9 ms·

CDC’s canceled climate change conference is back on thanks to Al Gore

181 points by artsandsci 10y ago

skolos 10y ago
>Emails sent to participants and scheduled speakers did not explain the reason behind CDC’s decision. Nor did the agency offer an explanation in response to a request for comment from The Washington Post, saying only that it was exploring the possibility of holding the event later in the year. >The meeting now planned for Feb. 16 will take place outside of any government circles. Rather than at CDC, it will be held at the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta. It will be a one-day event rather than the three days originally planned. It saddens me when government suppresses science.
- mseebach 10y ago
  I sorely hope that Trump will teach Americans to get over their misguided king-complex and realise that the president should be a figurehead with limited power, and an executive leader only during time sensitive (military) crises. The rest of the government should be governed by properly legislated remits, and answering to Congress, not the president. It's ridiculous and a recipe for disaster to leave so many policy areas to the whim of a single person.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Leaving it up to "the people" (read: Congress) over the past decade would've surely put us in a much worse position.
    - xapata 10y ago
      I voted for Obama, but I'm not so sure Congress would have been (much) worse.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        I honestly don't understand this viewpoint.. the false equivalence lately is just insane. We're talking about Climate Change, can anyone possibly believe that the Republicans in Congress for the past 6 years would have been better on Climate than what Obama achieved through executive orders? Do people just not pay attention? Here's a quote from the official GOP platform[1]: > Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it. Fuck it, I'll quote the rest of the references to climate in the official platform! > Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. > We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund. > We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs. These people are pathological. [1] - https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/ https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/
        mseebach 10y ago
        On net, long term, Obama will turn out not to have been very effective at all, because everything he's done through executive order has/will be undone through executive orders in the few weeks. That's the curse of executive order, and why good, long term legislation won't arise from executive order.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      The cost of getting what you want from the president is the next president undoing it. Over the long term, I suspect that's way more destructive and wasteful than waiting longer for Congress to decide to do something which then stands a chance of being the law for a while and actually achieving something. Also, when you stop giving all the important, flashy stuff to the president and let Congress have a bit of limelight, you'll probably find them rising to the challenge (more than today, at least, where Congress only gets credit for the boring stuff that the president don't want).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      'the people' and 'Congress' are two distinct entities as far as the Constitution is concerned. It is not appropriate to equate one with the other.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    Separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. There's no guarantee that the legislature will be favorable to your positions either. If you're of a liberal, progressive, or even moderate bent, the past 6 years would've been much worse had Obama not been a check on the Republican Congress. Since 1980, periods when both the Presidency and both houses of Congress have been under the control of one party have been quite rare, and the public usually votes out one house of Congress in the next election. Democrats in 09-10, Republicans from 02-06, Democrats in 92-94, and that's it. (Interestingly, this is not universal throughout history. Dem's controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency under the Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter administrations, while Republicans controlled them during the Mckinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations. The last extended time period of divided control was the post-Reconstruction Gilded Age era from 1875-1897...perhaps leading credence to those who say the current time period is much more like the Long Depression, Gilded Age, and lead up to WW1 than the Great Depression and lead-up to WW2.)
    - mseebach 10y ago
      What we have now isn't separation of power, it's immense power of the office of the president. The president should be a check on Congress (which he is), but Congress should also be a check on the president (they're not, effectively, because they have handed over so much power to him). The same power that made Obama good to progressives will make Trump very, very bad to them.
      - throwaway4job 10y ago
        I strongly believe that Obama was net good in large part because there was so much opposition to him. As such he couldn't ram-rod a one-sided version of anything through. Similarly, I feel that Bush's and Clinton's best years were the periods where they had opposition, and couldn't use party allegiance to push things through. I've felt that one-sided rule is net-negative essentially every time it's happened in my adult life, regardless of party. Trump will just be an especially hard to ignore version of this anti-pattern, as he's made clear that he'll punish non-conformity within the GOP; and the GOP has made clear that they will do anything he requests, even when it stands against every major conservative principle.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I generally agree that it should be that way, but I don't think Trump is necessarily a good example of why. Both houses of Congress are run by his party, and while they don't always see eye to eye, they do on many things like climate change. If the CDC answered directly to Congress, I don't think you'd see much of a difference.
