4 ms·

Articles like this keep getting flagged (because some people on HN are more interested in living in their little tech bubble), so I will say this before that ha

Articles like this keep getting flagged (because some people on HN are more interested in living in their little tech bubble), so I will say this before that happens: this administration will set back American science and technology by at least a couple of decades. And that's a conservative estimate. Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors.

merlincorey 10y ago
> Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors. As an independent, I question how this situation is much different from years past. It's just a different set of yes-men.
- aaronbrethorst 10y ago
  We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. Scientific fact is not the exclusive domain of any political party. A question that's worth asking is: which political party is more interested in scientific fact when it comes to the climate?
- defined 10y ago
  Peer review is meant to compensate for scientific bias (i.e. "yes-men"). This administration is reducing peer review. Therefore the new yes-men are worse than the old.
supremesaboteur 10y ago
This article does not support what you are saying. > EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or terminated,” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers" > “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always intended for the Board > Courtney Flint ... said ... that she was also surprised to learn that her term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a renewal was expected.” > “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards,” she added. > Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies > “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” > “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.” Even if you believe that the conservatives are trying to pack EPA with "climate change deniers", you should be glad that their research is now going to reach a wider audience and therefore can be subject to more crictism. This seems like a good move for science
- androck1 10y ago
  "In a budget proposal obtained by The Washington Post last month, the panel is slated for an 84 percent cut — or $542,000 — from its operating budget. That money typically covers travel and other expenses for outside experts who attend the board’s public meetings. The reasoning behind the budget cut, said the document, reflects 'an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.'" Doesn't sound like a "good move for science" to me.
  - supremesaboteur 10y ago
    Why do they expect a lower number of peer reviews ? If there is a legitimate reason, then cutting the funding in proportion seems reasonable
  - cryptarch 10y ago
    Also doesn't sound like it will result in "more input from outside scientific bodies", because the budget for that got cut by 84%... By the way, was that a euphemism for commerce-backed science? Like the science done for cosmetics companies and the tobacco industry? It doesn't feel like they're talking about foreign Universities.
- Oletros 10y ago
  > "Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” at EPA.: Rigged science? What rigged science? > "“The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”" This coming from Lamar Smith? > This seems like a good move for science You must be joking. Or you think that science is what Lamar Smith thinks it is science, get ride of any fact, and put conclusions and then look at anything that can be a proof for those conclusions. What they are doing is not science
  - cryptarch 10y ago
aerovistae 10y ago
And they'll all get replaced and their policies revoked in another few years. "At least a couple of decades"? You're dreaming.
- defined 10y ago
  Policies have institutional inertia. International accords can be broken, numerous polluting plants and pipelines built, and irreversible environmental damage can be done in four years. It's a matter of rolling back the effects of the policies that may take decades (or never, if the environment is pushed past the point of no return).
  - ReligiousFlames 10y ago
    The danger of a supermajority in COTUS, POTUS and SCOTUS is alt-right and Freedom Party extremist agendas being railroaded through and ripping up sensible, sane policies into tatters for those special interest$ and crazy fringe groups. Two healthy political parties provide countervailing powers which limit what the other can do. Without this protection, fascist themes become more prevalent and more difficult to stop.
    - defined 10y ago
      Did you mean to reply to the parent comment rather than mine? It seems more relevant:)
- jayd16 10y ago
  You act like agencies and experts can be rebuilt and rehired as quickly as they were dismissed. That isn't true of anything I can think of.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  How long does it take to break a window? How long does it take to replace that window? Destruction and creation are asymmetrical with respect to the time and effort required to do either, and that's not even looking at immaterial stuff such as international reputations and treaties.
ReligiousFlames 10y ago
Hence relatively conservative BAS advanced the doomsday clock closer to midnight: unwillingness to tackle climate change and an insane chief of staff lunging to push the button to start WW III.

merlincorey 10y ago

> Pruitt will surround himself with yes-men, and that is super scary when it comes to science. Essentially, all science that does not fit the administration's agenda will be rejected. This is just one of the precursors. As an independent, I question how this situation is much different from years past. It's just a different set of yes-men.

