Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Science in danger - epa ordered to take down climate change page

macckone - 24-1-2017 at 22:04

The new US administration has declared war on science.
Soon all US science may either be corporate or amateur.
No news, data or papers may be published by a number of
Federal agencies including epa, hhs, and usda.
I expect additional agencies will follow.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G

If this is too political please move it to detrius.
But I think this is of major concern to scientist everywhere.

A march for science is being organized.

http://www.scientistsmarchonwashington.com/2017/01/what-is-s...





[Edited on 25-1-2017 by macckone]

macckone - 24-1-2017 at 22:11

March on facebook

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=407291609618143&ts...

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1862739727343189?tsid=0.798429...

JJay - 24-1-2017 at 22:34

Are you actually asking chemists to join a protest? Protesting accomplishes nothing but incites people to violence. I don't care what the issue is; this post is clearly inappropriate.

If you wanted to discuss the science behind climate change, that would be one thing, but this appears to be overt and blatant politicking.

j_sum1 - 25-1-2017 at 00:31

@JJ
Discussing climate change tends to be a bit of a hot potato around here with numerous posters tending to get more personal and less objective and often completely missing each others' points to the detriment of good discussion.

I think mackone's complaint is the precedent of US government agencies withdrawing from all matters scientific and the resulting decline in objective information necessary for quality decision-making. If I have interpreted him correctly, I believe his concerns are warranted. But whether a protest is an effective or appropriate response is another matter entirely.

Sulaiman - 25-1-2017 at 01:52

If all of the links to research remain and only the opinion parts are removed,
I do not see it as an attack on science, just a political move.

Climate change is not a science,
we can observe, record, analyse and predict (so far predictions have all failed)
but we can not experiment, so how is it a science ?

individual aspects of climate change can be experimented with
but not the whole system
and we do not yet have a working model.

Herr Haber - 25-1-2017 at 04:27

Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman  


Climate change is not a science,


But climatology is :)

And to add to the links above:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-issues-epa-media-b...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/24/keystone...
Oops, this last one is a bit more political. And they even use the words climate change science in the same sentence. Hope no one gets a stroke about this ^^

Funny timing, I was on the phone with the IUCN this morning.

AJKOER - 25-1-2017 at 05:07

'Climate change' is a problem requiring the intervention of science.

Interestingly, China is a now major sponsor of environmental scientific research likely as a consequence of decades of reliant on dirty fossil fuels contributing to significant air pollution. Here is a recent piece, to quote:

"As 2016 gave way to 2017, residents of Beijing, Tianjin, and many other northern Chinese cities suffered through the longest stretch of stifling air pollution ever recorded in the country. They choked through eight continuous days of thick, light-blocking haze, starting Dec. 30, 2016. This stretch of bad air began only a week after people in 70 northern Chinese cities were enveloped by similar days of haze..."

Link: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-...

If your a US scientist needing to publish, you might consider sending your work to China!

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 06:19

As I said in my original post, if this is too political please move it to detrius.


The issue goes well beyond the EPA and climate change.
And I might add climate change is only a small part of
The job the EPA deals with. The fact that two (hhs, is the other)
Very science heavy government agencies have been ordered
to stop publishing papers is very concerning. However this may
Allow amateurs an opportunity to fill in gaps for vital research.

As for the question raised, this is not removal of opinion.
This is removal of data, published paperes, etc as well.

mayko - 25-1-2017 at 06:59

Power concedes nothing without demand. Womens' suffrage? Gay pride and the modern trans rights movement? The 8 hour work day and the weekend? Protest is not only worthwhile; it gets the goods.

The Legal & Social subforum is powerful because it allows scientists to organize on issues that impact us as scientists, not just flap our gums. The SOPA/PIPA blackout, which ScienceMadness participated in, is a powerful example. I'm not saying the forum has to endorse the DC march (though I would vote in favor, and am planning to attend). But if you think that this is anything but the first step down a very bad, flagrantly antiscience road, your head is in the sand. Under Harper's Canada, scientists were quickly reduced to dumpster-diving valuable records collections:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/29/news/exclusive-in...
Call it politics as usual if you want, such behavior is an affront to everything I got into science for, and without vigorous opposition, It Will Happen Here, and worse.

I am wgeting on the uni servers as fast as I can; plenty of people are making backups. The challenge coming up is going to be finding reliable hosting for the mirrors.

My nightmare is if the NCDC is next on the slate.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by mayko]

Fulmen - 25-1-2017 at 07:35

Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman  

but we can not experiment, so how is it a science ?

Science doesn't demand experiments, it only demand observation. If experiments were required, astronomy and astrophysics wouldn't be science either.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 08:46

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Power concedes nothing without demand. Womens' suffrage? Gay pride and the modern trans rights movement? The 8 hour work day and the weekend? Protest is not only worthwhile; it gets the goods.

The Legal & Social subforum is powerful because it allows scientists to organize on issues that impact us as scientists, not just flap our gums. The SOPA/PIPA blackout, which ScienceMadness participated in, is a powerful example. I'm not saying the forum has to endorse the DC march (though I would vote in favor, and am planning to attend). But if you think that this is anything but the first step down a very bad, flagrantly antiscience road, your head is in the sand. Under Harper's Canada, scientists were quickly reduced to dumpster-diving valuable records collections:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/29/news/exclusive-in...
Call it politics as usual if you want, such behavior is an affront to everything I got into science for, and without vigorous opposition, It Will Happen Here, and worse.