  - derefr 10y ago
    The rest of the government already is governed by remits. To quote Wikipedia: > As the upper house, the Senate has several powers of advice and consent which are unique to it; of these include the ratification of treaties, the confirmation of Cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, other federal executive officials, flag officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers. These people, once picked, "answer to" the Executive--because the function of the Executive is to coordinate the running (execution) of government. But they're picked by Congress, and thus the "character" of government--defined by the beliefs of the people who run it--is in large part up to the legislature. --- Also, if I can make an analogy here, I think there's something important to understand about the role of the President within the executive. The President's role is basically equivalent to, and in large part historically "derived from", the role of a military flag officer (e.g. a general, admiral, etc.) That is, the President is someone who: 1. coordinates a number of units that have been temporarily assigned ("attached") to them, directing those units "from above" into a strategic configuration, without knowing much about their internals; and 2. keeps a "flag staff" who are there to manage each part of their job and liase with the individual units that affect their focus, representing the flag officer in that aspect. Each unit under the flag officer's command, though, is independently headed by someone else: someone who is part of that unit rather than imposed on it from the outside; someone who was was hired by someone else long before the flag officer got there; and someone who is just temporarily serving the flag officer because they are the representative of their unit, and their unit is currently "attached" to that flag officer's command, rather than because they consider themselves to "work for" the flag officer themselves. This is an exact description of the Executive branch. Congress hires the people who head the "units" (departments.) The President then comes in with their staff and those "units"--and their representatives--get attached to the President, who gets their staff (e.g. the Secretary of Defense; the Finance Minister) to liase with the unit heads (e.g. the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.)
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Are you arguing for a Constitutional change?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- RangerScience 10y ago
  To be fair: > argue that the agency should have gone forward with the summit unless told otherwise by the Trump administration Which implies that the Trump administration is not officially behind the cancellation. It could be unofficially behind it, or actors within the CDC could be utilizing the new political climate to cause this cancellation - whether that's in an attempt to help these aspects of the agency avoid notice, or in attempt to suppress... Further information needed.
  - conistonwater 10y ago
    Chilling effects are a thing, I don't think they should be dismissed just like that. FTA: > Benjamin called the move a “strategic retreat” given the climate skepticism of the incoming administration.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      It makes me think of point #1 here: https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/ https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-gui... "Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom."
  - disordinary 10y ago
    It appears though, with the fact that DOE staff were asked to dob in any co-workers that had gone to UN summits on climate change, that the Trump administration is prepared to go on witch hunts.
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      %$#@. Link?
      - 10y ago
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    >They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. What? No, thats suppressing science.
    - netsharc 10y ago
      I suppose it's just a pedantic issue, but if someone found a chemical which, proven by science, Latinos are particularly allergic to, the administration would probably buy it to coat their mythical wall with. Science also says walls are hard for humans to walk through, and they're not disputing that.
      - wnevets 10y ago
        Picking and choosing facts is by definition anti-science. You don't have to be amish and ignore all benefits of science to be anti-science
        brianwawok 10y ago
        Amish actually use power tools, and often have a community phone for emergencies.
        wnevets 10y ago
        I believe there is varying degrees of acceptance of such things. Some are more liberal than others when it comes to such technology
        anigbrowl 10y ago
        Yes, but you're trying to be consistent. A lot of people don't really get science and think it's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo cooked up by geeks to trick hardworking simple folk out of their money so the geeks can go off having themselves a time on expeditions to exotic locations or playing with shiny toys. Just as the media's portrayal of science is generally a shallow and stereotypical one, so is the popular understanding of it. If you want a vision of the future, imagine an angry man tweeting 'shut up nerd,' forever.
- koolba 10y ago
  > It saddens me when government suppresses science. There's no public explanation as to why the original meeting was canceled. Referring to it as "government supressing science" is speculation. That aside, not promoting a particular theory, practice, or direction for research isn't "suppressing science" either. It's just not promoting the particular things that you'd like promoted.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    The reason we don't have an explanation, and most likely won't, is because Department of Health and Human Services has an indefinite Trump-issued communications freeze from talking to the public. Would you say that's not government suppression of science?
