Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Most Unscientific President...

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

  • The Most Unscientific President...

    This is not a good idea. If you don't have expertise in a certain area, you hire subject-area experts for advice and guidance. This is just ridiculous:

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

    'Former agency heads and environmentalists are blasting a new executive order issued late Friday evening as a stealthy means to remove scientific oversight from agency rulemaking.'

    'Previous heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department say President Trump's directive last week for all agencies to cut at least a third of their advisory committees by September would weaken the science-based regulations process that the administration has pushed back against since Trump took office.'

    '"The decision is disappointing to anyone who cares about evidence-based policy making, scientific review or the truth," said Carol Browner, the sole EPA administrator under former President Clinton, in an email to The Hill on Monday.'

    '"Engaging a range of outside advisors has served EPA well," she said. "While probably predictable, the decision is no less alarming. The American people expect more from agencies, especially those charged with protecting our health, like the EPA."'

    'Trump's executive order directs all federal agencies to cut by at least one-third the number of boards and advisory committees that weigh in on government regulations and other agency decisions. That means 462 committees are potentially on the chopping block when excluding agencies that are mandated by law.'

    'At EPA and Interior, advisory committees provide scientific and technical expertise from people who are considered to be at the top of their field.'
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    This is not a good idea. If you don't have expertise in a certain area, you hire subject-area experts for advice and guidance. This is just ridiculous:

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

    'Former agency heads and environmentalists are blasting a new executive order issued late Friday evening as a stealthy means to remove scientific oversight from agency rulemaking.'

    'Previous heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department say President Trump's directive last week for all agencies to cut at least a third of their advisory committees by September would weaken the science-based regulations process that the administration has pushed back against since Trump took office.'

    '"The decision is disappointing to anyone who cares about evidence-based policy making, scientific review or the truth," said Carol Browner, the sole EPA administrator under former President Clinton, in an email to The Hill on Monday.'

    '"Engaging a range of outside advisors has served EPA well," she said. "While probably predictable, the decision is no less alarming. The American people expect more from agencies, especially those charged with protecting our health, like the EPA."'

    'Trump's executive order directs all federal agencies to cut by at least one-third the number of boards and advisory committees that weigh in on government regulations and other agency decisions. That means 462 committees are potentially on the chopping block when excluding agencies that are mandated by law.'

    'At EPA and Interior, advisory committees provide scientific and technical expertise from people who are considered to be at the top of their field.'
    As if the prior POTUS with a "social "sciences" " major and work/"job" experience as a "community organizer" had any more of a "science background" ??? !!!

    At least Trump may have some experience via commercial enterprise in APPLICATION of Science whereas the last few priors showed little to none.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      How is that "unscientific?" Trimming a panel of government scientists doesn't equate to being "unscientific," but rather to trimming the fat from government. Why does the government need this panel and pay them to do whatever? Could their "work" be funded and they be private contractors paid as necessary?

      The OP shows an oblivious belief that only government could possibly do whatever it is that this panel does. When bureaucrats whine about their staff being cut, it means you are doing something right.

      I would add, that an "unscientific" President would be one that blindly believed everything his science advisors told him uncritically-- Like Obama did.

      Read the original study on this. Parkinson was correct.

      Comment


      • #4
        Jimmy Carter is probably as close to a 'scientist" president as we have come and he was a disaster.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          I think they were whining about 'Gorbal Warming', and if you peruse the data from NASA you'll find the most likely suspect is the Sun. Right now were going through a cooling period. It's a cycle that the sun heats up and cools down. Its rather simple.

          Now that being said none of us wants smog or pollution of any kind. Sadly its China, India, and Russia that are the leading polluting countries with little will to reform their practices.

          China's pollution lake. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...place-on-earth

          India. https://www.washingtonpost.com/photo...=.4ce5bd1169ab

          Russian pollution. https://bellona.org/news/industrial-...hboring-norway

          Now I'm quite concerned about plastic waste in my area. https://www.mbari.org/microplastics-water-column/

          If we continue to poison the ocean it won't go well for all of us.
          Credo quia absurdum.