I am wgeting on the uni servers as fast as I can; plenty of people are making backups. The challenge coming up is going to be finding reliable hosting for the mirrors.

My nightmare is if the NCDC is next on the slate.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by mayko]


That statement is ridiculous. Power has conceded you free speech without demand. You don't seem to appreciate it, though.

Protest sometimes does accomplish things though rarely. In Ukraine in recent years, protesters managed to oust the government, but some were shot, and Ukraine lost some territory and a lot of business deals that had been cut previously. They still can't join the EU because they have an ongoing territorial dispute. This all happened in spite of a political process that could have brought about a peaceful regime change.

Eight years of Wall Street protests led to Donald Trump as President. I mean, seriously... do you really think protesting is a worthwhile endeavor?

The science behind climate change is not as cut and dried as some people seem to think. The climate has been warming since the last ice age. The amount of arable land in the USA has increased over the past 50 years.





macckone - 25-1-2017 at 08:57

All science is observation.
Archeology, Anthropology, Climatology, Astrophysics,
Astronomy, Evolutionary Biology, Volcanology,
Seismology, Meteorology, Paleontology

These are just a few examples of sciences where it is
impossible or unethical to do experiments. However,
they allow the making of predictions and those
predictions can be checked against future data to
validate the hypothesis. In astrophysics it can take
decades to validate a hypothesis, the same in
many of these other sciences. Meteorology is
science where the predictions can be checked
rapidly. But it is also complicated by chaos theory
as is climatology. That doesn't make them less
scientific, it just makes it harder to validate a
hypothesis.

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 10:28

JJay, this was not intended to be a debate about climate change. But rather a raising of awareness of the fact the new US administration (many here are not in the US) is extremely anti-science and has the intention of eliminating anything or anyone that disagrees with them. One of the agencies proposed (not actually axed yet) to get the ax is the NSF. By far the majority of the NSF's work has nothing to do with climate change. This is not about that one issue. HHS does not do much climate change research but they have been gagged as well, no papers, no press releases, no grants.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 10:34

@macckone: I don't agree with you, and I'm not interested. If molotov cocktails aren't enough, you'll just have to steal weapons or something.

Metacelsus - 25-1-2017 at 10:42

A vision of the future (adapted from the past):

First they came for the climatologists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a climatologist.
Then they came for the stem cell researchers, and I did not speak out, because I was not a stem cell researcher.
Then they came for my NSF grant money, and there was nobody left to speak out for me.

We must prevent this. Speak out now.

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 10:45

Update: They've lifted the gag order on the EPA after the widespread public outcry (how's that 'protesting doesn't work' shtick coming along, JJay?). Unclear if the other silenced agenices will follow, but time and effort will tell.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 10:49

Did the protest happen?

mayko - 25-1-2017 at 11:04

Edit: that they backed off is great news! It was not acausal, however, and it is not reason to return to complacency!
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

That statement is ridiculous. Power has conceded you free speech without demand. You don't seem to appreciate it, though.


You must think that the lead-up to the American Revolution (ie, a necessary prerequisite for the first amendment) was a series of pillow fights. Nor was the right to free speech preserved and expanded in a vacuum. The state didn't recognize symbolic speech and the rights of students spontaneously - that was fought for and won through aggressive legal challenge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe... ) and amid widespread agitation for freer expression.

I've been arrested while practicing citizen journalism and I've been pepper-sprayed for speaking out; I think I have ample appreciation for free speech, its power, and its limitations.

Quote:
Eight years of Wall Street protests led to Donald Trump as President. I mean, seriously... do you really think protesting is a worthwhile endeavor?


I have no idea what you are talking about here (Obama was re-elected during the tail end of OWS, remember? Canadian scientists similarly protested Harper, who was soon defeated by Trudeau.) but I think I made it pretty clear that I enjoy the fruits of various protest movements. I specifically mentioned the weekend, for example. There is no evidence that it would have come about without vigorous action on the part of 19th century labor movements - often far rowdier than the permitted street march being discussed here.


Quote:
The science behind climate change is not as cut and dried as some people seem to think. The climate has been warming since the last ice age. The amount of arable land in the USA has increased over the past 50 years.


This is frankly unscientific nonsense, but that is beside the point. The point is that public access to extant data and information is being threatened, and the collection of future data is in jeopardy. Without those things, the science will only get LESS cut and dried. To anyone who actually cares about our ability to answer questions, and I hope that any self-proclaimed scientist does, that is a travesty worth preventing.



[Edited on 25-1-2017 by mayko]

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 11:13

The protest is scheduled for March 4th.
The new budget is due at the end of March.

The USDA has lifted the gag order on it's employees.

I am not seeing the HHS and EPA gag orders lifted.
But they have not removed any of the climate change
info yet either, so I don't know that progress has been
made. Other agencies may be impacted but no one is
leaking the gag memos.

All grant and contracts have been frozen across the
board and that is still in place. This is impacting all
agencies. Security, Policing and military are exempted.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 11:15

You're a protester. You like protests. People probably think you're crazy. You should have free speech. But the purpose of it is to protect us from you.

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 11:36

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
You're a protester. You like protests. People probably think you're crazy. You should have free speech. But the purpose of it is to protect us from you.