    - koolba 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure the communications and hiring freeze is across the board (with a national security related exception). It's not specific to one department. That aside, nobody is preventing anyone outside of government from researching anything they'd like, publishing it, or shouting it from the rooftops. The only complaint I hear is projects and voices that specific people want heard aren't being promoted.
    - smhenderson 10y ago
      And then there is this as well... Looks like the EPA has to ask for permission to talk to anyone now. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511572169/epa-scientists-work-may-face-case-by-case-review-by-trump-team-official-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511572169/...
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    House science committee chairman says Americans should 'get news directly from the President,' because apparently the whole media is in a conspiracy against him. Does that sound scientific to you? http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/lamar-smith-donald-trump-news/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/lamar-smith-donald-tr...
- bigtex 10y ago
  What does the CDC have to do with climate science?
  - grzm 10y ago
    From cdc.gov Climate and Health Widespread scientific consensus exists that the world’s climate is changing. Some of these changes will likely include more variable weather, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, flooding, droughts, more intense storms, sea level rise, and air pollution. Each of these impacts could negatively affect public health. While climate change is a global issue, the effects of climate change will vary across geographic regions and populations. CDC’s Climate and Health Program is helping state and city health departments prepare for the specific health impacts of climate change that their communities will face. https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/ https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/
  - xapata 10y ago
    You might also ask why the DoD or Homeland Security care about climate science. We are certain that the changing climate will affect many aspects of our lives in the coming decades. It'd be nice to have a better estimate of how many feet of sea level rise, what kind of storms, etc. by what year.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Doesn't it seem like NOAA would be a more appropriate place for this research? One might envision DHS research into the properties of x-ray scanners, but surely climate would be outside their purview?
      - xapata 10y ago
        Apparently not. If they care about it, they'll research it. Do you not think they should study how droughts relate to civil unrest?
        jessaustin 10y ago
jeron 10y ago
Al Gore has done so much for climate change, almost as much as he's done for the internet
- burkaman 10y ago
  Al Gore actually did do a lot for the internet. His role was very similar; he organizes and promotes, but he's obviously not an actual scientist.
  - Alupis 10y ago
    I think that (misleading) meme was started by the television show "South Park". In it they routinely poke fun at Al Gore, having his character go around saying "I invented the internet!" among other things.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      No, South Park just picked up an existing joke. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" in an interview, Wired picked it up, some Republicans saw it and released some (honestly pretty gentle) press releases making fun of him, and then it went mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/04/a-cautionary-tale-for-politicians-al-gore-and-the-invention-of-the-internet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - psyc 10y ago
      It was started by Al Gore: https://youtu.be/BnFJ8cHAlco?t=46s https://youtu.be/BnFJ8cHAlco?t=46s
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    Correct. That infamous statement was taken out of context. Since proponents of the OP's view probably won't believe you or me, but will respond to appeals to authority, here's Vint Cerf with Bob Kahn (the co-authors of TCP/IP [1]): http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/m... > No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. [1]: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/papers/cerf74.pdf https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/p...
thatmiddleway 10y ago
It's good to see that this issue has expanded beyond the realm of politics. There is hope when non government organizations are able to put something together in the absence of federal participation.
zymhan 10y ago
Thanks to the Carter Center here in Atlanta for hosting it as well! And all the foundations that pitched in.
stigi 10y ago
Al Gore 2020?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Haha good idea since the last 1990s Democrat retread did so well.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    All I want for Christmas is a Democratic candidate whose name I didn't learn in grade school.
- apocalyptic0n3 10y ago
  He'll be 72 in 2020. That'd make him easily the oldest President inaugurated. Biden reportedly shied away from it because of his age (74) and Sanders (75) has said age would probably prevent him from running again in 2020 (although he hasn't ruled it out completely from what I remember). Given he ran and lost (although I guess not technically...) 20 years previous, I can't imagine he'd consider it. That said, I realize this was likely a joke comment. Still thought I'd point out the age factor, though.
234dd57d2c8db 10y ago
Good, glad to see this is in the private sector where it belongs. Climate change was seriously ramping up to be just another ridiculous tax with questionable results, burdening those who can't afford it most. If preventing climate change is such a good idea, we don't need the government to stick a gun in your face unless you comply with whatever scam they come up with.

