6 ms·

It just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration. Proposing to cut funding to the EPA, the Energy Department, NASA, National Instit

by colmvp 10y ago

It just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration. Proposing to cut funding to the EPA, the Energy Department, NASA, National Institute of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... And then there's the nomination of climate change denier Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA. Not to mention the dozens of science and technology positions in the administrations that are yet to be filled.

bingomad123 10y ago
EPA or Energy department are stamp collecting and not science. NASA directly advances our knowledge of the universe here as EPA or Energy Department are more like regulatory bodies whose objective is to figure out arguments for increasing taxes. I would rather see the money going to NASA or the public universities directly instead of it going to EPA of all agencies.
- omegaworks 10y ago
  Right, yeah, these should just sit and be managed by no one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites
- 467568985476 10y ago
  You say that like regulations are inherently bad. I can assure you that the industrial firms are not pricing negative externalities into their products unless the government forces them to.
- saboot 10y ago
  I do work supported by the DOE, it's science work, you don't know what you are taking about. Go look at the web pages of the many national labs, almost all operated by the DOE.
- colmvp 10y ago
  The EPA is concerned with regulating air and water quality, and the immediate impact of burning fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuels has a profound impact on American lives. Whether or not they do research is irrelevant. Neutering their ability to enforce standards clearly shows the administration doesn't acknowledge the realities that affect the country and the world. By diminishing the power of the EPA, alongside Trump's executive order that attempts to reduce/reverse the broad set of climate and clean energy initiatives from the Obama Administration (Clean Power Plan), the U.S. may continue to lose the leadership in the clean energy economy and adherence to climate change goals. Furthermore, given Pruit's anti-EPA philosophy, we could easily see him push the body to revise the Clean Power Plan in a way that would benefit the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment and the long term health of Americans.
- aanm1988 10y ago
  The Energy department funds loads of research.
- nickjarboe 10y ago
  The DOE is the department that designs, builds, and maintains the United States' nuclear weapons. I hope there is some science going on.
hackuser 10y ago
My hypothesis, that has held up (in my mind) for awhile now, is that it's an adherence to ideology over reason and rationality, an approach that unfortunately has been legitimized for a large part of the right wing in the U.S. The denial of climate change is perhaps the easiest example, but remember that large proportions of Republicans believe many other things also supported by ideology and contrary to reason: Obama was not American, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, and many other myths. During the campaign, Trump could say almost anything and a certain segment believed it; and no matter what a Democrat said, it was disbelieved. They aren't the first to do that, but I can't think of it happening on such a large scale since the Communists and fascists. In a way, it's reminiscent of the struggle that ended the Middle Ages and gave rise to the Enlightenment.
- daedalus_j 10y ago
  Unfortunately when they realize that their opponents are not constrained by logic and reason, it seems to have the effect of convincing the other side to no longer bother with it either. The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. It's important that we make the debate about logic and reality vs magical thinking and emotional reasoning. Not only does "us vs. them" just set people off, it really only shuffles the problem around a bit rather than solving it.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same, both sides are the same, etc. It's like saying that everyone is a liar, therefore they all are equally dishonest. Or that all software has bugs, therefore it's all equally flawed. In fact, 'it's all the same' is the refuge of liars (not the parent, to be 100% clear) - 'we all lie, right?' - and a well-known, well-practiced tactic of propagandists - their purpose isn't to persuade, but to make truth indistinguishable from lies. It's not the same at all. There is a serious problem on the right.
    - taeric 10y ago
      Worse, I now agree that my complacency with this argument has been a large part of worsening things. :( It sucks right now to finally be speaking up and having folks just assume I somewhat agreed with them in the past. No. I just didn't realize how misguided you were. All people are highly likely to make mistakes. This does not excuse the brazen bullshit we have gotten from the right.
wfo 10y ago
I can understand many of these moves even though I don't agree with them -- these agencies are wasteful from the perspective of very very conservative people. They are government overreach from a Libertarian perspective. They are advocacy organizations that have political beliefs that are not in line with the administration (racial justice, environmental protection, sexual health, etc) But this one is just pure cartoonish moustache-twirling evil. Even the most staunch Libertarians out there think government supported law enforcement is a worthwhile use of taxpayer money, and in particular making sure that it's done correctly. The conflict of interesting inherent in having scientific standards for conviction and evidence be determined by prosecutors, not scientists, is easy to see. Here we have Sessions saying: "We don't need to make sure that we are convicting people accurately, or that the science we use to lock people in cages for the rest of their lives to be repeatedly raped is based on fact". We have recently learned that nearly all forensic science is FAR less accurate than the people using it suggested and that FBI forensic scientists have been testifying under oath and wildly exaggerating the accuracy of their methods in order to get convictions -- this is public knowledge, and yet Sessions still wants to quash any investigation. Of all the cabinet picks and even more so than the president, I think Sessions is the most terrifying. What do you do when the Attorney General, a person with near unlimited power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and blatantly malicious and corrupt? He earned his way up the ranks, after all, abusing his position as a prosecutor to go after his political opponents, some of whom are still in jail for daring to run for office with a D next to their name in Sessions' turf in Alabama: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/jeff-sessions-legal-past-democrats-trump-administration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/jeff-session...
- ajross 10y ago
  > What do you do when the Attorney General, a person with near unlimited power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and blatantly malicious and corrupt? We consider ourselves lucky that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. No seriously: a wingnut DoJ can do terrible damage, but one thing Sessions doesn't have is a "near unlimited power to imprison". Courts are still courts. They've been doing their job so far.
hackuser 10y ago
> It just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration. It's much more widespread and long-term than this administration; it's the Republican Party. A great many other Republican leaders, current and past, advocate and enact the same measures at many levels of government.

