@nicholdraper – “Why is the government involved in these scientific
studies and releases of data?”Simply
industry will only fund research they can be reasonably sure will generate
profits in the not-too-distant future.
Why is the government involved in these scientific studies and releases of data?
Isn't legitimate science performed by researchers and collaborated by
independent researchers and published in science periodicals? Normally
government intervention in research tends towards propaganda. Most people,
myself included would not argue against the mountain of evidence that humans
have been modifying the environment in numerous ways as long as humans have
existed. Tying these scientific findings to specific government policies is
troubling. We shouldn't do things because the ends justify it -- the means
have to be ethical and practical and be evaluated on their merit independent of
the end. So, doing anything for the reason of climate change should be
considered as suspect. You could justify genocide for the reason of climate
change, which obviously no one is calling for, but some of the proposed policies
justified by only climate change are just ridiculous if not as abhorrent.
@NoNamesAccepted – “It also means that climate studies need to be
published even if their credible conclusions don't support massive new
government programs or infringements on individual liberties.”Are you aware of any peer-reviewed, evidence-based climate studies that
conclude the climate is NOT changing at a rate unprecedented in the last 20,000
years?I’m not.As to your comment about science
being taught in ways not hostile to your religious beliefs, that is certainly
possible but it has nothing to do with the science being taught. What matters is
whether or not you hold religious beliefs that conflict with scientific facts
(e.g., young earth creationism, God created all creatures as is, Noah flood,
etc.).If so, then yes you may experience that as hostility.
Leftist paranoia appears to afflict even the highly educated.
1984 by George Orwell spoke of the thought police. The new employee
from the outer party Winston Smith will fit in nicely at the EPA.Sorry folks you wont find this on Fox.The more serious issue is
who is the puppeteer or puppeteers, is it just Steve Bannon and where does the
Heartland Institute fit. Sure President Trump runs off in all directions when
he is off script, but who is writing the scripts of fear and loathing.How many times will the Senate have to clean up the mess after Trump insults
one of the allies. Don't forget just 22 months to the half
Hahaha. Are you serious Mr. Chow? What IS extremely troubling is that NOAA
just cooked the books (again) on climate change to advance their global warming
agenda; that climate change proponents say the debate is over and that some have
even called for laws against denying climate change. Doesn't that trouble
you Mr. Chow? Sounds to me like the left's war on truth.
Trump has plenty of support in this regard.
Let me say, I will no less concerned IF President Trump attempts to squash or
misuse science and scientists than I have been with what the leftists have done
to misuse science and silence alternative theories in the past.I
want science to operate free from politics on either side of the spectrum. That
may not be possible when so much science relies on taxpayer funding and/or takes
place at highly politicized universities. But I'd like science to be free
of political agenda.That means the center for disease control
doesn't get to attack guns. Whatever one thinks of guns, they are not a
disease. Let the justice department study crime.It also means that
climate studies need to be published even if their credible conclusions
don't support massive new government programs or infringements on
individual liberties.It means science needs to be taught in our
schools without being hostile to religious beliefs or moral values.Science needs to stop being coopted as code word to allow left wing policies
to be pushed without the ability for reasonable disagreement, so that it
can't be coopted for right wing policies either.
First it's global warming, then it's "climate change", and now
we are expecting an Ice Age, just like we were in the Seventies. Ain't
The real "war on science" has come from the left as they have worked to
brand any who disagree with the politicized conclusions drawn from heavily
manipulated data as veritable heretics or "deniers".Real
science welcomes challenges and is eager to publish raw data along with results.
Real science doesn't attempt to silence or ostracize those who disagree
with political policy playing fast and loose with scientific results. Real
science doesn't over-state conclusions because of moral imperative to get
something done.The left has also coopted science to attack religious
beliefs. My high school science teachers had no problem teaching organic
evolution and big bang cosmology without ever undermining or mocking religious
beliefs. Why can't college level researchers and government employees do
likewise?Why are sincere questions about weaknesses in these
hypotheses treated like attacks on sacred religious beliefs rather than answered
directly and sometimes with the honest "we don't know...yet"?Labeling partisan political positions as "science" is the real
war on science.