aaronbrethorst 10y ago
We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. Scientific fact is not the exclusive domain of any political party. A question that's worth asking is: which political party is more interested in scientific fact when it comes to the climate?
defined 10y ago
Peer review is meant to compensate for scientific bias (i.e. "yes-men"). This administration is reducing peer review. Therefore the new yes-men are worse than the old.

supremesaboteur 10y ago

This article does not support what you are saying. > EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in an email that “no one has been fired or terminated,” and that Pruitt had simply decided to bring in fresh advisers" > “We’re not going to rubber-stamp the last administration’s appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool,” Freire said. “This approach is what was always intended for the Board > Courtney Flint ... said ... that she was also surprised to learn that her term would not be renewed, “particularly since I was told that such a renewal was expected.” > “In the broader view, I suppose it is the prerogative of this administration to set the goals of federal agencies and to appoint members to advisory boards,” she added. > Conservatives have complained about EPA’s approach to science, including the input it receives from outside scientific bodies > “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” > “The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.” Even if you believe that the conservatives are trying to pack EPA with "climate change deniers", you should be glad that their research is now going to reach a wider audience and therefore can be subject to more crictism. This seems like a good move for science

androck1 10y ago
"In a budget proposal obtained by The Washington Post last month, the panel is slated for an 84 percent cut — or $542,000 — from its operating budget. That money typically covers travel and other expenses for outside experts who attend the board’s public meetings. The reasoning behind the budget cut, said the document, reflects 'an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.'" Doesn't sound like a "good move for science" to me.
- supremesaboteur 10y ago
  Why do they expect a lower number of peer reviews ? If there is a legitimate reason, then cutting the funding in proportion seems reasonable
- cryptarch 10y ago
  Also doesn't sound like it will result in "more input from outside scientific bodies", because the budget for that got cut by 84%... By the way, was that a euphemism for commerce-backed science? Like the science done for cosmetics companies and the tobacco industry? It doesn't feel like they're talking about foreign Universities.
Oletros 10y ago
> "Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), who questions the link between human activity and climate change and has several former aides now working for Pruitt, said in an interview earlier this year that under the new administration, “They’re going to have to start dealing with science and not rigged science” at EPA.: Rigged science? What rigged science? > "“The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said at the time. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”" This coming from Lamar Smith? > This seems like a good move for science You must be joking. Or you think that science is what Lamar Smith thinks it is science, get ride of any fact, and put conclusions and then look at anything that can be a proof for those conclusions. What they are doing is not science
- cryptarch 10y ago

aerovistae 10y ago

And they'll all get replaced and their policies revoked in another few years. "At least a couple of decades"? You're dreaming.

defined 10y ago
Policies have institutional inertia. International accords can be broken, numerous polluting plants and pipelines built, and irreversible environmental damage can be done in four years. It's a matter of rolling back the effects of the policies that may take decades (or never, if the environment is pushed past the point of no return).
- ReligiousFlames 10y ago
  The danger of a supermajority in COTUS, POTUS and SCOTUS is alt-right and Freedom Party extremist agendas being railroaded through and ripping up sensible, sane policies into tatters for those special interest$ and crazy fringe groups. Two healthy political parties provide countervailing powers which limit what the other can do. Without this protection, fascist themes become more prevalent and more difficult to stop.
  - defined 10y ago
    Did you mean to reply to the parent comment rather than mine? It seems more relevant:)
jayd16 10y ago
You act like agencies and experts can be rebuilt and rehired as quickly as they were dismissed. That isn't true of anything I can think of.
jacquesm 10y ago
How long does it take to break a window? How long does it take to replace that window? Destruction and creation are asymmetrical with respect to the time and effort required to do either, and that's not even looking at immaterial stuff such as international reputations and treaties.

ReligiousFlames 10y ago

Hence relatively conservative BAS advanced the doomsday clock closer to midnight: unwillingness to tackle climate change and an insane chief of staff lunging to push the button to start WW III.