          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            Jimmy Carter is probably as close to a 'scientist" president as we have come and he was a disaster.
            Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer, and quite successful at it. He invented several processes for extracting minerals from ore including one that used froth extraction to get zinc out of lead and silver ores. He's probably the most "scientific" President we've had.

            Comment


            • #7
              Four more off topic posts deleted. One member in particular is in lieu for another vacation unless he ceases with the off-topic personal posts - ACG staff

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                Herbert Hoover was a mining engineer, and quite successful at it. He invented several processes for extracting minerals from ore including one that used froth extraction to get zinc out of lead and silver ores. He's probably the most "scientific" President we've had.
                Isn't that another example of how being really "smart" may not correlate with effective.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                  Isn't that another example of how being really "smart" may not correlate with effective.
                  Yes, it is. The worst combination is the idiot who thinks they're smart and is really energetic. Energetic idiots do more damage than any other sort.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    Yes, it is. The worst combination is the idiot who thinks they're smart and is really energetic. Energetic idiots do more damage than any other sort.
                    AOC?
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      Yes, it is. The worst combination is the idiot who thinks they're smart and is really energetic. Energetic idiots do more damage than any other sort.
                      Sounds like you're talking about Trump at his rallies.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                        I think they were whining about 'Gorbal Warming', and if you peruse the data from NASA you'll find the most likely suspect is the Sun. Right now were going through a cooling period. It's a cycle that the sun heats up and cools down. Its rather simple.

                        Now that being said none of us wants smog or pollution of any kind. Sadly its China, India, and Russia that are the leading polluting countries with little will to reform their practices.

                        China's pollution lake. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...place-on-earth

                        India. https://www.washingtonpost.com/photo...=.4ce5bd1169ab

                        Russian pollution. https://bellona.org/news/industrial-...hboring-norway

                        Now I'm quite concerned about plastic waste in my area. https://www.mbari.org/microplastics-water-column/

                        If we continue to poison the ocean it won't go well for all of us.
                        YUP!

                        But a reminder, we need to be careful what we call "pollution". Many of the gorebots want to tag Carbon Dioxide/CO2 as "pollution" even though about 99.9% of living biomass - Flora/green plants require such as an essential component in their life-cycle, which we "one percenters"/Fauna~animals need those Flora to live and survive. Current CO2 levels are barely a third above the minimum needed for thresh-hold to low end optimal for the Flora on this planet. We are far from a point where CO2 content in atmosphere needs to be reduced.
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          How is that "unscientific?" Trimming a panel of government scientists doesn't equate to being "unscientific," but rather to trimming the fat from government. Why does the government need this panel and pay them to do whatever? Could their "work" be funded and they be private contractors paid as necessary?

                          The OP shows an oblivious belief that only government could possibly do whatever it is that this panel does. When bureaucrats whine about their staff being cut, it means you are doing something right.

                          I would add, that an "unscientific" President would be one that blindly believed everything his science advisors told him uncritically-- Like Obama did.

                          Read the original study on this. Parkinson was correct.

                          in my recent experience as a Quality Assurance/Inspector for a manufacturing firm that produces components for FGD - Flue Gas DeSulfurization systems used by coal-fired electrical generation stations, one item I learned over the past decade plus was that the EPA has been setting industrial compliance standards BELOW Natural Background Levels. This means that industries are expected to do better than Nature in the amount of "emissions" they produce, often expressed in parts per BILLION.

                          The between the lines message here is that having achieved the goals set nearly 50 years ago when the EPA was started, we now see an effort to perpetuate a guv'mint agency, and the jobs-n-benefits of guv'mint employees, by setting standards of compliance that are near impossible to achieve in any reasonable and affordable methods. The "mission statement" of the EPA has gone from "saving the environment" to "saving the future of our employment and existence", and like too many other guv'mint agencies we have seen the transition from fulfilling a goal and then dissolving to finding other absurd goals that will perpetuate our un-needed existence.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post
                            This is not a good idea. If you don't have expertise in a certain area, you hire subject-area experts for advice and guidance. This is just ridiculous:

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

                            'Former agency heads and environmentalists are blasting a new executive order issued late Friday evening as a stealthy means to remove scientific oversight from agency rulemaking.'

