- 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 1/26/17 at 9:20 am to a want
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:20 am to a want
quote:
Seriously: The approval of censoring science to fit political narratives
The point being made is this is already happening and has been happening for decades. The EPA is a political operation.
There is nothing wrong with a regulatory agency being told what direction they are expected to commit their limited resources towards.
0
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:25 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
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 Universities want it to increase because they scoop a large amount off the top. For instance for a research grant coming in with 1/2 of the work being done in the lab and field LSU scoops 44% for overhead return use of buildings, laboratories, etc...The faculty do get a portion of that back in indirect returns years later.
The EPA funds the fish and fauna field and stream surveys around the country which occur every few years. They look for species present, how many, tissue samples of game fish are taken for mercury and other toxin analysis. I worked on several of those in the past. The EPA would have the money, sub contract it out to wildlife and fisheries or USGS which would then subcontract it out to Universities or private consultants. However, all sampling protocol must be followed exactly by EPA standards.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:29 am to a want
I don't think you really understand anything about the publishing and review process of scientific data. As I stated earlier, typically scientific studies undergo significant review prior to them being published by journals, magazines and the like. Who is reviewing the information of EPA studies prior to their release? If there is no independent review in place or very weak one, then that raises significant concerns about their data. No one should be publishing data, especially a govt agency if these standards aren't in place.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 9:30 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:29 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
You actually think this didn't happen?
ALL reports refuting GW are suppressed
Once again, are you ok with it?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:44 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:Here's one possible worst case scenario. They read the thesis, decide if it fits the story they're trying to tell, axe it if it doesn't.
First of all, as someone with a science background, Im not sure how it would even be possible to politically review any scientific paper
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:55 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Who is reviewing the information of EPA studies prior to their release? If there is no independent review in place or very weak one, then that raises significant concerns about their data.
The EPA published papers are peer reviewed, internally and externally.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 9:59 am to Mudminnow
quote:
and externally.
So, people outside the EPA would have the information and could easily release it, if the mean spooky government tries to bury awful environmental information to help greedy evil big business and destroy the environment?
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 10:02 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:11 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Not legally. You can't release someone's data without their permission, and if you claim it as your own it's simply plagiarism.
So, people outside the EPA would have the information and could easily release it
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:13 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
people outside the EPA would have the information and could easily release
No
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:17 am to Salmon
Tell me how that works, if I'm a scientist who has externally reviewed something from the EPA that appears would show something really bad and I find out that the EPA has been "ordered" not to release it or release it in some sort of altered form? What happens to me if I decide to go public with it?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:24 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Tell me how that works, if I'm a scientist who has externally reviewed something from the EPA that appears would show something really bad and I find out that the EPA has been "ordered" not to release it or release it in some sort of altered form? What happens to me if I decide to go public with it?
You'd be a whistleblower. How'd that work out for Snowden? They aren't exactly treated well.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 10:24 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:26 am to Y.A. Tittle
You don't think there would be legal consequences for releasing someone else's work, especially if the owner of the information has been mandated to not release it?
You are smarter than this.
You are smarter than this.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 10:27 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:27 am to bmy
quote:
You'd be a whistleblower. How'd that work out for Snowden? They aren't exactly treated well.
So you think EPA data is now being placed on the same level as state intelligence secrets? Are the independent scientist peer reviewers now going to be required to undergo top secret clearance to do so? And you're extrapolating all this from this one line press release (or whatever it is - it's not even exactly clear)?
The level of paranoia here is something.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:28 am to MSMHater
quote:
And the executive branch is who we want interpreting scientific data?
Well, if the agency is under the executive branch, yes
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:29 am to Salmon
quote:
Once again, are you ok with it?
I don't think the EPA should exist, so I don't care.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:31 am to Salmon
quote:
You don't think there would be legal consequences for releasing someone else's work, especially if the owner of the information has been mandated to not release it?
I think the political consequences of what you and it seems others are suggesting would vastly overshadow anything else. Why aren't you smart enough to see that?
I think you are. I just think you are too far down the rabbit hole of seeing some sort of boogeyman actors doing something you fear, to see there's no way to do it in a vacuum.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:34 am to Y.A. Tittle
What political consequences would Trump face? His supporters would support him denying the information. They agree with him. Just read this thread.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:37 am to Salmon
quote:
What political consequences would Trump face? His supporters would support him denying the information. They agree with him. Just read this thread.
Well, then, elections have consequences.
I honestly don't know what else to say, but if you really think the MAJORITY of Americans are perfectly cool with destroying the environment and that's one of the reasons they elected Donald Trump, I guess we have bigger problems than I imagine. Fortunately, I know that's not the case.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:43 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
the MAJORITY of Americans are perfectly cool with destroying the environment and that's one of the reasons they elected Donald Trump
A minority of the voters, which was a minority of the electorate, elected Donald Trump.
He's the only President in US history to receive a minority of votes in both the primary and the general and still be elected.
Just thought you should know that.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 10:50 am to Blizzard of Chizz
A Trump administration spokesman said Wednesday that political appointees will not be interfering with or filtering scientific communications at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Doug Ericksen, spokesman for the political team overseeing transition operations at the EPA on behalf of Trump, said it was “inaccurate” for The Associated Press to write in a story that all scientific studies and data coming from the EPA would undergo political reviews.
Ericksen said his comments to the AP were regarding officials’ ongoing review of the EPA’s website and communications mechanisms for potential changes under President Trump.
“It doesn’t mean everything that comes out of EPA is going to go through a filter of political appointees with degrees in communications. That’s not what’s going to happen,” Ericksen told The Hill.
Ericksen, who is a state lawmaker in Washington, said that some changes might come to how science and data come out of the EPA.
But those changes would be dictated by scientists, not political officials, he said, adding, “Any changes will be science-based.”
LINK
Doug Ericksen, spokesman for the political team overseeing transition operations at the EPA on behalf of Trump, said it was “inaccurate” for The Associated Press to write in a story that all scientific studies and data coming from the EPA would undergo political reviews.
Ericksen said his comments to the AP were regarding officials’ ongoing review of the EPA’s website and communications mechanisms for potential changes under President Trump.
“It doesn’t mean everything that comes out of EPA is going to go through a filter of political appointees with degrees in communications. That’s not what’s going to happen,” Ericksen told The Hill.
Ericksen, who is a state lawmaker in Washington, said that some changes might come to how science and data come out of the EPA.
But those changes would be dictated by scientists, not political officials, he said, adding, “Any changes will be science-based.”
LINK
Page 16 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News