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

FIT_Gamer said:

TBH I wouldn't mind if the "Good Lord" "calls him home" in the near future.

Not a religious person but  I actually hope for this. No joke.



Around the Network
FIT_Gamer said:

TBH I wouldn't mind if the "Good Lord" "calls him home" in the near future.

You mean you wouldn't mind if the "Dark Lord" "Needs a realtor" in the near future.



Lawlight said:
And for the record:

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/obama-gag-order-on-federal-workers-like-those-under-bush.html

That's a very interesting fact.  Thank you for bringing it up and linking to a credible source which allows for direct comparison of the original text of both the Obama and Trump administration's orders.



Baalzamon said:
Probably going to get a lot of hate for this, but there is a BIG BIG difference between banning free speech and banning a government agency from continuing to spout things that DO have a political agenda associated with them. No, I'm not saying global warming is necessarily a hoax. No, I'm not saying that there isn't an issue with us spewing too much shit into the atmosphere. But you absolutely cannot deny there are HUGE political agendas associated with global warming and climate control.

Tell me when he has banned private companies and private citizens from informing the public of facts/findings. THEN we have a problem.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" - NdGT



DonFerrari said:
Scoobes said:

They're not running their mouth though, they're talking about their work and presenting their data whilst also giving expert commentary to major events. It's essential for the pursuit of science and research. And as it's funded by tax payers, they have every right to know the results of the research they've funded, not some censored bullshit propaganda from high up. 

It's completely disproportionate and utterly disgraceful given the "alternative facts" the administration keep presenting. 

Expert commentary on social media... sure... that is certainly the forum for cientific discussion.

You'd be surprised what's posted on science based social media sites. You obviously don't follow it. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Scoobes said:

They're not running their mouth though, they're talking about their work and presenting their data whilst also giving expert commentary to major events. It's essential for the pursuit of science and research. And as it's funded by tax payers, they have every right to know the results of the research they've funded, not some censored bullshit propaganda from high up. 

It's completely disproportionate and utterly disgraceful given the "alternative facts" the administration keep presenting. 

No they do not! 

I don't care much for the narrative that everyone here in this thread is going to push as just but don't even try to conflate your values of what's ethical when there are a set of protocols that big organizations have to follow including those working in public service. This is no different from a NDA agreement that employees have to follow regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector ... 

And for christ's sake people should learn what the actual obligations are from instead assuming that it's a free for all ... 

You really don't understand how state funded science works.

Unless it's DARPA or some other defense spending or a private entity owns the IP for the data, then you have every right to know (up to you if you're happy with giving up that right). Public research thrives on being an open platform and even private companies will present their findings at major conferences and spread the word on social media although not all the proprietary details (at least until a patent is filed). Having a robust social media policy is not the same as a complete gag order.



Congrats to the "They terk er jerbs!" people in the Rust Belt. Not only will few if any of you get your manufacturing jobs back, but you very well may have completely broken America and probably the world. His contempt for both free speech and science (or at least science that has public policy implications) was already obvious as far back as the primaries, and we're seeing that it wasn't just for show. This is what happens when you elect a narcissistic, authoritarian, pathological liar who buys into the right-wing delusion that the world's climatologists are part of some vast left-wing conspiracy. But nature is stubborn and is less than capable of giving a shit what Orange Mussolini believes. The world keeps getting warmer. We just had the third successive year become the new holder of the title "Warmest Year Ever." It's not going to get better any time soon thanks to Trump.



Baalzamon said:
aikohualda said:

i dunno... because government agency is kinda paid by taxpayers.... global warming is barely a political agenda... letting oil company support republican to say it is a hoax is a political agenda.

Just because they are paid for by taxpayers doesn't mean they can say whatever the hell they choose to and represent it as the opinion/fact of the government. This is in no way limiting their freedom of speech on a personal level. My tax dollars pay for lots of things that I don't have access to, including I'm certain tons of studies the government has performed and not released to the public.

And how you can say global warming isn't political is astonishing to me (Keep in mind, big difference between something being a political issue and something being false). There are absolutely enormous tax complications that can come out of global warming, such as emission taxes. Numerous industries have been given mandates (such as MPG standards) that ultimately arise from global warming issues. The fact of the matter is, even if global warming is 100% legit (and to take it a step further, it is indeed caused by humans which is the important matter), there are a buttload of enormous political issues involved with it.

The point of research in public agencies like the EPA is that they should be politically neutral and report the data and facts as they are, not the opinion of the Government. Unless the data has legal (IP) issues or their are security concerns, there is no valid reason for the Government to prevent them from speaking on it. The follow up decisions and policies are for the administration of the day. 

The only reason it's on the political agenda is because of vested interests make politicians put it on the political agenda to hide and misinform the public as to the evidence available. The bolded suggests they're at least somewhat successful if you even need to make that statement. 



This man knows no shame and has no class. He is an embarrassment to America and all that it represents.



Scoobes said:
Baalzamon said:

Just because they are paid for by taxpayers doesn't mean they can say whatever the hell they choose to and represent it as the opinion/fact of the government. This is in no way limiting their freedom of speech on a personal level. My tax dollars pay for lots of things that I don't have access to, including I'm certain tons of studies the government has performed and not released to the public.

And how you can say global warming isn't political is astonishing to me (Keep in mind, big difference between something being a political issue and something being false). There are absolutely enormous tax complications that can come out of global warming, such as emission taxes. Numerous industries have been given mandates (such as MPG standards) that ultimately arise from global warming issues. The fact of the matter is, even if global warming is 100% legit (and to take it a step further, it is indeed caused by humans which is the important matter), there are a buttload of enormous political issues involved with it.

The point of research in public agencies like the EPA is that they should be politically neutral and report the data and facts as they are, not the opinion of the Government. Unless the data has legal (IP) issues or their are security concerns, there is no valid reason for the Government to prevent them from speaking on it. The follow up decisions and policies are for the administration of the day. 

The only reason it's on the political agenda is because of vested interests make politicians put it on the political agenda to hide and misinform the public as to the evidence available. The bolded suggests they're at least somewhat successful if you even need to make that statement. 

The bolded is there because I think most climate "deniers" (I guess maybe not most, but for sure myself) don't doubt global warming over the last 100 years. It has happened. Fact.

What I dislike, however, is the EPA saying on their website humans are a major cause of this, and then making people scared about CO2 emissions. I have seen far far too many stats/graphs, that quite frankly, show CO2 doesn't have much, if any impact on global warming. I have seen some good documentaries that also showed the effect of CO2 is pretty minimal at most. Even this doesn't mean it isn't human caused, as we emit more than just CO2, and said documentaries often expose those more detrimental items. But the moment the EPA puts all of their focus on CO2, I lose faith in their ability to report a non biased statement.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.