by colmvp 10y ago

bingomad123 10y ago

EPA or Energy department are stamp collecting and not science. NASA directly advances our knowledge of the universe here as EPA or Energy Department are more like regulatory bodies whose objective is to figure out arguments for increasing taxes. I would rather see the money going to NASA or the public universities directly instead of it going to EPA of all agencies.

omegaworks 10y ago
Right, yeah, these should just sit and be managed by no one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites
467568985476 10y ago
You say that like regulations are inherently bad. I can assure you that the industrial firms are not pricing negative externalities into their products unless the government forces them to.
saboot 10y ago
I do work supported by the DOE, it's science work, you don't know what you are taking about. Go look at the web pages of the many national labs, almost all operated by the DOE.
colmvp 10y ago
The EPA is concerned with regulating air and water quality, and the immediate impact of burning fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuels has a profound impact on American lives. Whether or not they do research is irrelevant. Neutering their ability to enforce standards clearly shows the administration doesn't acknowledge the realities that affect the country and the world. By diminishing the power of the EPA, alongside Trump's executive order that attempts to reduce/reverse the broad set of climate and clean energy initiatives from the Obama Administration (Clean Power Plan), the U.S. may continue to lose the leadership in the clean energy economy and adherence to climate change goals. Furthermore, given Pruit's anti-EPA philosophy, we could easily see him push the body to revise the Clean Power Plan in a way that would benefit the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment and the long term health of Americans.
aanm1988 10y ago
The Energy department funds loads of research.
nickjarboe 10y ago
The DOE is the department that designs, builds, and maintains the United States' nuclear weapons. I hope there is some science going on.

hackuser 10y ago

My hypothesis, that has held up (in my mind) for awhile now, is that it's an adherence to ideology over reason and rationality, an approach that unfortunately has been legitimized for a large part of the right wing in the U.S. The denial of climate change is perhaps the easiest example, but remember that large proportions of Republicans believe many other things also supported by ideology and contrary to reason: Obama was not American, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, and many other myths. During the campaign, Trump could say almost anything and a certain segment believed it; and no matter what a Democrat said, it was disbelieved. They aren't the first to do that, but I can't think of it happening on such a large scale since the Communists and fascists. In a way, it's reminiscent of the struggle that ended the Middle Ages and gave rise to the Enlightenment.

daedalus_j 10y ago
Unfortunately when they realize that their opponents are not constrained by logic and reason, it seems to have the effect of convincing the other side to no longer bother with it either. The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. It's important that we make the debate about logic and reality vs magical thinking and emotional reasoning. Not only does "us vs. them" just set people off, it really only shuffles the problem around a bit rather than solving it.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The left has their own set of "religious" reasoning. I strongly disagree with the argument that it's all the same, both sides are the same, etc. It's like saying that everyone is a liar, therefore they all are equally dishonest. Or that all software has bugs, therefore it's all equally flawed. In fact, 'it's all the same' is the refuge of liars (not the parent, to be 100% clear) - 'we all lie, right?' - and a well-known, well-practiced tactic of propagandists - their purpose isn't to persuade, but to make truth indistinguishable from lies. It's not the same at all. There is a serious problem on the right.
  - taeric 10y ago
    Worse, I now agree that my complacency with this argument has been a large part of worsening things. :( It sucks right now to finally be speaking up and having folks just assume I somewhat agreed with them in the past. No. I just didn't realize how misguided you were. All people are highly likely to make mistakes. This does not excuse the brazen bullshit we have gotten from the right.

wfo 10y ago

I can understand many of these moves even though I don't agree with them -- these agencies are wasteful from the perspective of very very conservative people. They are government overreach from a Libertarian perspective. They are advocacy organizations that have political beliefs that are not in line with the administration (racial justice, environmental protection, sexual health, etc) But this one is just pure cartoonish moustache-twirling evil. Even the most staunch Libertarians out there think government supported law enforcement is a worthwhile use of taxpayer money, and in particular making sure that it's done correctly. The conflict of interesting inherent in having scientific standards for conviction and evidence be determined by prosecutors, not scientists, is easy to see. Here we have Sessions saying: "We don't need to make sure that we are convicting people accurately, or that the science we use to lock people in cages for the rest of their lives to be repeatedly raped is based on fact". We have recently learned that nearly all forensic science is FAR less accurate than the people using it suggested and that FBI forensic scientists have been testifying under oath and wildly exaggerating the accuracy of their methods in order to get convictions -- this is public knowledge, and yet Sessions still wants to quash any investigation. Of all the cabinet picks and even more so than the president, I think Sessions is the most terrifying. What do you do when the Attorney General, a person with near unlimited power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and blatantly malicious and corrupt? He earned his way up the ranks, after all, abusing his position as a prosecutor to go after his political opponents, some of whom are still in jail for daring to run for office with a D next to their name in Sessions' turf in Alabama: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/jeff-sessions-legal-past-democrats-trump-administration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/04/jeff-session...

ajross 10y ago
> What do you do when the Attorney General, a person with near unlimited power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and blatantly malicious and corrupt? We consider ourselves lucky that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. No seriously: a wingnut DoJ can do terrible damage, but one thing Sessions doesn't have is a "near unlimited power to imprison". Courts are still courts. They've been doing their job so far.

hackuser 10y ago

> It just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration. It's much more widespread and long-term than this administration; it's the Republican Party. A great many other Republican leaders, current and past, advocate and enact the same measures at many levels of government.