Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump bans EPA employees from giving social media updates.

DonFerrari said:
Scoobes said:

They can publish in Journals but that's hardly accessible to the wider public considering most people wouldn't know where to look to find these journals or the fact that many are still behind paywalls.

In the absence of a publicly open forum (social media in this case) for them to present their own research to the public (or correct misconceptions) they will be open to manipulation from the media and the administration to fit whatever narrative they wish with little to no chance of rebuttal from the scientist.

This sort of stuff is already happening and that's with scientists able to publicly complain of misrepresentaion let alone with a gagging order in place. 

After published in any outlet anyone can repass that information as much as they want, so?

So, essentially non-issue.



Around the Network
Scoobes said:
DonFerrari said:

I would bet most companies also ban communication of the work performed inside in any public outlet.

But wellcome to what several classic liberals would tell you. The more power the government have the more power it will use against you.

Didn't we have that discussion already?

Publicly funded research is very different to research and data in private companies.

The research and the data generated at companies is owned by the company as either proprietary or IP. It's funded by the investors of that company and they have the right to see how well that company is doing and get updated on progress of whatever product or service the company provides. 

Public research is paid for by tax payers and unless their are certain circumstances (involved in defence, private company is involved, other legal IP issue) then the information is to be available in the public domain. 

Yes we had... the results are domain of the government (and by the end for the people) so it isn't owned by that particular worker, so it isn't his business speaking about it without authorization

Scoobes said:
DonFerrari said:

After published in any outlet anyone can repass that information as much as they want, so?

Bit of a shit way to do it, relying on other scientists outside of the US to try and combat a false narrative.

And if that was actually effective, what is the point of this gag order?

Actually, thinking about it, this gag order is kinda useless as a number of unofficial "rogue" accounts have cropped up. I suppose we'll see what they do about these rogue accounts but this could end up being a load of hot air people will laugh about in a few months. 

Yes, it is useless. But we certainly need to compare this to censorship because Trump was the one doing it right?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Lawlight said:
DonFerrari said:

After published in any outlet anyone can repass that information as much as they want, so?

So, essentially non-issue.

Exactly and as Scoobes said, they can use fake accounts to leak information.

It just our everyday media trying to tarnish the already bad image of Trump.

Information isn't being witheld from public nor are government forging the studies they want out. It's just the obvious control of information that basically all government do, but some people want even more government.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Scoobes said:

Only facts matter...  ironic statement considering we're talking about the Trump administration.

You may want to check your own public access policies. There are public policies in the US regarding access to federal funded research. NIH for instance makes all biomedical papers that have been funded either wholly or partially by them be deposited in Pubmed Central 6 months after publication so they can be freely viewed by anyone. 

You're also forgetting the Freedom of Information Act which would apply in many cases here.  

Those are the facts. 

FOIA only applies if you're making a request, it doesn't give government agency employees the right to openly communicate with the public about internal affairs ... (And even then they can arbitrarily refuse the request under some vaguely worded exemptions) 

Again no guarantee that you will have access to these records ... 

Just because an agency is publicly funded doesn't mean the citizens have a mandate on it's information ...



Baalzamon said:

You completely missed the point, which is why I don't argue about this with people.

When reports come in that 2016 was the hottest on record yet again, this is then utilized as a scare tactic for global warming. One individual year.

I'm not saying CO2 has no impact. I'm saying I think there are other factors at play that have substantially more impact. The reason I say that really comes down to the 1930's through the 1970's, when global temps stayed virtually flat. If one matches that with CO2, they will notice there was no flattening or decrease during that time frame. In fact, CO2 continued to increase. Like I stated above, I am not in any way saying I disagree that CO2 has any effect. I'm disagreeing (denying if you will) that it has nearly the impact scientists continue spouting, as I think there are other major factors at work that make a much larger difference.

You ever hear of something called "sulfur dioxide"? It's an atmospheric aerosol that, in addition to causing acid rain, has a cooling effect. Prior to the passage of clean air acts in the Western world (the leading producers of SO2 emissions), SO2 emissions were growing at a fast rate. That increase had the effect of negating much of the warming that increasing CO2 levels would have had during the period between 1945 and 1980. We've made some progress cleaning up the atmosphere of SO2 emissions, but CO2 concentrations keep growing unabated, and with SO2 emissions having declined from 1970s levels we've seen warming resume.

It amazes me how often non-scientists will take issue with something in science and speak of it as if the relevant scientific experts simply forgot about certain variables. Climatologists are very familiar with the effects of CO2, SO2, water vapor, solar irradiance, etc., etc., etc. They don't need armchair experts to remind them of anything. They know their field of study quite well enough, and nearly all of them have reached the same conclusion: the world is warming and humans are the primary cause.

And as for 2016 breaking a record, it's not cherry-picking to point that out because it's been part of a trend towards warmer temperatures. 2017 will likely be cooler as we passed an El Nino, but over the longer term global average temperatures will continue to climb. 1998 smashed records, but that year's record-setting temperature, also fueled by a super-powerful El Nino, became the new norm in the 00s. In the past decade we've seen La Nina years beat out 1998's El Nino. In fact, before 2014, 2015, and 2016 all set consecutive warmest-year records, 2010 was the previous record holder, and that was the year of a strong La Nina. Unless there's a record-setting year-over-year drop this year, 2017 will likely still end up taking the #3 spot for warmest years on record, and that's without an El Nino. What we've seen over the past 3 years could and probably will become the new normal just as 1998's freakish warmth became the new normal.



Around the Network



Hiku said:

And the other side is doing this:



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

"Just give him a chance" they said...



Tigerlure said:
"Just give him a chance" they said...

"Couldn't be worse than what we had before" they said...