You mean a person opposed to the idea that there is global warming won't be
To "JoeBlow " I hate to tell you this, but politicians have been
tweaking with science for a long time. Your ilk has made an industry out of it
over the past 60 years.The scientists are still free to publish
their findings. They will not contain the EPA stamp, making it official, but
they can still publish.Yes, hide all of the decades of partisan
politics influenced science from Congress. They make enough bad decisions
without any facts, they don't need bad science to help them justify their
Red writes"The agencies that Trump has reprimanded are agencies
that have been using science to justify policy. "According to
the article " Further, EPA scientists have been told that their results and
findings now may need to go through an internal vetting by the administration
before their release to the public."It sounds to me that our
politicians will tweak the science to adhere to their politics.Red
writes "The scientists have been, and always will be, free to publish their
findings."But the article states that "Donald Trump has
ordered several federal agencies ... to cease communications with the public and
Congress. "Don't these agencies communicate with the pubic
by publishing their findings?It seems to me that if the science
doesn't agree with partisan politics, Trump wants to modify or quash the
information. And he wants it withheld from Congress.How else can you read
To "Clement Y. Chow" you should read up on Lysenkoism. The agencies
that Trump has reprimanded are agencies that have been using science to justify
policy. The scientists have been, and always will be, free to publish their
findings. The issue is that the scientists have learned that if they want to
keep funding, and their jobs, that they need to produce research that justifies
the position of the politicians.For example, look at the FDA's
research on food. Eggs are good one year, and bad the next. The government
took data showing the bad effects of sugar and buried it for 50 years, and even
now is able to get people to ignore that fact. At one time Government
Scientists said that by the year 2000 the earth wouldn't be able to produce
enough food. How about the idea of peak oil.The problem is that the
government scientists have consistently been proven wrong when it comes to their
predictions, yet they keep getting paid. Imagine your company's head of
marketing, if they were constantly wrong would they be kept or fired? Why
should government scientists be receiving tax payer money if they are constantly
The Republican war on science started long before Trump (Chris Mooney has done a
superb job documenting this progression).But this is a manifestation
of a two much deeper problems, one that affects both the Left and Right and
another that is largely a problem for the Right alone.The first
problem is inherent in partisans of all stripes and that is denying facts that
don’t fit your political narrative, though the scope of denial and the
magnitude of the problems denied today are far more consequential on the
Right.The second problem is the faith-based mind set – a
problem that should find equal offenders across the political spectrum but with
the rise of the Religious Right, does not. This has been a problem
since the first free thinking cave dweller showed the wheel to his companions
only to be clubbed by the shaman (or his ecclesiastical enforcers) for producing
a “work of the devil.” Until we rid ourselves of faith
as our cognitive default setting and recognize its abysmal track record in
telling anything true about the natural world, this problem will remain.
A much better title for this article would have been : "Trump's War On
All dictators seek to restrict the free flow of information. Trump is finding it
difficult, though, to get a majority of Americans to believe his perpetual lies.
Hopefully the Right will start to value a free press. If not, then we may as
well get used to fascist America.The sad part about this whole
election, though, is that once again, hyperpartisan Republicans have voted
against their own best interests. Look at what they voted for: increasingly
dirty air and water, tax cuts for billionaires, an inevitable reduction in
health coverage for the poor and disadvantaged, an attack on public education,
belligerence against both enemy states and allies, threats of trade wars, a
restriction on government information, ever laxer gun laws, shifting ethical
standards (shifting away from ethical behavior), deregulation of Wall Street,
more heat for an already overheated planet, a callous disregard for refugees,
and a governing philosophy based on paranoia and conspiracy theories.The only bright spot I see is the possibility that after four years of these
disastrous policies maybe even the Republicans will see how absurd their
ideology is. Maybe.
Thank you, Dr. Chow. Well said.Science is not a liberal conspiracy.
It's just reality.
Sadly, in the age of Trump, truth has become political.And the
problem with that is the lack of regard for objective, verifiable truth is
solely the domain of the current Administration.When you deny the
objective pursuit of science and truth, we are led to a very bad future.
Decisions that will haunt our children and their children will be made based on
political calculations and the subsequent hordes of money from corporate
interests.Where is the outrage?
Conservatives who claim to decry over-reaching government don't appear
alarmed by this effort by government to control the flow of information.
Perhaps because the truth is that fact-based knowledge isn't their guide.
Rather fear and anxiety are and facts that don't assuage these emotions -
or worse, heighten them - are deemed irrelevant and must be squelched. (A
forerunner: The law prohibiting government funding of research on gun violence
as a public health issue.)Reasonable people everywhere: Resist!
"EPA scientists have been told that their results and findings now may need
to go through an internal vetting by the administration before their release to
the public."Yes, this is scary. We understand it happens in
China and Cuba, but America? But what scares me more is that there
will be no small number of Americans who will fully support this. I never
thought I would see the day when Americans could get so blinded by partisanship
that they would allow this, let alone defend it.
Trump is used to running a privately held corporation when he was able to
dictate and control its public image. It's not a bad thing. But what he
seems to be forgetting is he is now managing a public trust - where he is there
to serve the public. Free flow of information is the cornerstone to that
trust. I get not wanting to have negative or confusing communications coming
out of the administration. It is a reasonable quest. But agencies like EPA,
FDA, National Parks, etc need to have at least an image of independence of the
political winds that blow through our country. We need to trust that the
definition of "clean water" isn't dependent on the moods in the
White House.Trump's need to appear as though he micromanages
every nuance will be his downfall. His first military raid into Yemen ended in
disaster. Trump will not be able to distance himself from things that go wrong
or sideways - and they will - they do for even the best of Presidents.