181 points by artsandsci 10y ago

>Emails sent to participants and scheduled speakers did not explain the reason behind CDC’s decision. Nor did the agency offer an explanation in response to a request for comment from The Washington Post, saying only that it was exploring the possibility of holding the event later in the year. >The meeting now planned for Feb. 16 will take place outside of any government circles. Rather than at CDC, it will be held at the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta. It will be a one-day event rather than the three days originally planned. It saddens me when government suppresses science.

mseebach 10y ago
I sorely hope that Trump will teach Americans to get over their misguided king-complex and realise that the president should be a figurehead with limited power, and an executive leader only during time sensitive (military) crises. The rest of the government should be governed by properly legislated remits, and answering to Congress, not the president. It's ridiculous and a recipe for disaster to leave so many policy areas to the whim of a single person.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Leaving it up to "the people" (read: Congress) over the past decade would've surely put us in a much worse position.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I voted for Obama, but I'm not so sure Congress would have been (much) worse.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      I honestly don't understand this viewpoint.. the false equivalence lately is just insane. We're talking about Climate Change, can anyone possibly believe that the Republicans in Congress for the past 6 years would have been better on Climate than what Obama achieved through executive orders? Do people just not pay attention? Here's a quote from the official GOP platform[1]: > Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue. This is the triumph of extremism over common sense, and Congress must stop it. Fuck it, I'll quote the rest of the references to climate in the official platform! > Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. > We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund. > We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic growth and cost thousands of jobs. These people are pathological. [1] - https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/ https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/
      - mseebach 10y ago
        On net, long term, Obama will turn out not to have been very effective at all, because everything he's done through executive order has/will be undone through executive orders in the few weeks. That's the curse of executive order, and why good, long term legislation won't arise from executive order.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    The cost of getting what you want from the president is the next president undoing it. Over the long term, I suspect that's way more destructive and wasteful than waiting longer for Congress to decide to do something which then stands a chance of being the law for a while and actually achieving something. Also, when you stop giving all the important, flashy stuff to the president and let Congress have a bit of limelight, you'll probably find them rising to the challenge (more than today, at least, where Congress only gets credit for the boring stuff that the president don't want).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    'the people' and 'Congress' are two distinct entities as far as the Constitution is concerned. It is not appropriate to equate one with the other.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution. There's no guarantee that the legislature will be favorable to your positions either. If you're of a liberal, progressive, or even moderate bent, the past 6 years would've been much worse had Obama not been a check on the Republican Congress. Since 1980, periods when both the Presidency and both houses of Congress have been under the control of one party have been quite rare, and the public usually votes out one house of Congress in the next election. Democrats in 09-10, Republicans from 02-06, Democrats in 92-94, and that's it. (Interestingly, this is not universal throughout history. Dem's controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency under the Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter administrations, while Republicans controlled them during the Mckinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations. The last extended time period of divided control was the post-Reconstruction Gilded Age era from 1875-1897...perhaps leading credence to those who say the current time period is much more like the Long Depression, Gilded Age, and lead up to WW1 than the Great Depression and lead-up to WW2.)
  - mseebach 10y ago
    What we have now isn't separation of power, it's immense power of the office of the president. The president should be a check on Congress (which he is), but Congress should also be a check on the president (they're not, effectively, because they have handed over so much power to him). The same power that made Obama good to progressives will make Trump very, very bad to them.
    - throwaway4job 10y ago
      I strongly believe that Obama was net good in large part because there was so much opposition to him. As such he couldn't ram-rod a one-sided version of anything through. Similarly, I feel that Bush's and Clinton's best years were the periods where they had opposition, and couldn't use party allegiance to push things through. I've felt that one-sided rule is net-negative essentially every time it's happened in my adult life, regardless of party. Trump will just be an especially hard to ignore version of this anti-pattern, as he's made clear that he'll punish non-conformity within the GOP; and the GOP has made clear that they will do anything he requests, even when it stands against every major conservative principle.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I generally agree that it should be that way, but I don't think Trump is necessarily a good example of why. Both houses of Congress are run by his party, and while they don't always see eye to eye, they do on many things like climate change. If the CDC answered directly to Congress, I don't think you'd see much of a difference.
- derefr 10y ago
  The rest of the government already is governed by remits. To quote Wikipedia: > As the upper house, the Senate has several powers of advice and consent which are unique to it; of these include the ratification of treaties, the confirmation of Cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, other federal executive officials, flag officers, regulatory officials, ambassadors, and other federal uniformed officers. These people, once picked, "answer to" the Executive--because the function of the Executive is to coordinate the running (execution) of government. But they're picked by Congress, and thus the "character" of government--defined by the beliefs of the people who run it--is in large part up to the legislature. --- Also, if I can make an analogy here, I think there's something important to understand about the role of the President within the executive. The President's role is basically equivalent to, and in large part historically "derived from", the role of a military flag officer (e.g. a general, admiral, etc.) That is, the President is someone who: 1. coordinates a number of units that have been temporarily assigned ("attached") to them, directing those units "from above" into a strategic configuration, without knowing much about their internals; and 2. keeps a "flag staff" who are there to manage each part of their job and liase with the individual units that affect their focus, representing the flag officer in that aspect. Each unit under the flag officer's command, though, is independently headed by someone else: someone who is part of that unit rather than imposed on it from the outside; someone who was was hired by someone else long before the flag officer got there; and someone who is just temporarily serving the flag officer because they are the representative of their unit, and their unit is currently "attached" to that flag officer's command, rather than because they consider themselves to "work for" the flag officer themselves. This is an exact description of the Executive branch. Congress hires the people who head the "units" (departments.) The President then comes in with their staff and those "units"--and their representatives--get attached to the President, who gets their staff (e.g. the Secretary of Defense; the Finance Minister) to liase with the unit heads (e.g. the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.)
