5 ms·

That's suppressing it, exactly as the parent said. Why do you think it acceptable? Anyway <http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/references-t

That's suppressing it, exactly as the parent said. Why do you think it acceptable? Anyway <http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/references-to-climate-change-removed-from-epa-document-2/> http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/silencing-science-tracker/refe... "In or around March 2019, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) removed several references to “climate change” from a guidance document on “planning for natural disaster debris.” The document was drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and submitted to OIRA for review. During review, OIRA staff deleted several references to “climate change,” [snip]" It's happening.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
The EPA is a political office, run by a political appointee, so there will always be a political bias in what they choose to emphasize, and that's all that happened. Nothing was removed from public access, just moved from featured on the home page. If one admin put carbon tax on the home page, and the next replaced it with solar panels, is that suppressing the carbon tax? The document you reference simply strikes out a single reference to there being a causal relationship between climate change and specific extreme weather events. The document is all about climate change, so it seems like a minor and likely accurate correction. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2019/04/Oira.png http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2019/04/Oira.png
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > The EPA is a political office, run by a political appointee Well I'm a brit so I dunno, but from wikipedia "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection" > The document you reference simply strikes out a single reference to there being a causal relationship between climate change and specific extreme weather events I've skimmed the document and I have to agree with you. I think it's a pretty vital point and perhaps should not have been deleted, but it appears you are right. So upvoted.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    > Well I'm a brit so I dunno, but from wikipedia "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection" It gets complicated - it is considered independent because it doesn't directly roll up into a cabinet position under the president, but informally it is run like it is a cabinet position, the head is a political appointee of the president, and they can be removed by the president at will. So while more a grey area than something like the State Department, it is closer to that than more independent agencies Federal Reserve that acts without input from the Executive branch, and the appointees can't be fired by the president
- CodiePetersen 7y ago
  Depends on the intent, if you go through every single website and agency and ensure that carbon tax is never mentioned by pre reviewing and screening them out, then yes. If its just one, then likely has nothing to do with support or lack of support, if its all and then there is a policy, then yes, obviously there is some intent and apparentness that you don't want it talked about.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    I agree there is total intent. For example, imagine a environmental Republican who hates all taxes but wants to promote clean energy through solar/wind/nuclear. I'm just suggesting it isn't totalitarian, it isn't anti-science, and it is the prerogative of the President to have a wide latitude to promote different EPA policies.
    - CodiePetersen 7y ago
      Never said it was totalitarian. I suggested that the censorship was real even if it is subtle. I agree it's not totalitarian. Regardless, you can frame it how ever you want to make it more appealing to left leaning or pro green individuals, doesn't really change the argument just whether or not someone likes the result more. The issue is, the government/current administration has used its influence to censor ideas and keep the public ill informed of the information of the matter. In this particular case arguably less damaging than China suppressing ideas around Tiananmen and definitely less overt and forceful, but still its happening, been happening really, as I said, more subtle but still in the wrong direction. And before HN community boots up its strawman arguments (not you), no I'm not also talking about illegal, damaging, stolen, top secret material, etc. I'm talking about information and ideas that harm no and/or are required for the public to make informed decisions.

WillPostForFood 7y ago

The EPA is a political office, run by a political appointee, so there will always be a political bias in what they choose to emphasize, and that's all that happened. Nothing was removed from public access, just moved from featured on the home page. If one admin put carbon tax on the home page, and the next replaced it with solar panels, is that suppressing the carbon tax? The document you reference simply strikes out a single reference to there being a causal relationship between climate change and specific extreme weather events. The document is all about climate change, so it seems like a minor and likely accurate correction. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2019/04/Oira.png http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2019/04/Oira.png

tempguy9999 7y ago
> The EPA is a political office, run by a political appointee Well I'm a brit so I dunno, but from wikipedia "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection" > The document you reference simply strikes out a single reference to there being a causal relationship between climate change and specific extreme weather events I've skimmed the document and I have to agree with you. I think it's a pretty vital point and perhaps should not have been deleted, but it appears you are right. So upvoted.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  > Well I'm a brit so I dunno, but from wikipedia "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States federal government for environmental protection" It gets complicated - it is considered independent because it doesn't directly roll up into a cabinet position under the president, but informally it is run like it is a cabinet position, the head is a political appointee of the president, and they can be removed by the president at will. So while more a grey area than something like the State Department, it is closer to that than more independent agencies Federal Reserve that acts without input from the Executive branch, and the appointees can't be fired by the president
CodiePetersen 7y ago
Depends on the intent, if you go through every single website and agency and ensure that carbon tax is never mentioned by pre reviewing and screening them out, then yes. If its just one, then likely has nothing to do with support or lack of support, if its all and then there is a policy, then yes, obviously there is some intent and apparentness that you don't want it talked about.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  I agree there is total intent. For example, imagine a environmental Republican who hates all taxes but wants to promote clean energy through solar/wind/nuclear. I'm just suggesting it isn't totalitarian, it isn't anti-science, and it is the prerogative of the President to have a wide latitude to promote different EPA policies.
  - CodiePetersen 7y ago
    Never said it was totalitarian. I suggested that the censorship was real even if it is subtle. I agree it's not totalitarian. Regardless, you can frame it how ever you want to make it more appealing to left leaning or pro green individuals, doesn't really change the argument just whether or not someone likes the result more. The issue is, the government/current administration has used its influence to censor ideas and keep the public ill informed of the information of the matter. In this particular case arguably less damaging than China suppressing ideas around Tiananmen and definitely less overt and forceful, but still its happening, been happening really, as I said, more subtle but still in the wrong direction. And before HN community boots up its strawman arguments (not you), no I'm not also talking about illegal, damaging, stolen, top secret material, etc. I'm talking about information and ideas that harm no and/or are required for the public to make informed decisions.