- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump mandates all EPA data to be reviewed prior to release
Posted on 1/25/17 at 8:44 pm to LosLobos111
Posted on 1/25/17 at 8:44 pm to LosLobos111
quote:
Has this been posted? quote:Doug Ericksen clarified his earlier statements to The Associated Press, which reported that the Trump administration was mandating that any studies or data from EPA scientists undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public. He says he was speaking about existing scientific information on the EPA website that is under review by members of the Trump administration's transition team. He says new work by the agency's scientists is subject to the same "temporary hold" as other kinds of public releases, which he said would likely be lifted by Friday. He says there is no mandate to subject studies or data to political review.
No it hasn't but what does that even mean?
2
Posted on 1/25/17 at 10:11 pm to Canard Noir
It means this entire discussion is fake news.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 10:31 pm to Permit
quote:
I have a friend who is a NASA weather scientist and says EPA suppresses different ideas and opinions with money, jobs, and threats.
No you don't, you have a friend that does nothing of the sort. Stop pretending some odd conversation with someone that checks weather station info is your inside information to a global conspiracy. You are the problem. not the solution.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 10:42 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
It means this entire discussion is fake news.
It doesn't mean that at all. It means that everyone who doesn't believe what Trump says is, "insta-real." I'm sorry there's more to it than that but there is. Can I take credit for the term Alternative Trumpkin? I want to believe you all heard it here first but I'm sure someone beat me to it. One can hope, right?
Posted on 1/25/17 at 10:48 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
It means this entire discussion is fake news.
According to you? Solid info...
Posted on 1/25/17 at 10:49 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
That seems stupid.
Far beyond stupid...actually frightening. Politicians can decide what research to fund, but it should be hands off when it comes to hypothesis testing and publication.
Posted on 1/25/17 at 11:03 pm to Canard Noir
quote:
He says he was speaking about existing scientific information on the EPA website that is under review by members of the Trump administration's transition team. He says new work by the agency's scientists is subject to the same "temporary hold" as other kinds of public releases, which he said would likely be lifted by Friday. He says there is no mandate to subject studies or data to political review.
First of all, as someone with a science background, Im not sure how it would even be possible to politically review any scientific paper. A lot of published papers can be hard to read and understand if you don't have the background to understand the data and conclusions you are being presented when you read a paper. The only way any of this story and this thread makes sense to me is from the standpoint of reviewing data to determine if some EPA studies have actual scientific merit or if they are studies that don't really have a true scientific value but rather drive a political agenda. All published scientific studies should be read with a bit of skepticism. It's what helps weed out good science from bad.
The other thing I'm curious about is what kind of review process do typical EPA studies undergo before the results are released. Typically when studies are published in journals or magazines, they undergo a serious review by editors beforehand and if data for instance is missing or there are questions about the study it won't get published. Even after publishing, other scientist who happen to read the study can become skeptics and call into question the veracity of the study's claims.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 6:58 am to bmy
quote:
Does this make sense to you?
"All code written by Trump cybersecurity analysts must be reviewed by political staff before being compiled."
Exactly.
Too many people read a short article online and suddenly think they're qualified to peer review the work of a theoretical physicist.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:01 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Independent scientists can test and comment.
With all that money they're not going to have because grants have been halted?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:05 am to joshnorris14
So many scientific studies are crap these days. They come to no conclusions and just seem released to make the writers feel good about their work and to help them get money for more research.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:17 am to skrayper
quote:
With all that money they're not going to have because grants have been halted?
Here is the thing with grants. They are highly political. Having talked at great length to a number of research professors, there is a lot of pressure on them to secure grants. The schools that employ them want to know how much grant money they are bringing in and naturally they want to make sure it increases each year. The other side of the coin comes from who is doling out the grant money. There has been a big push from the govt for environmental research, hence that's where the money is so to speak that these universities want their researchers bringing in. The result is that some legitimate research in terms of medicine and health gets shelved in favor of more environmental research because grant money isnt available. It's been reallocated to fund climate change research.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:20 am to lsu13lsu
quote:
They come to no conclusions and just seem released to make the writers feel good about their work and to help them get money for more research.
Thats the nature of the beast. If you get a grant to research or investigate something and you conclude everything is good, you get no more funding. However if you conclude that it looks good but more research is needed to be positive, the grant money keeps flowing. There is no incintive to reach definite conclusions.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:29 am to islandtiger
It is not stupid at all. There should be nobody better at identifying propaganda and political statements than politicians. If the reports stick to the data, the reviewers won't have a clue what to remove and it will be fine.
Science should always have an open mind about reviewing processes. Alternative viewpoints from non-scientists have led to many many scientific breakthroughs. more eyes is always better.
Science should always have an open mind about reviewing processes. Alternative viewpoints from non-scientists have led to many many scientific breakthroughs. more eyes is always better.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:39 am to skrayper
quote:
With all that money they're not going to have because grants have been halted?
This is a fun experience. In the last couple of days we've discovered that without the federal government we can't have art or science.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:43 am to TheJacer
quote:
This is a fun experience. In the last couple of days we've discovered that without the federal government we can't have art or science.
1. I never said that or implied that.
2. The fact is that scientific research tends to cost more than art
3. Know any corporations that will fund scientific studies to determine the potability of local water sources?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 8:56 am to Mudminnow
Agree. A dangerous little man.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:00 am to notsince98
You typically get more eyes at the peer review stage after publishing.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:05 am to MSMHater
quote:
And the executive branch is who we want interpreting scientific data?
Do you know anyone named Al Gore?
Did he use his position to project a narrative?
How did you feel about that?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:08 am to Salmon
quote:
Would you have approved of Obama suppressing a report that refuted GW?
You actually think this didn't happen?
ALL reports refuting GW are suppressed.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:12 am to joshnorris14
The 37 upvotes to 27 downvotes ratio is a strong indication that about 60% of the posters here are deranged.
Seriously: The approval of censoring science to fit political narratives is North Kore level sycophancy. That is fricking insane.
Seriously: The approval of censoring science to fit political narratives is North Kore level sycophancy. That is fricking insane.
Page 15 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News