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Are you arguing for a Constitutional change?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
RangerScience 10y ago
To be fair: > argue that the agency should have gone forward with the summit unless told otherwise by the Trump administration Which implies that the Trump administration is not officially behind the cancellation. It could be unofficially behind it, or actors within the CDC could be utilizing the new political climate to cause this cancellation - whether that's in an attempt to help these aspects of the agency avoid notice, or in attempt to suppress... Further information needed.
- conistonwater 10y ago
  Chilling effects are a thing, I don't think they should be dismissed just like that. FTA: > Benjamin called the move a “strategic retreat” given the climate skepticism of the incoming administration.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It makes me think of point #1 here: https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-guide-to-defending-democracy-under-a-trump-presidency/ https://qz.com/846940/a-yale-history-professors-20-point-gui... "Much of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then start to do it without being asked. You’ve already done this, haven’t you? Stop. Anticipatory obedience teaches authorities what is possible and accelerates unfreedom."
- disordinary 10y ago
  It appears though, with the fact that DOE staff were asked to dob in any co-workers that had gone to UN summits on climate change, that the Trump administration is prepared to go on witch hunts.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    %$#@. Link?
    - 10y ago
WhitneyLand 10y ago
They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. If science supported their agenda it would be hailed as the second coming.
- wnevets 10y ago
  >They don't suppress science, they just suppress stuff they don't like with no regard for facts. What? No, thats suppressing science.
  - netsharc 10y ago
    I suppose it's just a pedantic issue, but if someone found a chemical which, proven by science, Latinos are particularly allergic to, the administration would probably buy it to coat their mythical wall with. Science also says walls are hard for humans to walk through, and they're not disputing that.
    - wnevets 10y ago
      Picking and choosing facts is by definition anti-science. You don't have to be amish and ignore all benefits of science to be anti-science
      - brianwawok 10y ago
        Amish actually use power tools, and often have a community phone for emergencies.
        wnevets 10y ago
        I believe there is varying degrees of acceptance of such things. Some are more liberal than others when it comes to such technology
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        Yes, but you're trying to be consistent. A lot of people don't really get science and think it's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo cooked up by geeks to trick hardworking simple folk out of their money so the geeks can go off having themselves a time on expeditions to exotic locations or playing with shiny toys. Just as the media's portrayal of science is generally a shallow and stereotypical one, so is the popular understanding of it. If you want a vision of the future, imagine an angry man tweeting 'shut up nerd,' forever.
koolba 10y ago
> It saddens me when government suppresses science. There's no public explanation as to why the original meeting was canceled. Referring to it as "government supressing science" is speculation. That aside, not promoting a particular theory, practice, or direction for research isn't "suppressing science" either. It's just not promoting the particular things that you'd like promoted.
- bduerst 10y ago
  The reason we don't have an explanation, and most likely won't, is because Department of Health and Human Services has an indefinite Trump-issued communications freeze from talking to the public. Would you say that's not government suppression of science?
  - koolba 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure the communications and hiring freeze is across the board (with a national security related exception). It's not specific to one department. That aside, nobody is preventing anyone outside of government from researching anything they'd like, publishing it, or shouting it from the rooftops. The only complaint I hear is projects and voices that specific people want heard aren't being promoted.
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    And then there is this as well... Looks like the EPA has to ask for permission to talk to anyone now. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511572169/epa-scientists-work-may-face-case-by-case-review-by-trump-team-official-says http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/25/511572169/...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  House science committee chairman says Americans should 'get news directly from the President,' because apparently the whole media is in a conspiracy against him. Does that sound scientific to you? http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/lamar-smith-donald-trump-news/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/lamar-smith-donald-tr...
bigtex 10y ago
What does the CDC have to do with climate science?
- grzm 10y ago
  From cdc.gov Climate and Health Widespread scientific consensus exists that the world’s climate is changing. Some of these changes will likely include more variable weather, heat waves, heavy precipitation events, flooding, droughts, more intense storms, sea level rise, and air pollution. Each of these impacts could negatively affect public health. While climate change is a global issue, the effects of climate change will vary across geographic regions and populations. CDC’s Climate and Health Program is helping state and city health departments prepare for the specific health impacts of climate change that their communities will face. https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/ https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/
- xapata 10y ago
  You might also ask why the DoD or Homeland Security care about climate science. We are certain that the changing climate will affect many aspects of our lives in the coming decades. It'd be nice to have a better estimate of how many feet of sea level rise, what kind of storms, etc. by what year.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Doesn't it seem like NOAA would be a more appropriate place for this research? One might envision DHS research into the properties of x-ray scanners, but surely climate would be outside their purview?
    - xapata 10y ago
      Apparently not. If they care about it, they'll research it. Do you not think they should study how droughts relate to civil unrest?
      - jessaustin 10y ago