                            'Previous heads of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Interior Department say President Trump's directive last week for all agencies to cut at least a third of their advisory committees by September would weaken the science-based regulations process that the administration has pushed back against since Trump took office.'

                            '"The decision is disappointing to anyone who cares about evidence-based policy making, scientific review or the truth," said Carol Browner, the sole EPA administrator under former President Clinton, in an email to The Hill on Monday.'

                            '"Engaging a range of outside advisors has served EPA well," she said. "While probably predictable, the decision is no less alarming. The American people expect more from agencies, especially those charged with protecting our health, like the EPA."'

                            'Trump's executive order directs all federal agencies to cut by at least one-third the number of boards and advisory committees that weigh in on government regulations and other agency decisions. That means 462 committees are potentially on the chopping block when excluding agencies that are mandated by law.'

                            'At EPA and Interior, advisory committees provide scientific and technical expertise from people who are considered to be at the top of their field.'
                            Not too surprising considering we have a population of citizens/voters whom also tend to be rather scientific "illiterate". I'm frequently amazed by how many would mix bleach and ammonia to make a 'more effective cleaning solution' as one example, and then there's the blind acceptance of pseudo-science that's foundation to ACC/AGW.

                            This POTUS is beginning to see how much Bloat we have in size and staffing of some agencies which have achieved their original mandates and now are phyishing for reasons and justifications to continue their oversized existence.
                            Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Jun 19, 18:29. Reason: spelling, etc.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                              in my recent experience as a Quality Assurance/Inspector for a manufacturing firm that produces components for FGD - Flue Gas DeSulfurization systems used by coal-fired electrical generation stations, one item I learned over the past decade plus was that the EPA has been setting industrial compliance standards BELOW Natural Background Levels. This means that industries are expected to do better than Nature in the amount of "emissions" they produce, often expressed in parts per BILLION.

                              The between the lines message here is that having achieved the goals set nearly 50 years ago when the EPA was started, we now see an effort to perpetuate a guv'mint agency, and the jobs-n-benefits of guv'mint employees, by setting standards of compliance that are near impossible to achieve in any reasonable and affordable methods. The "mission statement" of the EPA has gone from "saving the environment" to "saving the future of our employment and existence", and like too many other guv'mint agencies we have seen the transition from fulfilling a goal and then dissolving to finding other absurd goals that will perpetuate our un-needed existence.
                              This stems from two problems. One is political, the other bureaucratic.

                              The bureaucratic one first. In a bureaucracy the intent of its members is to expand their power, budget, control, to justify larger and larger paychecks for those in it. So, it must always be doing more than it currently is doing. For the EPA, that means new sources of "pollution" as well as parts of the environment to be protected must be identified then tacked on to their current list of things to regulate.
                              A perfect real-life example of this is The March of Dimes charity / campaign. The March of Dimes was started in 1938 by FDR no less, to raise money to find a cure for polio. In 1955 a cure was found. By the early 2000's polio had been all but eradicated worldwide and the March of Dimes was out of a cause.
                              So, did they close their doors, pat themselves on the back for a job accomplished, and go out of business? Hell no! They found new causes to beg for your money to fix and went right on as before. That's a bureaucracy in action.

                              So, the EPA will continue to try and expand control over what they can regulate and keep finding reasons to lower allowable pollution with a "Zero Tolerance" attitude the whole time. Any pollution is too much pollution for them and that means they have a totally unrealistic and unobtainable goal that in turns means the agency will have to expand and grow forever.

                              The second problem is political. There is an entire cottage industry of environmentalists grown up around the Zero Tolerance goals too. They need donations, money, funding, government contracts, etc., for the same reasons the EPA does. So, they hire lobbyists, "experts," and others to buy-- err gain-- government's ear and get stuff passed that will ensure their survival and expansion.

                              Worse, they have figured out that they can also plant their own within agencies like the EPA, NOAA, NASA, etc., and get these insiders to help ensure their survival in the private sector.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X