This statement is so far removed from reality as to be laughable. My dad, a perfectly respectable software engineer in his 60s, was just as involved in the recent marches as I was, much as he has been involved in protesting all his life. Are you calling him crazy? Do you think you need protecting from him?

America was founded on protests. The Boston Tea Party mean anything to you? No? How about the Old South Meeting House and the Boston Massacre protests, that ring a bell? If you're going to make foolish claims about things you fear out of ignorance, then you should fully expect your claims to be soundly and thoroughly mocked.

What kind of person claims that people standing up for what they believe in are "crazy?"

But enough about your irrational fear of organized disagreement, let's get back on topic here. The fact of the matter is, Trump's administration submitted gag orders to and pulled funding from most major scientific publishing agencies that worked on climate change - the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services Department, and National Institute of Health. Source here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies...

This is not a 'political move.' This is not a minor inconvenience. Grad students across America are now without funding, and access to valuable scientific research has plummeted. Regardless of what these institutes were researching, I think it's fairly obvious to everyone that silencing publishers of scientific works is a dangerous agenda.

'Overt and blatant politicking', indeed. What next, are you going to suggest we just sit back and take it?

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 11:42

Ok, so you're a protester too. Anyone else?

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 11:50

Many of my former military acquaintances are going to be protesting as well. I will not be attending the paris accord protest but I will protest for science.

Magpie - 25-1-2017 at 11:52

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  

Interestingly, China is a now major sponsor of environmental scientific research likely as a consequence of decades of reliant on dirty fossil fuels contributing to significant air pollution. Here is a recent piece, to quote:

"As 2016 gave way to 2017, residents of Beijing, Tianjin, and many other northern Chinese cities suffered through the longest stretch of stifling air pollution ever recorded in the country. They choked through eight continuous days of thick, light-blocking haze, starting Dec. 30, 2016. This stretch of bad air began only a week after people in 70 northern Chinese cities were enveloped by similar days of haze..."



As smart as we think we are we have to get to this point before doing anything about it.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by Magpie]

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 11:52

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Many of my former military acquaintances are going to be protesting as well. I will not be attending the paris accord protest but I will protest for science.


Why don't you have a symposium or a congress or something? Scientists like those.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by JJay]

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 11:54

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Many of my former military acquaintances are going to be protesting as well. I will not be attending the paris accord protest but I will protest for science.


Why don't you have a symposium or a congress or something? Scientists like those.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by JJay]


Are you serious? This is just being petty. We both know you're more mature than this.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 11:57

Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
Many of my former military acquaintances are going to be protesting as well. I will not be attending the paris accord protest but I will protest for science.


Why don't you have a symposium or a congress or something? Scientists like those.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by JJay]


Are you serious? This is just being petty. We both know you're more mature than this.


Let me make sure I understand you correctly: You think I'm being petty and immature by suggesting you have a symposium instead of a protest.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 12:01

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  

Interestingly, China is a now major sponsor of environmental scientific research likely as a consequence of decades of reliant on dirty fossil fuels contributing to significant air pollution. Here is a recent piece, to quote:

"As 2016 gave way to 2017, residents of Beijing, Tianjin, and many other northern Chinese cities suffered through the longest stretch of stifling air pollution ever recorded in the country. They choked through eight continuous days of thick, light-blocking haze, starting Dec. 30, 2016. This stretch of bad air began only a week after people in 70 northern Chinese cities were enveloped by similar days of haze..."



As smart as we think we are we have to get to this point before doing anything about it.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by Magpie]


I've read stories about how power plants used to blacken towns with soot in the U.S. in the early 1900s. Automobiles have definitely drawn a lot of regulation.

Amos - 25-1-2017 at 12:03

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Ok, so you're a protester too. Anyone else?


I didn't realize we were allowed to label and invalidate other members' opinions on this topic because we don't like their lifestyles or political principles.

Please take your spam elsewhere. If you don't want to talk about this topic and how it relates to the scientific community, you don't have to comment.

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 12:09

Not quite. Allow me to demonstrate why I think you're being immature:
Quote:
Why don't you have a symposium or a congress or something?


This part of the statement was acceptable, if a bit oblivious. The appropriate counterargument would be that symposiums and congresses do not accomplish change with the same speed and efficacy that protesting does.
Quote:
Scientists like those.


This is blatantly sarcastic and petty in nature, as well as completely unnecessary to the rest of the statement. It gives the reader a sense that you don't actually care about providing a valid counterargument so much as you care about dismissing opposing points of view, an assertion of mine which you have repeatedly shown evidence of throughout this thread. Protesters? Crazy. Climate change? Also crazy.

I hope you enjoyed this lesson in basic subtext, and I look forward to seeing its use in future posts of yours.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 12:16

Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1  
Not quite. Allow me to demonstrate why I think you're being immature:

Quote:
Why don't you have a symposium or a congress or something?


This part of the statement was acceptable, if a bit oblivious. The appropriate counterargument would be that symposiums and congresses do not accomplish change with the same speed and efficacy that protesting does.
Quote:
Scientists like those.


This is blatantly sarcastic and petty in nature, as well as completely unnecessary to the rest of the statement. It gives the reader a sense that you don't actually care about providing a valid counterargument so much as you care about dismissing opposing points of view, an assertion of mine which you have repeatedly shown evidence of throughout this thread. Protesters? Crazy. Climate change? Also crazy.

