Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalists and other progressives upset with Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Environmentalists and other progressives upset with Trump

    Seems the Trump administration has put a ban on EPA scientists... who are government employees... from participating as presenters at climate change conferences.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%E...cid=spartandhp

    “This type of political interference, or scientific censorship — whatever you want to call it — is ill-advised and does a real disservice to the American public and public health,” Sen. Jack Reed (D), Rhode Island’s senior senator, said at an opening news conference for the State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed event in Providence. “We can debate the issues. We can have different viewpoints. But we should all be able to objectively examine the data and look at the evidence.”
    Reed was joined Monday by the rest of the state’s congressional delegation, all of them Democrats, who took turns chastising the Environmental Protection Agency for instructing two*of its scientists and one contractor not to speak at the conference Monday.
    The EPA has offered little explanation for the decision to prevent the scientists from participating, other than to say in a statement that they were allowed to attend the event but not present because “it is not an EPA conference.”
    Actually, I think it's good that the administration is not allowing them to present. As government employees they should not be able to present what could be construed as a government position on some subject, particularly one that is as political as environmentalism often is. This would be no different than not allowing employees to talk to the media about something going on in government as if they were presenting the official or seemingly official government position on it. This is why the government hires (as do large corporations) specific individuals to handle press and media questions and give the official position on something.
    The government / administration doesn't need an employee giving in affect, a position directly contrary to the official one as if their version was of equal weight. It creates confusion and can often cause more problems than it would solve.

  • #2
    Anything I write or present as "a geologist" is on my own behalf. Anything I write or present as Sr. Geologist, [fill-in-the-blank] Energy, is on behalf of, or representative of, my employer and I need to run it by management for approval.

    Now, if they can only figure out how to apply private sector rules to academia, junk science will be reduced to background noise.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      BRAVO-FOXTROT-DELTA. The enviro-weenies are upset with anyone and everyone that doesn't think exactly as they do and won't automatically swallow the heaping loads of BS they pump out daily.

      Suck it up, buttercups.


      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Seems the Trump administration has put a ban on EPA scientists... who are government employees... from participating as presenters at climate change conferences.

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%E...cid=spartandhp





        Actually, I think it's good that the administration is not allowing them to present. As government employees they should not be able to present what could be construed as a government position on some subject, particularly one that is as political as environmentalism often is. This would be no different than not allowing employees to talk to the media about something going on in government as if they were presenting the official or seemingly official government position on it. This is why the government hires (as do large corporations) specific individuals to handle press and media questions and give the official position on something.
        The government / administration doesn't need an employee giving in affect, a position directly contrary to the official one as if their version was of equal weight. It creates confusion and can often cause more problems than it would solve.
        although I ok with your basic thought I do have concerns since govt agencies are usually the ones in best position to have the data, know it, and analyze it. So people who actually know the most about a topic are not going to be allowed to talk about it. (and not saying the govt is the best at it. Just they are in positions to see data and research)

        just using climate change as example feel free to sub your on topic of choice

        if it was political I get what your saying but a lot of climate change discussions I been to are basically Xs and Os.

        Assume Human caused climate change is real then we are chosing to bury our heads in the sand by not vigoursly researching it and seeking to understand it

        Assume it just normal climate change that the earth goes through we still need to understand what it means and what changes we need to make.

        Assume it is not then we need to prove it not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just another reason to like Trump.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            What.....The Trump Admin wants the EPA to I dunno Protect the Environment like it's a job, and not go wax eloquent as government representatives at forums and meetings that are little more than semi-scientific masturbation?

            Who'd have thunk it?

            When you put a bunch of people in the same room that believe something fervently, will only research things which reinforce their belief, and will harp on people who disagree with their point of view and not invite them to their parties, and spend fortunes on themselves by giving lip service to the unfortunate, you'd call that a church....or a cult.

            When that group of people have degrees, work in academia, and believe that humans are causing climate change and humans can stop it by spending quadrillions of dollars, all the while burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels themselves and getting fame and fortune, you call that a......

            "Climate Science and Policy Summit"
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
              What.....The Trump Admin wants the EPA to I dunno Protect the Environment like it's a job, and not go wax eloquent as government representatives at forums and meetings that are little more than semi-scientific masturbation?

              Who'd have thunk it?

              When you put a bunch of people in the same room that believe something fervently, will only research things which reinforce their belief, and will harp on people who disagree with their point of view and not invite them to their parties, and spend fortunes on themselves by giving lip service to the unfortunate, you'd call that a church....or a cult.
              You just described the NRA.
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Anything I write or present as "a geologist" is on my own behalf. Anything I write or present as Sr. Geologist, [fill-in-the-blank] Energy, is on behalf of, or representative of, my employer and I need to run it by management for approval.

                Now, if they can only figure out how to apply private sector rules to academia, junk science will be reduced to background noise.
                Just because an employer can do something, it does not mean that it should happen. So, what exactly is the reason for doing it other than "I do not like what the vast majority of the federal scientists tell me"?

                And by the way, are you aware of any single scientific organization, federal or private, or any association in which there is a substantial percentage of scientists who disagree with EPA?

                I am just curious, because I am not aware of any such case.
                Last edited by pamak; 29 Oct 17, 10:42.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                  You just described the NRA.
                  And the entire Democratic Party.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    And the entire Democratic Party.
                    But not the GOP They're all the same. You know that.
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X