Republican war on science

Micawber

Verified User
A disturbing pattern has emerged in Washington: Facts and the pursuit of facts don’t matter.

Actually, it’s worse: Facts and science are being attacked because they matter a lot. And this attack is using a well-honed strategy.

First, the White House follows the “Merchants of Doubt” playbook to discredit well-established scientific findings. When you can’t win a debate with facts, it’s easier to cast doubt and interject confusion into the conversation, as was done to mislead the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke and acid rain. So it’s not surprising that President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt frequently use words to suggest that climate change might not be real, routinely saying “we’re not sure,” despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The goal here isn’t to discover the truth, but to muddy the waters, and delay action as long as possible.

Then there are efforts to muzzle scientists. We have seen how multiple agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA, have ordered their scientists to stop speaking to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention canceled a long-planned conference on the health impacts of climate change. And when the Badlands National Park used its Twitter account to discuss the issue of climate change — as any nature center or park might do — the tweets immediately were deleted. Then the EPA suspended grants and contracts, and ordered the review of all scientific work by political appointees.

In late March, the U.S. Department of Energy directed staff to stop using the term “climate change.”

Now the Trump administration is using a sure-fire way to squelch inconvenient science: cut the resources it needs. The White House has proposed enormous funding cuts to federal science programs, especially those focusing on the environment, renewable energy and climate change — with wholesale elimination of crucial programs at the EPA, Department of Energy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the funding cuts didn’t stop there: The Trump administration also has proposed cuts to popular programs at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

It’s only been three months since Trump took office, but it’s clear that scientists are losing this war. And losing badly. We need help — the help of our fellow Americans.

Why should Americans care about science, especially when so many other issues compete for our time and attention?

Simply: Science is crucial to America.

Science powers the economy and creates millions of jobs. It creates medicines. It keeps us safe from toxins and disasters. And it fills us with a sense of awe and wonder — and hope for the future.

Our future depends on science. While science isn’t perfect, it can help lift us, improve the human condition and build a better world. And science serves all Americans, not just Democrats or just Republicans.

Let me be clear: This isn’t a partisan issue. Scientists aren’t — and shouldn’t be — worried about which political party is in power. It rarely has mattered: There is a long tradition of bipartisan support for science and a fact-based world view. Until now.

So how can we work together, as a unified country, to embrace science again, to solve the challenges of our time, and to thrive?

We need to share a bold, inclusive vision about the future to which all Americans can relate. Scientists won’t win friends by complaining about funding levels or the increasing pressure on scientists. Instead, we must show Americans how science advances our health, safety and prosperity, making us the leader of the world.

We need to channel John F. Kennedy: Don’t ask what Americans can do for science; ask instead what science can do for America.

And, in return, I hope our fellow citizens will stand up for science.

It’s time for all of us to show our support for science and for high-quality, independent research that serves our country and builds a better future. Whether we contact our elected representatives, attend the March for Science (whether in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., or hundreds of other cities across the nation) on April 22, or simply voice our support for science to our friends and neighbors, we need to speak out.

Most of the scientists I know have dedicated their lives to helping their fellow citizens — keeping us safe, protecting our planet, discovering wonders that power our economy, and pushing the frontiers of medicine. Now it’s time that we have their backs.

Jonathan Foley, an environmental scientist, is the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...ience-is-war-on-America-s-future-11072596.php

:palm:Trump
 
Now the Trump administration is using a sure-fire way to squelch inconvenient science: cut the resources it needs. The White House has proposed enormous funding cuts to federal science programs, especially those focusing on the environment, renewable energy and climate change — with wholesale elimination of crucial programs at the EPA, Department of Energy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the funding cuts didn’t stop there: The Trump administration also has proposed cuts to popular programs at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
typical reaction to the Obama over-reach of EPA powers. We never strike a balance-although i'd have to see more then generalized statement

Then there are efforts to muzzle scientists. We have seen how multiple agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA, have ordered their scientists to stop speaking to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention canceled a long-planned conference on the health impacts of climate change. And when the Badlands National Park used its Twitter account to discuss the issue of climate change — as any nature center or park might do — the tweets immediately were deleted. Then the EPA suspended grants and contracts, and ordered the review of all scientific work by political appointees.
they were putting out contravening policy statements from POTUS positions
 
typical reaction to the Obama over-reach of EPA powers. We never strike a balance-although i'd have to see more then generalized statement

they were putting out contravening policy statements from POTUS positions

Why do you hate science? Do you believe an all market based science is a good idea? You need someone above the board looking down to have quality science. Otherwise you get studies by the egg counsel promoting eggs. Kelly Ann Conjob thinking by you, anatta.
 
Why do you hate science? Do you believe an all market based science is a good idea? You need someone above the board looking down to have quality science. Otherwise you get studies by the egg counsel promoting eggs. Kelly Ann Conjob thinking by you, anatta.

Are eggs good for you or bad for you?
 
"Protecting a planet". Give me break. It's disposable. It's been disintegrating for ages. Quit trying to play God...he alone will destroy it when he's ready. It's a big money-making scheme and hoax.
 
"Protecting a planet". Give me break. It's disposable. It's been disintegrating for ages. Quit trying to play God...he alone will destroy it when he's ready. It's a big money-making scheme and hoax.

Now we have heard from the incredibly ignorant and greedy magic thinkers...
Fuck but these moronic assholes are stupid...
 
A disturbing pattern has emerged in Washington: Facts and the pursuit of facts don’t matter.

Actually, it’s worse: Facts and science are being attacked because they matter a lot. And this attack is using a well-honed strategy.

First, the White House follows the “Merchants of Doubt” playbook to discredit well-established scientific findings. When you can’t win a debate with facts, it’s easier to cast doubt and interject confusion into the conversation, as was done to mislead the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke and acid rain. So it’s not surprising that President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt frequently use words to suggest that climate change might not be real, routinely saying “we’re not sure,” despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The goal here isn’t to discover the truth, but to muddy the waters, and delay action as long as possible.

Then there are efforts to muzzle scientists. We have seen how multiple agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA, have ordered their scientists to stop speaking to the public. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention canceled a long-planned conference on the health impacts of climate change. And when the Badlands National Park used its Twitter account to discuss the issue of climate change — as any nature center or park might do — the tweets immediately were deleted. Then the EPA suspended grants and contracts, and ordered the review of all scientific work by political appointees.

In late March, the U.S. Department of Energy directed staff to stop using the term “climate change.”

Now the Trump administration is using a sure-fire way to squelch inconvenient science: cut the resources it needs. The White House has proposed enormous funding cuts to federal science programs, especially those focusing on the environment, renewable energy and climate change — with wholesale elimination of crucial programs at the EPA, Department of Energy and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the funding cuts didn’t stop there: The Trump administration also has proposed cuts to popular programs at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

It’s only been three months since Trump took office, but it’s clear that scientists are losing this war. And losing badly. We need help — the help of our fellow Americans.

Why should Americans care about science, especially when so many other issues compete for our time and attention?

Simply: Science is crucial to America.

Science powers the economy and creates millions of jobs. It creates medicines. It keeps us safe from toxins and disasters. And it fills us with a sense of awe and wonder — and hope for the future.

Our future depends on science. While science isn’t perfect, it can help lift us, improve the human condition and build a better world. And science serves all Americans, not just Democrats or just Republicans.

Let me be clear: This isn’t a partisan issue. Scientists aren’t — and shouldn’t be — worried about which political party is in power. It rarely has mattered: There is a long tradition of bipartisan support for science and a fact-based world view. Until now.

So how can we work together, as a unified country, to embrace science again, to solve the challenges of our time, and to thrive?

We need to share a bold, inclusive vision about the future to which all Americans can relate. Scientists won’t win friends by complaining about funding levels or the increasing pressure on scientists. Instead, we must show Americans how science advances our health, safety and prosperity, making us the leader of the world.

We need to channel John F. Kennedy: Don’t ask what Americans can do for science; ask instead what science can do for America.

And, in return, I hope our fellow citizens will stand up for science.