I hope you enjoyed this lesson in basic subtext, and I look forward to seeing its use in future posts of yours.


Not to beat a dead horse, but you just don't get it. Scientists do like symposiums.

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 12:18

Not to beat a dead horse, but neither do you. Scientists also like publishing papers, doing research, and having grant funding, none of which are going to continue if we don't do something about it.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 12:19

I think the solution is obvious?

aga - 25-1-2017 at 12:20

'Protests' and other public displays are pretty much pointless.

They only help to satisfy the egos of those doing the Protesting, dissipating their energies.

Anyone participating will always have the excuse (for not doing anything else) "at least i tried to do something" no matter how much their trivial efforts were ignored.

This is why marches and protests are allowed.

Anyone Serious about making any kind of Political change will devote the time, effort and money to getting 'inside' the system they want to change, as that is the best place to change it from.

e.g. You become President.

This tends not to happen much as it requires long term concentration and effort, whereas shouting a lot is much quicker, easier, and an option available to everyone.

Marching around with banners, shouting slogans, getting into fights etc is great fun, but achieves nothing of any practical use.

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 12:21

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
'Protests' and other public displays are pretty much pointless.

They only help to satisfy the egos of those doing the Protesting, dissipating their energies.

Anyone participating will always have the excuse (for not doing anything else) "at least i tried to do something" no matter how much their trivial efforts were ignored.

This is why marches and protests are allowed.

Anyone Serious about making any kind of Political change will devote the time, effort and money to getting 'inside' the system they want to change, as that is the best place to change it from.

e.g. You become President.

This tends not to happen much as it requires long term concentration and effort, whereas shouting a lot is much quicker, easier, and an option available to everyone.

Marching around with banners, shouting slogans, getting into fights etc is great fun, but achieves nothing of any practical use.


Except... it has? Historically? Every single time? Please provide evidence for this claim of yours about 'getting inside the system'. I've yet to hear about people who've done that, but I've heard plenty about Martin Luther King, George Washington, Malcom X, Rosa Parks, and hundreds and hundreds of others who didn't 'get inside the system' to win.

aga - 25-1-2017 at 12:27

Trump ?

Edit:

Not being American i can't focus on US-only events.

Tiananmen Square rings a bell.

Will need some research time to find all the thousands of failed US protests, as 'Every-single-time' sounds unlikely.

If there are some facts, i will gladly be corrected on that.

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by aga]

elementcollector1 - 25-1-2017 at 12:28

Trump 'got inside the system' because he appealed to the common masses, who were, in a sense, 'protesting' against PC culture. This is a major victory for his side, but a rare one - nobody seriously expected a man so obviously unqualified to win the Presidency. He's the exception, not the rule.

EDIT: Alright, granted 'every single time' is an exaggeration. How about this: Every time a major victory was won in human rights, it was done so through protesting. Black and female suffrage, the abolition of slavery, same-sex marriage, freedom of speech/arms/etc. all support this historically.

[Edited on 1-25-2017 by elementcollector1]

Corrosive Joeseph - 25-1-2017 at 12:45



Popcorn.jpg - 5kB

Texium - 25-1-2017 at 12:49

This thread is not going to Detritus because although it is political in nature, it is discussing a topic that directly pertains to science. All I ask is that if you wish to continue discussing the philosophy of protesting in general, from this point on, move it to U2U, because it's only getting in the way here. This post was going to be about 4 times longer but I decided not to add anymore fuel to the fire.

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 12:57

In this case, there is not time to 'get inside the system'.
There are plenty of people 'inside the system', that are
against the elimination of science. Protests are designed
to sway the 'insiders' that don't care one way or the other
to support a cause. Organized protests have achieved a
lot of victories. They won't win every fight but saying
they don't work at all is obviously untrue. Absolutes
are almost never true unless they involve laws of nature.

But lets get this back on track.
This thread was supposed to be informative in nature
not an argument about climate change or rather
protesting is effective. Talking to a congress person
or senator is obviously more effective. But in this
case both of my senators and my congress woman
are already on the science side.

The EPA and HHS gag orders have not been lifted just
the USDA. An unknown number of other agencies are
also impacted.

Texium - 25-1-2017 at 13:21

macckone, do you know what happened to the Facebook page? One of the links no longer works, and the other says that the protest has been canceled.

Edit: all off-topic posts will be swiftly pruned.

[Edited on 1-25-2017 by zts16]

aga - 25-1-2017 at 13:40

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Edit: all off-topic posts will be swiftly pruned.

The topic is Political.

Texium - 25-1-2017 at 13:59

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Edit: all off-topic posts will be swiftly pruned.

The topic is Political.
The topic pertains directly to science. You have no horse in this race aga, so if you're not going to be supportive, you can leave.

aga - 25-1-2017 at 14:00

Ok.

macckone - 25-1-2017 at 14:47

This is the latest I have, this is being organized by grad
students so it is a little chaotic:

There is more discussion going on about the date.
The March 4th date was cancelled but may be revived.

There is a closed facebook page and a public:
https://www.facebook.com/marchforscience

There is a twitter account providing updates.
https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC

As well as a subreddit thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchForScience/

Latest news article:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/316023-scientists-are-pl...

