• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The EPA fires most of its scientists and advisory boards

Quote Originally Posted by RetiredUSN

"Global cooling was truly the biggest concern facing my generation.
The quacks can't make their minds up."
a) Conservative syndicated columnist George Will mentioned that a while ago (corroborating it, in my opinion).

BUT !!

b) Though perhaps seemingly politically plausible * it is scientifically naïve.

Unlike both politics and religion, science is not agenda driven. The pure if complex raison d’être of science is truthful discovery.

The notion that a fully global conspiracy of distinguished climatologists would place their careers on the line in a brilliantly coordinated conspiracy to drive up their own cost of living;
to put it in pseudo-political parlance, doesn't pass the smell test.

* Important Point!
I'm NOT criticizing RU or George Will here for REPORTING.
Instead my observation is, science may not always get it right from the start.
But unlike for obvious contrast, religion, which is about reinforcing dogma, and not revealing truth in the scientific sense,
science undergoes unrelenting peer review, and further probing. Along that path we went
from F=M*A (Newton) to E=MCe2 (Einstein) in less than half a millennium.
 
Everybody tends to conveniently forget that regulations are almost always imposed in response to an abuse by a business.

for what these boards are for, people from other countries are saying your president Trump is a bad choice, a very bad choice!

He care little for the environment, only jobs, jobs, jobs But where are they?
 
Kinda like the scientists the tobacco industry hired who couldn't find a link between smoking and cancer.... :peace
Or the Government Scientist who create a climate model that does not model the climate, but say it is good enough to
create regulation.
 
Or the Government Scientist who create a climate model that does not model the climate, but say it is good enough to
create regulation.

Soooo the vast majority of scientists are 'government' scientists and this is one world wide 'eco-nut' conspiracy to regulate to death the noble emission mega industries??? :roll:

Bit of a reach duncha think??? :peace
 
Soooo the vast majority of scientists are 'government' scientists and this is one world wide 'eco-nut' conspiracy to regulate to death the noble emission mega industries??? :roll:

Bit of a reach duncha think??? :peace
Do you know what the vast majority of Scientist agree with?
It is mostly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it's level can cause some warming.
Almost no one is disagreeing with that, and that is not where the models are inaccurate.
The models use the warming from the 2X CO2 (1.1 C)level as an input, and then predict how much amplified feedback
there will be to that input warming.
The input is 1.1 C, the range of output (ECS) is between 1.5 and 4.5C.
Within the church of AGW, scientists who find results in the low end of the range, draw the ire of those scientist
who want to keep drinking at the government funding trough.
 
Soooo the vast majority of scientists are 'government' scientists and this is one world wide 'eco-nut' conspiracy to regulate to death the noble emission mega industries??? :roll:

Bit of a reach duncha think??? :peace

not at all their very jobs depend on hyping global warming. less funding means they don't get as much for the slush funded studies that
constantly produce doom and gloom yet are pretty much wrong.

according to al gore 10 years ago now really 12 years ago we should all be dead and the planet a burnt piece of toast.

amazing look at that it hasn't happened.
 
"Do you know what the vast majority of Scientist agree with?
It is mostly that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and doubling it's level can cause some warming." lv #57
That appears to be a self-serving distortion.

First of all, they're scientists. And the language of science is mathematics, numerical quantifications in standard scientific units.

Contrary to your posted words, a lie by omission rather than commission, it's not merely that: " it's level can cause some warming", your words.

It's that as a first step and then a chain reaction that could spell catastrophe for a huge percentage of Earth's human population, so many of whom live in coastal regions, some at or near sea level.

There are already noticeable changes in vegetation in Antarctica.

And the other predictions climatologists made are coming true. More frequent severe storms, etc. etc.
 
Kinda like the scientists the tobacco industry hired who couldn't find a link between smoking and cancer.... :peace

The tobacco industry looked for a link between smoking and cancer? When was that?
 
That appears to be a self-serving distortion.

First of all, they're scientists. And the language of science is mathematics, numerical quantifications in standard scientific units.

Contrary to your posted words, a lie by omission rather than commission, it's not merely that: " it's level can cause some warming", your words.

It's that as a first step and then a chain reaction that could spell catastrophe for a huge percentage of Earth's human population, so many of whom live in coastal regions, some at or near sea level.

There are already noticeable changes in vegetation in Antarctica.

And the other predictions climatologists made are coming true. More frequent severe storms, etc. etc.

The Science says that doubling the CO2 level can cause an energy imbalance at the trapopause of about 3.71 Wm-2, and that this will
cause warming of 1.1 C with a uncertainty of about .11 C, that is the CO2 forcing warming, or direct response.
The amplified feedbacks are still speculation. There are feedbacks, both positive and negative, but the actual results of those is highly uncertain.
That is the result of the ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.
 
lv #61

And their consensus predictions of:
... and therefore if we're right then a, b, & c, will happen
seem to be coming true.

For the anthropogenic climate change deniers to be right, we would have to believe that:

- The quantifications are correct (CO2 atmospheric concentration), &
- their predictions are coming true,

BUT !!

- They're wrong about the cause.

That barely rises to the level of slip-dickery.
 
I can't help but wonder why they wanted to know. They certainly didn't do anything about it.

Are you serious that you don't know? They had found something that was going to destroy their product on the market. They were making hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do you really think they were going to come out in announce it?

Maybe it's this level of blind faith in the free-market that drives some of the crazy policies of the GOP? :lamo
 
Hey, who needs scientists when you have Fox News and Breitbart?

Welcome to the post-truth presidency.

EPA dismisses half of key board’s scientific advisers; Interior suspends more than 200 advisory panels - The Washington Post

Hold up a minute. Why in the world could those scientists be getting fired?

The rebellion at the EPA is far from over | New York Post

Like Trump’s other nominees, in other words, he understands the real-world consequences of EPA action, preferring a more balanced approach.

But the EPA is an aggressively activist agency. So its “civil servants” have no qualms about getting overtly political, and longstanding tradition be damned.

Then, too, Trump has vowed to reduce the EPA’s size — which puts comfy EPA jobs at risk. As one union leader said of the agency protests he helped lead: “It’s in our interests to do this.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html

WASHINGTON — Employees of the Environmental Protection Agency have been calling their senators to urge them to vote on Friday against the confirmation of Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s contentious nominee to run the agency, a remarkable display of activism and defiance that presages turbulent times ahead for the E.P.A.

“The Civil Service is supposed to be a class of experts implementing policy, regardless of politics,” said Myron Ebell, a fellow at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led Mr. Trump’s environmental transition team. “If they have now become a special interest group pleading their own agenda, then it is probably time to look at reforming the Civil Service laws.”

Gee, I don't know...
 

As per the Socialist Progressive objective, citizens are to be ruled over by career bureaucrats not distracted by elections and accountability. As such, the EPA was turned into a Super Agency, like many others, during the Obama Administration.

Tasked with a social justice mandate, the militarized EPA passed regulations and invented standards that were not to be questioned, or even debated.

Purging the EPA of people who embraced this mandate is an appropriate and much needed activity so the original mandate of the EPA can be fulfilled.

All this BS about no scientists is just knee jerk responses from those trained to bark at the dog whistles.
 
As per the Socialist Progressive objective, citizens are to be ruled over by career bureaucrats not distracted by elections and accountability. As such, the EPA was turned into a Super Agency, like many others, during the Obama Administration. Tasked with a social justice mandate, the militarized EPA passed regulations and invented standards that were not to be questioned, or even debated. Purging the EPA of people who embraced this mandate is an appropriate and much needed activity so the original mandate of the EPA can be fulfilled. All this BS about no scientists is just knee jerk responses from those trained to bark at the dog whistles.
Quoted for truth and support. I think it a remote possibility that the leftist 'news' media would have a published article stating such.
 
Are you serious that you don't know? They had found something that was going to destroy their product on the market. They were making hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do you really think they were going to come out in announce it?

Maybe it's this level of blind faith in the free-market that drives some of the crazy policies of the GOP? :lamo

That is something you would have to ask the GOP.
 
The better data these boards have, the better chance they have a drafting a regulation that
can achieve the required results, while doing the least harm to the economy.

The question, obviously, is what are the required results? Probably more accurately the desired results?

EPA is one of the many departments out of control and staffed with bureaucrats making law rather than implementing law.
 
As per the Socialist Progressive objective, citizens are to be ruled over by career bureaucrats not distracted by elections and accountability. As such, the EPA was turned into a Super Agency, like many others, during the Obama Administration.

Tasked with a social justice mandate, the militarized EPA passed regulations and invented standards that were not to be questioned, or even debated.

Purging the EPA of people who embraced this mandate is an appropriate and much needed activity so the original mandate of the EPA can be fulfilled.

All this BS about no scientists is just knee jerk responses from those trained to bark at the dog whistles.

Scientists are not bureaucrats. Their agenda is truth. If political agendas are based on ideas clearly counter to it, it is their ethical duty to speak out against it. If the politicians and ignorant mobs want to burn them alive at the stake for it, then it won't be the first time.
 
Last edited:
I can't help but wonder why they wanted to know. They certainly didn't do anything about it.

Companies know more about their products, and earlier, Han anyone else. It's the same reason Exxon Moble knew about the link between their product and global warming years before anyone else.
 
Scientists are not bureaucrats. Their agenda is truth. If political agendas are based on ideas clearly counter to it, it is their ethical duty to speak out against it. If the politicians and ignorant mobs want to burn them alive at the stake for it, then it won't be the first time.

That's two separate statements, both incorrect.

For many scientists, acting in their own interest, ethical duty takes a back seat to their next government grant or professorship.

Lest we forget, one of the early guru's and promoter of the global warming, global cooling industry was a fellow named Al Gore. Won a Nobel. Oscar, major book awards. Hardly a scientist. A promoter.
 
Companies know more about their products, and earlier, Han anyone else. It's the same reason Exxon Moble knew about the link between their product and global warming years before anyone else.

Now if you could just connect the cigarette smoking to global warming you would run the table. ;)
 
A little hexavalent chromium in the drinking water never hurt anyone why unneeded costs on business that could be creating jobs instead of trying to keep the environment clean when it is not needed.

Besides, if there is any pollution put it upstream of indian reservations, and no one will ever care

Most of the libs squawking about this change know nothing about the people on those boards

And neither do I

But I think its safe to assume all the "advisors" are being paid generously to parrot the liberal wacko point of view and give it their official seal of approval
 
Back
Top Bottom