Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3  
Author: Subject: Science in danger - epa ordered to take down climate change page
Chemetix
National Hazard
****




Posts: 369
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Maroboduus
National Hazard
****




Posts: 257
Registered: 14-9-2016
Location: 26 Ancho Street
Member Is Offline

Mood: vacant

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mnick12
National Hazard
****




Posts: 404
Registered: 30-12-2009
Location: In the lab w/ Dr. Evil
Member Is Offline

Mood: devious

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jamit
National Hazard
****




Posts: 374
Registered: 18-6-2010
Location: Midwest USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 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]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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]




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2505
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 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]




As below, so above.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.





View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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.



Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
Thread Split
2-2-2017 at 07:07
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-2-2017 at 07:13


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



View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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.



Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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]




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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.




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1143
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)

[*] posted on 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?




al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
Thread Pruned
2-2-2017 at 08:19
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 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]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium
Administrator
********




Posts: 3881
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline

Mood: Triturated

[*] posted on 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.



Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
They're not really active right now, but here's my YouTube channel and my blog.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.







View user's profile View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
jamit
National Hazard
****




Posts: 374
Registered: 18-6-2010
Location: Midwest USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 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?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1143
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)

[*] posted on 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.






al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Rosco Bodine
Banned





Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: analytical

[*] posted on 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.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 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]




View user's profile View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1143
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)

[*] posted on 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.




al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3  

  Go To Top