Texium - 25-1-2017 at 15:32

Great, all of those links are very helpful. I was also able to find a group that is trying to form a sister march in Austin, so I'm getting involved with that. More than 100 members currently and it was just created an hour ago. I hope to see it keep growing at a faster rate in the coming weeks and not burn out.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 15:46

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Great, all of those links are very helpful. I was also able to find a group that is trying to form a sister march in Austin, so I'm getting involved with that. More than 100 members currently and it was just created an hour ago. I hope to see it keep growing at a faster rate in the coming weeks and not burn out.


I see there's not one in my city... yet.. :D

I'm not incredibly sure about the national organizers' agenda, but I wouldn't mind having a nice little parade for science.


[Edited on 26-1-2017 by JJay]

j_sum1 - 25-1-2017 at 16:22

Ironically (in this context), there is a bit of a science to staging an effective protest. Some peaceful protests achieve their goals. Some do not. (And the same can be said for non-peaceful protests.) This is something that came up in the long-detritussed RTBA thread. There have been a number of published studies on effecting change and I seem to recall a TED talk a couple of years ago.

Going from recollection, an effective protest captures the public imagination in a particular way. There is an identifiable personality that people rally behind and that person comes across with charisma. There is a simple and clearly articulated goal; often with a slogan or symbol. There is a 2% public engagement threshold. And probably other factors as well. Disappointingly, truth and justice seldom come into it. (For example the extremely powerful public rallies in pre-WWII Germany.)

Change does come through other mechanisms as well as protests.

The bottom line is that if you really want to institute change in society, it pays to be a bit strategic. I'll reserve judgement on the probable efficacy of a protest in this case but I do believe the cause is worthwhile.

m1tanker78 - 25-1-2017 at 18:45

Taxpayer perspective: According to the EPA's website, the agency's yearly budget is around eight billion dollars. I can't even imagine all the squandering that takes place with such a big chunk of change. Eight bills will grease a LOT of political skids. Just a hunch, most proponents of protests and reversing the new administration's clamp-downs are probably not taxpayers (yet?).

Science enthusiast perspective: Why not redirect the hots for protesting energy toward petitioning the new administration to relax some of the regulatory mayhem that makes it difficult to be an amateur chemist at times?

Citizen perspective: The proposed protests may actually raise more public awareness of the mess that is the EPA as well as other agencies. Science and politics should be immiscible by their very nature lest one should corrupt the other.

I don't mean to come off as condescending or abrasive. When I was a kid, I remember watching on TV what seemed to be everyone protesting everything in Mexico(!). Things don't look so good over there today.

JJay - 25-1-2017 at 18:55

Hey, I'm just saying - if the EPA wants to pay my way to a symposium, they can have a parade in my city, no problem. I won't obstruct it or anything.

No one is suggesting that the EPA should be utterly, completely and permanently abolished, have its doors shuttered, and have its proponents cast out of the scientific community in disgrace as frauds and charlatans. Not in my city, anyway.

Chemetix - 26-1-2017 at 14:00

Noticed there is a #resistance on twitter from numerous U.S. agencies going 'rogue'. People can be entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
Kellyanne Conway's '...alternative facts.' speech should be taken for what it means...lying! And we should be as concerned as we were meant to be concerned after reading Orwell's portentious 1984, from where the phrase came from originally.

If Truth Justice and the American way means anything anymore then you guys should be more defensive than ever about it.

And if this sounds like meddling from a foreigner in American affairs; well I'll be less concerned when the price of my commodities remains unchanged after legislation is passed in Washington or someone farts on Wall St. What happens in the States affects us in the English speaking West, and trends like electing populist conservative ideologies can spread here too. Science is something that should remain thought of as a pinnacle of human endeavours, it should be defended by our elected representatives, not gagged for being an inconvenient obstacle to profit. Don't let this trend continue, otherwise we all suffer. Science and knowledge can not be corroded by opinion or politics.

Mods- this might be a topic that sounds a bit off centre from what amateur science does; but these are dark times we are entering. You can forget about Mars terraforming if science becomes a puppet of politics and popular opinion.

Maroboduus - 26-1-2017 at 14:15

Quote: Originally posted by Chemetix  


If Truth Justice and the American way means anything anymore then you guys should be more defensive than ever about it.

And if this sounds like meddling from a foreigner in American affairs; well I'll be less concerned when the price of my commodities remains unchanged after legislation is passed in Washington or someone farts on Wall St. What happens in the States affects us in the English speaking West, and trends like electing populist conservative ideologies can spread here too. Science is something that should remain thought of as a pinnacle of human endeavours, it should be defended by our elected representatives, not gagged for being an inconvenient obstacle to profit. Don't let this trend continue, otherwise we all suffer. Science and knowledge can not be corroded by opinion or politics.


I encourage all you foreigners to complain long and loudly. Freeing the slaves, civil rights, and gay marriage were all accelerated by the attitudes and practices of others.

mnick12 - 26-1-2017 at 22:09

Frankly,

Publicly funded science, is for the most part, one big circle jerk.

They heyday of science, especially chemistry, has been through private funding.

I am not saying public funding is bad, because I as a chemist reap its rewards. However, the idea that science is under attack is neither novel nor realistic. -Its a hyperbolic statement used as talking points for politically motivated groups.

jamit - 27-1-2017 at 07:18

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
The new US administration has declared war on science.
Soon all US science may either be corporate or amateur.
No news, data or papers may be published by a number of
Federal agencies including epa, hhs, and usda.
I expect additional agencies will follow.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G

If this is too political please move it to detrius.
But I think this is of major concern to scientist everywhere.

