• 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

ataraxia said:
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
Click to expand...

Isn't this old news? there were articles about this back in early May,
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i20/Trump-EPA-dismisses-half-scientific.html
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board,
and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”
Click to expand...
It sounds like they want some new blood on the boards.
 
Ikari said:
In the world of alt-facts, you don't need scientists. Just let the Mega-Corps set environmental law, I'm sure they have all our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

Making America Stupid :roll:
 
Ikari said:
In the world of alt-facts, you don't need scientists. Just let the Mega-Corps set environmental law, I'm sure they have all our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

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
 
longview said:
It sounds like they want some new blood on the boards.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just industry reps instead of those stinkin' scientists.

On Friday, the E.P.A. dismissed at least five and as many as half of the members of a major 18-person scientific review board, with plans to replace them with members of the industries the agency is supposed to regulate. “This is completely part of a multifaceted effort to get science out of the way of a deregulation agenda,” Ken Kimmell, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The New York Times.
Click to expand...

E.P.A. Purges Scientists, Plans to Replace Them with Industry Reps | Vanity Fair
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Nope. Just industry reps instead of those stinkin' scientists.



E.P.A. Purges Scientists, Plans to Replace Them with Industry Reps | Vanity Fair
Click to expand...
Since the story is based on the subjective opinions of the dismissed Scientist, perhaps
it should be taken with the same grain of salt as an ex wife's character assessment.
The EPA spokesman said,
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board,
and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”
So the new people will be scientist as well.
 
longview said:
Since the story is based on the subjective opinions of the dismissed Scientist, perhaps
it should be taken with the same grain of salt as an ex wife's character assessment.
The EPA spokesman said,
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board,
and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”
So the new people will be scientist as well.
Click to expand...

From companies the EPA is supposed to regulate, no doubt.
 
The EPA fires most of its scientists and advisory boards
Click to expand...
Putting a climate-change denier in charge of the EPA may prove to be an unfortunate choice.

Further, some reports indicate Trump has skipped the presidential science advisor role within his administration.

So Trump is handling our environment without suspenders, or a belt.

How long will it be before his pants fall down?
 
What if...? said:
From companies the EPA is supposed to regulate, no doubt.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but having someone who understands the requirements of the industries,
being regulated, may produce more functional regulation.
So far it is speculation who they will pick.
 
longview said:
Perhaps, but having someone who understands the requirements of the industries,
being regulated, may produce more functional regulation.
So far it is speculation who they will pick.
Click to expand...

No conflict of interest there.
 
sear said:
Putting a climate-change denier in charge of the EPA may prove to be an unfortunate choice.

Further, some reports indicate Trump has skipped the presidential science advisor role within his administration.

So Trump is handling our environment without suspenders, or a belt.

How long will it be before his pants fall down?
Click to expand...
Do you know the evil position of Scott Pruitt?
Here is what he said,
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do
and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact,
so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,”
Click to expand...
This is not actually a denial, but saying the uncertainty is to great to say much of anything for sure.
The Scientific portion of the IPCC's official position, is that doubling the CO2 level will cause
about forcing warming of about 1.1 C.
The much more speculative portion of the IPCC's prediction, is that the 1.1 C from CO2,
will be amplified through positive feedbacks to create warming between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty (between 1.5 and 4.5 C) is 3 C.
So the uncertainty is almost 3 times the scientific input, which is itself questionable.
 
What if...? said:
No conflict of interest there.
Click to expand...
Not really, because they are not the only ones on the board.
Having people representing both sides has a better chance of producing regulations
that both do the job, and limit the damage to the regulated industry.
 
What if...? said:
Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post

Since the story is based on the subjective opinions of the dismissed Scientist, perhaps
it should be taken with the same grain of salt as an ex wife's character assessment.
The EPA spokesman said,
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board,
and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”
So the new people will be scientist as well.
Click to expand...

From companies the EPA is supposed to regulate, no doubt.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Even the scientists who work for Exxon have put out official statements admitting that climate change is real, mostly man-made, and that we can still do something about it. I am pretty sure the new members are all going to be businessmen and billionaires.
 
longview said:
Do you know the evil position of Scott Pruitt?
Here is what he said,

This is not actually a denial, but saying the uncertainty is to great to say much of anything for sure.
The Scientific portion of the IPCC's official position, is that doubling the CO2 level will cause
about forcing warming of about 1.1 C.
The much more speculative portion of the IPCC's prediction, is that the 1.1 C from CO2,
will be amplified through positive feedbacks to create warming between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
The uncertainty (between 1.5 and 4.5 C) is 3 C.
So the uncertainty is almost 3 times the scientific input, which is itself questionable.
Click to expand...

Nope.

"How confident are scientists that the Earth will warm further over the coming century? Very confident. If emissions continue on their present trajectory, without either technological or regulatory abatement, then warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected by the end of the 21st century...

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."
-National Academy of Sciences
Click to expand...
 
As someone who would like the federal EPA dissolved outright, I take this as at least a start.
 
Ikari said:
In the world of alt-facts, you don't need scientists. Just let the Mega-Corps set environmental law, I'm sure they have all our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

My own opinion is that the government is the first place to look for an organization that doesn't have your best interests at heart.
 
fmw said:
My own opinion is that the government is the first place to look for an organization that doesn't have your best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

Yes, well anarchy doesn't work, so we need some level of government. And we saw what things were like before the EPA, rivers caught on fire. So obviously there is some need for regulation. And to have proper regulation, you're going to have to have the proper data and analysis; which is where scientists come in.

I tend to agree that one must be careful with government and the amount of government that is authorized, but this is a measured system. We do need some level of appropriate environmental regulation, and scientists not Corporations, to take and analyze the environmental data.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, well anarchy doesn't work, so we need some level of government. And we saw what things were like before the EPA, rivers caught on fire. So obviously there is some need for regulation. And to have proper regulation, you're going to have to have the proper data and analysis; which is where scientists come in.

I tend to agree that one must be careful with government and the amount of government that is authorized, but this is a measured system. We do need some level of appropriate environmental regulation, and scientists not Corporations, to take and analyze the environmental data.
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest anarchy or the end of government regulation. You did. I just suggested we would live better lives with less government. I still hope the practice spreads around the government.
 
fmw said:
I didn't suggest anarchy or the end of government regulation. You did. I just suggested we would live better lives with less government. I still hope the practice spreads around the government.
Click to expand...

Both government and corporations can go bad if left without any checks and balances. In this situation, without any government regulation, corporations will destroy all our long term interests for their own short-term shareholder greed. This is not a situation where you just want the let these corporations run loose without a muzzle.
 
ataraxia said:
Both government and corporations can go bad if left without any checks and balances. In this situation, without any government regulation, corporations will destroy all our long term interests for their own short-term shareholder greed. This is not a situation where you just want the let these corporations run loose without a muzzle.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Businesses answer to their customers and their customers are people. The government answers to nobody. Business can't get away with what government does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom