3 ms·
Maybe to you, but not to any of the Trump voters I know. And not to a lot of other people, either. This is in the State Department, not EPA, and embassies spend
by epistasis 2y ago
Maybe to you, but not to any of the Trump voters I know. And not to a lot of other people, either. This is in the State Department, not EPA, and embassies spending resources on pollution monitoring sounds like the very epitome of government waste that DOGE is trying to eliminate.
It is not a "pro-science" talking point it is actually a real pro-science without the quotation marks talking point.
Science has been completely under attack for every second this administration has been in power, in every single way, from funding to scientific indpendence to censoring of words that are politically incorrect to the Trump administration.
Suggesting that this is an optional high profile shut down of science rather than something completely in line with what's happening every single day is a very odd take on the matter.
And as to the proof that this is not something that people really care about in a high profile way, the science rallies get about 1/10th the support of other sorts of rallies in those trying to resist Trump's changes.
- adamiscool8 2y agoThose most passionate about capital-S Science are often aggressively anti-Trump, making them prone to accepting reports like this uncritically. If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility. This article is a "pro-science" talking point because it admits embassies were told to keep monitors running and data sharing could resume if funding returned. So at this point, there's not even necessarily a gap in the actual data. The only proof this shutdown was unavoidable comes from those who carried it out. Funny how that goes...
- chipotle_coyote 2y agoDo you have a source that suggests the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, or are you Just Asking Questions™? I mean, I've found those most passionate about capital-T Trump are often aggressively anti-science, making them prone to accepting transparently petty bullshit uncritically. Not that I'm saying you're doing that, of course. Although it is weird you use the phrase "pro-science talking point" as if being pro-science was a bad thing. Do you think it's a bad thing? Just asking questions.
- adamiscool8 2y ago[flagged]
- epistasis 2y agoThat is the grant for the EPA software, not the network of embassies for adding embassy data to the EPA program. I'm not sure what maintenance you mean there, but it surely is reminiscent of "I could code Twitter in a weekend."
- adamiscool8 2y agoYes, but the same contractor manages the AirNow Data Management Center [0], and according to this talk [0] DOSAir is the actual program here, and they are piggybacking the EPA AirNow data infrastructure, and per the OP they are keeping the sensors running. So I'm all the more confused about what exactly necessitates this specific State Dept-directed funding freeze that happens to impact only the network that communicates the data from embassies into AirNow, but not the data center or other data producers. [0] https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/hylton-sti-airnowtech.pdf https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/hylton-st... [1] https://youtu.be/RcdBIWdA-e4?si=PTpOEG7rFnGod7EH&t=2615 https://youtu.be/RcdBIWdA-e4?si=PTpOEG7rFnGod7EH&t=2615
- psychlops 2y agoThe ending of that comparison is that Twitter's strength is that it takes far more effort to build it's network effect. Air quality data is easy.
- Braxton1980 2y ago>If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility How does spending and the debate around what what is justified have anything to do with scientific credibility?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]