A march for science is being organized.

http://www.scientistsmarchonwashington.com/2017/01/what-is-s...

[Edited on 25-1-2017 by macckone]


The new administration is not against science but against EPA department that is in bed with the Democratic Party. This is not a place for politics! Let's stick to the science as this forum is intended. If you want to go to the protest do so but don't tell me that those who disagree with your liberal politics is against science. I am sick of liberals thinking that they have a monopoly on science and to shut others who think and believe differently. If you disagree with climate science does that make you a bigot or "against" science? There is such intolerance among the liberals against anyone who disagree with their view. Much of the scientific establishment are controlled by radical crazy liberals and most, say 99% of them belong to the Democratic Party.

Edit: fixed quote formatting

[Edited on 1-27-2017 by zts16]

Texium - 27-1-2017 at 08:29

Alright jamit, you're entitled to your opinion. We're not going to make you march. But it's ok to have a thread here to help get information to people who do want to, since it is a science related subject.

[Edited on 1-27-2017 by zts16]

Metacelsus - 1-2-2017 at 20:34

In other news, the date of the March for Science has been set for Saturday, April 22: https://www.marchforscience.com/

Whatever your political views, I think that you can agree that public policy needs to be based on science and supportive of scientists. (The march is explicitly nonpartisan in its mission.)

Too bad I'll be inundated with coursework, and studying for finals.

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by Metacelsus]

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 02:30

The EPA doesn't make life any easier for chemists, but their regulations really don't directly affect hobbyists all that much aside from making chemicals more expensive or harder to obtain. There's a decided political agenda afoot here, though. There's no discussing the merits of EPA policies or, you know, the continuation of them. Rather, opposition to the EPA is branded "unscientific" without further debate. Stories at CNN that aren't particularly favorable to proponents of the EPA agenda are now "fake news." And of course, a democratically elected government is "fascism," according to some propaganda.

I don't mean to suggest that I think that Trump is my #1 choice for the leader of the free world. The problem here is that some EPA scientists will probably get fired, and it's because they've been pushing a political agenda rather than doing their jobs. That means that in some families, the cruise to Maui this year will get cut a few days short. Little Suzie won't get her Escalade for her 16th birthday, and Joseph might have to take out some college loans to pay for a private education. But it should be recognized that this is thinly-veiled partisan politics meant to put money in the hands of a few.

While I've never had any serious problems with them, I've had to deal with EPA inspectors in the workplace on multiple occasions. Most of them are not exactly people you'd invite to your birthday party. Some of them treat people like garbage and will dock points on your inspection due to things that have absolutely nothing to do with the environment--just to show who's boss. One time, an inspector complained about the appearance of a potted plant, docked a point for it, and made suggestions for remediation. I know people who've lost their jobs over things like $50,000 fines for water runoff from a parking lot at a rented facility or washing a couple of cars without an oil water separator. Personally, I think firing a few EPA officials might be a good thing.

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 07:05

JJay, it sounds like you've had some experiences with a couple bad apples from the EPA. Suggesting that you burn the whole thing to the ground because some asshole who worked for the EPA fined you for a sad potted plant is like saying we should eliminate law enforcement because one time a cop ticketed you for going five over in a speed trap. Although some EPA regulations may be unnecessary, many are incredibly important in making sure that large corporations don't cut corners to save money at the cost of the environment. Get rid of the EPA and before long we'll be as polluted as China. If the air and water quality deteriorated significantly, I'd consider leaving the country.

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 07:13

I've never been fined by the EPA, zts16.

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 07:17

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
I've never been fined by the EPA, zts16.
That's beside the point, which you seem to be missing.

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 07:27

Your "point" is that the EPA is necessary due to some regulations which you haven't specified? You're using cuss words and trying to be intimidating. You're insinuating that I'm somehow disreputable. C'mon, man. If you want to talk about the science behind it, that's one thing, but this is nothing but politics and personality. There is no point.

Oh and FYI, the inspector's suggestion for remediation was to cut out the grass growing in the pot around the plant. Seriously. She gets a government paycheck.



[Edited on 2-2-2017 by JJay]

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 07:41

Using cuss words and trying to be intimidating? Please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by zts16]

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 08:02

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Using cuss words and trying to be intimidating? Please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by zts16]


Ok... I'm skeptical of the explanation given for the ozone hole.

One paper cited by that page is this one:

https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Documents/O3_Assessments/Docs/...

If you look at the models on page Q.65, there's clearly autocorrelation not reflected by their models. In other words, their models are simply garbage. That kind of stuff wouldn't survive peer review... not in a decent journal, anyway.

I understand that the kind of people who work at organizations like the EPA aren't necessarily big fans of hard sciences, but this is published by NASA. It's hardly an unbiased review of the history and science behind the ozone hole, and it has very obvious and definite weaknesses.





[Edited on 2-2-2017 by JJay]

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 08:18

I don't know enough about that particular topic to tell whether or not you're right, but it looks to me like you're cherry-picking one possibly shady reference on a page with 56 references in an attempt to invalidate the whole thing?

Also, "I understand that the kind of people who work at the EPA aren't necessarily big fans of hard sciences..." is a gross generalization. Really makes it sound like you're still butthurt about the potted plant.

mayko - 2-2-2017 at 08:19

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

Ok... I'm skeptical of the explanation given for the ozone hole.

