology] is concerned that a federal travel restriction policy may be more to blame.
The Missoulian also said (archive):
The scientists no longer attending include Matt Jolly, who was to present new work on "Climate-induced variations in global severe weather fire conditions," Karin Riley on "Fuel treatment effects at the landscape level: burn probabilities, flame lengths and fire suppression costs," Mike Battaglia on "Adaptive silviculture for climate change: Preparing dry mixed conifer forests for a more frequent fire regime," and Dave Calkin, who was working on ways to manage the human response to wildfire.
takyon: Also at Scientific American (thanks to another Anonymous Coward).
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @04:22AM (5 children)
Keep whining, scientists, as if the work you do at taxpayer expense should not be directed by policymakers. That attitude will surely help keep the Rs in charge.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @08:23AM (2 children)
Actually no, the science done by various departments should not be very beholden to the whims of some politician. The EPA, FDA, FCC, and etc. should be held to their actual founding charters. They should not be responsible to whatever jerkoff politician gets a hardon for some lobbying group. We are seeing right now what happens when the top of the pyramid feels justified in dictating down to the bottom.
You may applaud Trump's actions thinking it is the draining of the swamp, and so I guess the ignorant must learn the truth by bringing the shit down upon us all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @01:56PM
Leader A is in charge and encourages research to whip up fear that benefits him politically. Then leader B gets elected, and his political allies don't want to hear about the topic. So B shuts down the research. Big whoop.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13 2017, @03:46PM
You may applaud Trump's actions thinking it is the draining of the swamp, and so I guess the ignorant must learn the truth by bringing the shit down upon us all.
I honestly don't see the problem here, or why they need to have this conference at all. What use is it? To prevent forest fires, or lessen their impact? Why is that important or useful?
Just let the forests burn, along with whatever homes happen to be nearby. Remember, the people who live in rural areas who will be affected more by this are generally conservative and voted for the guy who doesn't believe in climate change. They're getting exactly what they voted for.
Remember, as I've said here over and over, "every nation gets the government it deserves".
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @08:43AM (1 child)
Actually it's the people who pay for this knowledge in order to get advantageous policy decisions.
What is the knowledge and who gets the advantages, that's the question?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @02:00PM
I thought the taxpayers paid for this knowledge. Silly me.