It’s time for all of us to show our support for science and for high-quality, independent research that serves our country and builds a better future. Whether we contact our elected representatives, attend the March for Science (whether in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., or hundreds of other cities across the nation) on April 22, or simply voice our support for science to our friends and neighbors, we need to speak out.

Most of the scientists I know have dedicated their lives to helping their fellow citizens — keeping us safe, protecting our planet, discovering wonders that power our economy, and pushing the frontiers of medicine. Now it’s time that we have their backs.

Jonathan Foley, an environmental scientist, is the executive director of the California Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...ience-is-war-on-America-s-future-11072596.php

:palm:Trump

Republican "war on science" is total bullshit, fake news by morons always crying 'wolf' .....

When did the government EVER claim that tobacco smoke was not a danger , or acid rain for that matter.
No one denies 'climate change'...the issue is what roll man plays in it.
There is no effort to 'muzzle' the EPA, the issue is giving the EPA the power to enact regulations on its own the have in fact, the power of enacting law.
As far as the term 'climate change' goes, its no different that Obama refusing anyone in his admin. to use the term 'Islamic terrorist'....
And its time to put a stop to wasteful spending through out the gov. when we face a 20 trillion debt...and I agree the money would be better spent on researching and finding cures for the things that are killing people right now and not on some problem that just might not even exist....
Claiming man can control the earths climate is total nonsense.....
 
687474703a2f2f6d656469612e6361676c652e636f6d2f38322f323031342f31312f31342f3135363238335f3630302e6a7067

687474703a2f2f7777772e647572616e676f62696c6c2e636f6d2f4777644c696172732f47776452657075626c6963616e536369656e63652e6a7067


687474703a2f2f696d672e68756d6f7273686172696e672e636f6d2f6d656469612f696d616765732f313230352f695f626573745f70696c69746963616c5f636172746f6f6e735f6f665f323031325f3030345f346662663838323561626630632e6a7067
 
Republican "war on science" is total bullshit, fake news by morons always crying 'wolf' .....

When did the government EVER claim that tobacco smoke was not a danger , or acid rain for that matter.
No one denies 'climate change'...the issue is what roll man plays in it.
There is no effort to 'muzzle' the EPA, the issue is giving the EPA the power to enact regulations on its own the have in fact, the power of enacting law.
As far as the term 'climate change' goes, its no different that Obama refusing anyone in his admin. to use the term 'Islamic terrorist'....
And its time to put a stop to wasteful spending through out the gov. when we face a 20 trillion debt...and I agree the money would be better spent on researching and finding cures for the things that are killing people right now and not on some problem that just might not even exist....
Claiming man can control the earths climate is total nonsense.....

What "roll" did human activity play in injecting trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere in less than a century?

Oh maybe it was goig to happen naturally anyway...
What a fucking stupid clown.
Poor Blabo
 
It is hilarious that liberals believe that we can destroy the erf

It is even more hilarious to believe that 1 degree increase in temperature will cause "cataclysmic events"

It makes zero logical sense, but they were told there is a "consensus" so like dutiful little lemmings they fall in line
 
Why do you hate science? Do you believe an all market based science is a good idea? You need someone above the board looking down to have quality science. Otherwise you get studies by the egg counsel promoting eggs. Kelly Ann Conjob thinking by you, anatta.

I hate federal over-reach. my main philosophy is federalism
 
Are eggs good for you or bad for you?

Mixed bag. If my reason was informed by an advertising model alone, I'd be of two diametrically opposing minds on the matter, the egg producers saying they are the ultimate low cholesterol health food and bagels and lochs counsel saying they cause imminent brain damage, vomiting and scurvy. That's no basis to form a reasoned opinion. You need good, unbiased information.
 
Mixed bag. If my reason was informed by an advertising model alone, I'd be of two diametrically opposing minds on the matter, the egg producers saying they are the ultimate low cholesterol health food and bagels and lochs counsel saying they cause imminent brain damage, vomiting and scurvy. That's no basis to form a reasoned opinion. You need good, unbiased information.

Or you could just not worry about it and realize that you are going to die anyway

Just enjoy your life

Or you can tear yourself up worrying that the cunt Hillary didn't win the White House
 
Back
Top