jeron 10y ago

Al Gore has done so much for climate change, almost as much as he's done for the internet

burkaman 10y ago
Al Gore actually did do a lot for the internet. His role was very similar; he organizes and promotes, but he's obviously not an actual scientist.
- Alupis 10y ago
  I think that (misleading) meme was started by the television show "South Park". In it they routinely poke fun at Al Gore, having his character go around saying "I invented the internet!" among other things.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    No, South Park just picked up an existing joke. He said he "took the initiative in creating the internet" in an interview, Wired picked it up, some Republicans saw it and released some (honestly pretty gentle) press releases making fun of him, and then it went mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/04/a-cautionary-tale-for-politicians-al-gore-and-the-invention-of-the-internet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - psyc 10y ago
    It was started by Al Gore: https://youtu.be/BnFJ8cHAlco?t=46s https://youtu.be/BnFJ8cHAlco?t=46s
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Correct. That infamous statement was taken out of context. Since proponents of the OP's view probably won't believe you or me, but will respond to appeals to authority, here's Vint Cerf with Bob Kahn (the co-authors of TCP/IP [1]): http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/m... > No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. [1]: https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/papers/cerf74.pdf https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall06/cos561/p...

thatmiddleway 10y ago

It's good to see that this issue has expanded beyond the realm of politics. There is hope when non government organizations are able to put something together in the absence of federal participation.

zymhan 10y ago

Thanks to the Carter Center here in Atlanta for hosting it as well! And all the foundations that pitched in.

stigi 10y ago

Al Gore 2020?

jessaustin 10y ago
Haha good idea since the last 1990s Democrat retread did so well.
- mikeash 10y ago
  All I want for Christmas is a Democratic candidate whose name I didn't learn in grade school.
apocalyptic0n3 10y ago
He'll be 72 in 2020. That'd make him easily the oldest President inaugurated. Biden reportedly shied away from it because of his age (74) and Sanders (75) has said age would probably prevent him from running again in 2020 (although he hasn't ruled it out completely from what I remember). Given he ran and lost (although I guess not technically...) 20 years previous, I can't imagine he'd consider it. That said, I realize this was likely a joke comment. Still thought I'd point out the age factor, though.

234dd57d2c8db 10y ago

Good, glad to see this is in the private sector where it belongs. Climate change was seriously ramping up to be just another ridiculous tax with questionable results, burdening those who can't afford it most. If preventing climate change is such a good idea, we don't need the government to stick a gun in your face unless you comply with whatever scam they come up with.