One paper cited by that page is this one:

https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Documents/O3_Assessments/Docs/...

If you look at the models on page Q.65, there's clearly autocorrelation not reflected by their models. In other words, their models are simply garbage. That kind of stuff wouldn't survive peer review... not in a decent journal, anyway.


Can you be more specific about :
* How you know the details of the model design?
* How a flawed model of future atmospheric evolution undermines the (largely non-computational) understanding of ozone depletion?

Rosco Bodine - 2-2-2017 at 08:29

What is occurring now to my postings is malicious deletion censorship that has no legitimate basis.

I posted a link supported reply to another board member, to fact check erroneous statements made by them, including a misattribution to a well known author, and violated no forum rules. Then I was immediately personally attacked by another member to whom I was not even replying, followed by two moderators who themselves breached the rules by insulting me, and rather than delete the offensive posts that did violate the board rules, the entire exchange was sent to detritus.

[Edited on 2/2/2017 by Rosco Bodine]

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 08:41

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
What is occurring now to my postings is malicious deletion censorship that has no legitimate basis.
It does have legitimate basis, being as your postings are purely demented, inflammatory propaganda that has no place here. If you want to join JJay in questioning the necessity of the EPA or the March for Science without invoking "CULTURAL MARXISM" or "FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA" then by all means do. If not, please go away.

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 08:42

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

Ok... I'm skeptical of the explanation given for the ozone hole.

One paper cited by that page is this one:

https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Documents/O3_Assessments/Docs/...

If you look at the models on page Q.65, there's clearly autocorrelation not reflected by their models. In other words, their models are simply garbage. That kind of stuff wouldn't survive peer review... not in a decent journal, anyway.


Can you be more specific about :
* How you know the details of the model design?
* How a flawed model of future atmospheric evolution undermines the (largely non-computational) understanding of ozone depletion?


They didn't put the details of their model design in their paper, but the flaws are obvious. They should be willing to share their data and details of their methodology. I would hope they would at least have good data; if we can't trust the data... we have to be able to trust the data.

Non-computational? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the hole in the ozone layer (or a rocket scientist). I mean... I don't know... maybe CFCs really are a problem. Or maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't put any stock in the projections in that paper.



Rosco Bodine - 2-2-2017 at 08:50

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
What is occurring now to my postings is malicious deletion censorship that has no legitimate basis.
It does have legitimate basis, being as your postings are purely demented, inflammatory propaganda that has no place here. If you want to join JJay in questioning the necessity of the EPA or the March for Science without invoking "CULTURAL MARXISM" or "FAKE NEWS PROPAGANDA" then by all means do. If not, please go away.


The threshhold for what is regarded as "inflammatory propaganda" is an event horizon that exists at the boundary for the safe zone claimed by any and every "precious snowflake" who takes offense at any truth absent a sugar coating or complete denial provided by what they believe is political correctness.

Now i challenged such "scientific masterminds" to join the discussion of a structural anomaly in the DDNP thread...and that challenge was deleted also ....no doubt because that is where the rubber meets the road and this little mind game ends.

jamit - 2-2-2017 at 08:55

Quote: Originally posted by Metacelsus  
In other news, the date of the March for Science has been set for Saturday, April 22: https://www.marchforscience.com/

Whatever your political views, I think that you can agree that public policy needs to be based on science and supportive of scientists. (The march is explicitly nonpartisan in its mission.)

Too bad I'll be inundated with coursework, and studying for finals.

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by Metacelsus]


Metacelsus, you should go and look at the guys on the board for the science march. They are all democrats or/and independent (with liberal leanings). This forum began with "science in danger". there is no danger to science because of what Trump did. The scientific community has been "hijaccked" by the secular liberals and anyone who disagrees with them are demonized. You are free to march, but the people who run these organization are partisan and have a hidden agenda. Believe me, if I spoke up like this in my science class I would be demonized. In fact that's what happened in one of my classes... professor and students who disagree with me called me anti-science. You have no idea what people on the other side face, do you?

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 09:08

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
I don't know enough about that particular topic to tell whether or not you're right, but it looks to me like you're cherry-picking one possibly shady reference on a page with 56 references in an attempt to invalidate the whole thing?

Also, "I understand that the kind of people who work at the EPA aren't necessarily big fans of hard sciences..." is a gross generalization. Really makes it sound like you're still butthurt about the potted plant.


I didn't really have time to cherry pick.

Butthurt? Pfft... I thought it was funny at the time, but I don't think the majority of taxpayers would support her position given a choice. She might have been butthurt that I didn't accept her LinkedIn request... IDK.

mayko - 2-2-2017 at 09:09

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

They didn't put the details of their model design in their paper,


Then on what possible basis do you claim that they accounted for autocorrelation improperly?
Quote:
but the flaws are obvious.


Maybe it's obvious to the mentally healthy such as yourself, but remember, I'm !!!craaaAAAAAAaaaaaAAAaaazy!!!, and so are others on this board. Please, walk through it in baby steps so I can wrap my silly li'l head around it.

Quote:
Non-computational? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the hole in the ozone layer (or a rocket scientist). I mean... I don't know... maybe CFCs really are a problem. Or maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't put any stock in the projections in that paper.


There are plenty of computational studies on ozone scenarios which have passed peer review, so clinging to this particular figure in a policymaker's summary in a single report comes off as somewhat desperate. Here's an especially stark example:

Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., & Marsh, D. R. (2012). “World avoided” simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D23), D23303. http://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018430

The original research on the subject was done without the benefit of modern supercomputer clusters or GCMs. It not only passed peer review, but won the 1995 Nobel prize.


Rosco Bodine - 2-2-2017 at 09:10

Public policy is established by well considered constitutional law, the primary aim of which is to preserve the republic that protects the liberty, property, welfare and security generally of the citizens. Certainly science is one of the important things considered but it would be incorrect to say that the basis for public policy necessarily needs to be only science. That would be like saying the basis for agriculture needs to be growing corn for ethanol blended gasoline, and never mind that people and animals need also to eat. Earth Day is something like a pagan "holy day" for a false "new age" religion that is a cult worship of environmentalism, with a disproportionate minimal emphasis on feasibility and economic practicality and engineering ....where it seems rational actors are not found in abundance, but radicals and activists who are experts at nothing but making demands are plentiful.

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 09:27

Quote: Originally posted by mayko  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

They didn't put the details of their model design in their paper,


Then on what possible basis do you claim that they accounted for autocorrelation improperly?
Quote:
but the flaws are obvious.


Maybe it's obvious to the mentally healthy such as yourself, but remember, I'm !!!craaaAAAAAAaaaaaAAAaaazy!!!, and so are others on this board. Please, walk through it in baby steps so I can wrap my silly li'l head around it.

Quote:
Non-computational? I'm not claiming to be an expert on the hole in the ozone layer (or a rocket scientist). I mean... I don't know... maybe CFCs really are a problem. Or maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't put any stock in the projections in that paper.


There are plenty of computational studies on ozone scenarios which have passed peer review, so clinging to this particular figure in a policymaker's summary in a single report comes off as somewhat desperate. Here's an especially stark example:

Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., & Marsh, D. R. (2012). “World avoided” simulations with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(D23), D23303. http://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018430

The original research on the subject was done without the benefit of modern supercomputer clusters or GCMs. It not only passed peer review, but won the 1995 Nobel prize.




Well, which research was government funded?

Implying that I'm "desperate" is a disreputable tactic that really doesn't help your argument. I don't have a horse in this game, but don't mistake my moderate persuasion for lack of principle. You should have better manners, especially if you need me to explain a basic statistical concept like autocorrelation.

That's not exactly a great paper. They took a model developed by someone else and compared simulations run on it to other simulations run on it. That's not science.

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by JJay]

mayko - 2-2-2017 at 09:49

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  

Well, which research was government funded?


Both were.
Quote:
especially if you need me to explain a basic statistical concept like autocorrelation.


I understand the concept of autocorrelation; thanks for asking. What I don't understand is why you think the mere existence of autocorrelation* is some sort of deal-killer for modeling and analysis. If it were, what would be the point of developing autocorrelation functions like ARMA(n)?

Your claim, if you will recall, is that the model in question did not account for autocorrelation adequately. Support it or retract it.

Quote:

That's not exactly a great paper. They took a model developed by someone else and compared simulations run on it to other simulations run on it. That's not science.


Yes it is, and this is nothing more than goal-post moving from your original claim of unpublishability.


*Since you're whinging about the base data being unavailable, I have to wonder: how do you know there's substantial autocorrelation? Just by looking at the graph? The Eyeball Test is not a valid statistical method! I only let you slide here because most geophysical and geochemical data show autocorrelation to some degree.

JJay - 2-2-2017 at 09:50

Umm.. I never said the data isn't available. If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, kindly just fuck off.

I'm aware that models that model autocorrelation exist. They should have used one of those models. If you can't see that they didn't, you don't have the intellectual capacity to debate this topic.

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by JJay]

Brom - 2-2-2017 at 09:59

The deletion of Rosco's posts speaks volumes of how liberals don't like open discussion but would like to silence all opposition. Besides saying that I am going to refrain from partaking in these topics as I don't see them accomplishing anything but dividing us who have the shared interest in chemistry.

elementcollector1 - 2-2-2017 at 10:56

Quote: Originally posted by Brom  
The deletion of Rosco's posts speaks volumes of how liberals don't like open discussion but would like to silence all opposition. Besides saying that I am going to refrain from partaking in these topics as I don't see them accomplishing anything but dividing us who have the shared interest in chemistry.


Quote:
I am not going to even waste my time answering point by point your absolute garbage.
- Rosco Bodine, 2017.

Ah yes, what an open and two-sided discussion from the conservative side of things.

Anyway, I would like to remind everyone that all science is affected by social politics. Sixty years ago, everyone was hopping on the bandwagon that sterilization and possibly even euthanization of all those with diseases or undesirable genetic traits was 'scientifc,' with papers to back it up. This neither validates nor invalidates any argument posed thus far, but it is a point to consider when saying science 'has an agenda.'

[Edited on 2/2/2017 by elementcollector1]

Rosco Bodine - 2-2-2017 at 11:20

Visit the DDNP thread and prove what a scientific master mind you are or STFU.

Texium - 2-2-2017 at 11:26

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, kindly just fuck off.
Oh my heavens, who's using cuss words and trying to be intimidating now?

Edit: Clearly this is a dead end thread. I don't have time to continually split and prune it. The only feasible option, unfortunately, is to close it.

[Edited on 2-2-2017 by zts16]