Slashdot Mirror
USDA Scrambles To Ease Concerns After Researchers Were Ordered To Stop Publishing Publicly Funded Science (popsci.com)
Layzej writes: Popular Science reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now barred from communicating with the public. [And early this morning, BuzzFeed revealed that] The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has banned scientists and other employees from sharing the results of its taxpayer-funded research with the broader public. From the report: "The memo outlining these new rules has not been made public, but the ban reportedly includes everything from summaries of scientific papers to USDA-branded tweets. Scientists are still able to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, but they are unable to talk about that research without prior consent from their agency. This is not the first time that public science has been hamstrung by a gag order. To this day, the quantity of oil spewed into the ocean during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil spill remains something of a mystery. Many of the scientists who worked on the spill were hired by BP and barred from speaking on it. But gag orders -- while always troublesome -- have usually been limited to one specific issue. Right now, the EPA and USDA have been forbidden to speak about all of their scientific research. It means that many of the kinds of stories we now cover will never see the light of day." UPDATE 1/24/17: The USDA has disavowed the memo sent to employees at its Agricultural Research Service unit. USDA's deputy administrator, Michael Young, clarified that the gag order specifically applies to policy-related statements in press releases and interviews, which need to be vetted with the secretary of agriculture. He told The Washington Post that peer-reviewed scientific papers from the unit should not be blocked, nor should food safety announcements. The Washington Post notes that "the memo's shortness and terse language seems to have exacerbated the confusion: 'Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content,' wrote ARS chief Sharon Drumm in an email to employees."
The story is exaggerated. The science blackout is not permanent. The Trump administration just need a little time to get the alternative facts ready.
So then why was there no blackouts when Obama, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, etc were elected and took over? And does the context of a president that repeatedly and blatantly lies have no relevance?
A lot of things Trump does are over blown in the media when taken individually, but in the context of all that he's done, it's clear that he's actively trying to promote a false narrative, one where he is the lone holder of any 'facts' and that anything that disagrees with his all-knowing decrees are 'fake news'. If he hadn't spent the last 18 months literally saying things on camera and then lying that it happen on camera a few weeks after, it might not be such a big deal.
Our former government didn't have any problem at all with muzzling scientists, their organizations as well as defunding anybody who didn't step up to their pro-oil agenda.
Very disturbing to see an anti-science government, regardless of where it is.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
You can help mirror the climate data. Go to climatemirror.org and grab the torrents, the National Land Cover Database has been completely uploaded (11GB). There's also a mailing list for further info and future efforts.
This isn't always the way Republicans have operated. Reagan would be ashamed of what the Republican Party has become. Reagan wasn't entirely convinced that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, but he surrounded himself with competent advisors who understood the science. They advised Reagan that the costs of not acting were far greater than the costs of banning CFCs. The US implemented a cap-and-trade policy on CFCs and became the primary supporter of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer. Bush 41 continued to support Reagan's efforts to phase out CFCs and protect the ozone layer. Bush and Reagan weren't entirely convinced about the science, but they were wise to act and not risk the destruction of the ozone layer. Today's Republicans should follow the example of the Gipper, but the party has changed and no longer behaves rationally.
So then why was there no blackouts when Obama, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush, etc were elected and took over? And does the context of a president that repeatedly and blatantly lies have no relevance?
A lot of things Trump does are over blown in the media when taken individually, but in the context of all that he's done, it's clear that he's actively trying to promote a false narrative, one where he is the lone holder of any 'facts' and that anything that disagrees with his all-knowing decrees are 'fake news'. If he hadn't spent the last 18 months literally saying things on camera and then lying that it happen on camera a few weeks after, it might not be such a big deal.
Agreed. That trump is not just blatantly lying but doing his damnest to make it so truth itself can be crushed and that all reasonable voices to the otherwise are silenced is scary as hell. The man forced his press secretary to lie his arse off, then his chief stooge tried to explain it, as if she was being the reasonable one as alternative facts. We cannot. We must not normalize this blatant propaganda. We made fun of Bagdad Bob, well guess what, we just elected one. I'm reminded of the lyrics from a song from Evita.
"CHE What's new Buenos Aires? Your nation, which a few years ago had the second largest gold reserves in the world, is bankrupt! A country which grew up and grew rich on beef is rationing it! La Prensa, one of the few newspapers which dares to oppose Peronism, has been silenced, and so have all other reasonable voices! I'll tell you what's new Buenos Aires!"
We cannot let truth remain a casuality, for if that is the new status quo, we might as well call the experiment of America a failure, for a democratic republic cannot possibly choose decent leaders based on lies.
The other thing he did today was to start banning entry from certain Muslim countries, as if some magical process he comes up with is going to create the illusive terrorist detector radar. In some ways I half wonder if the lies were not a way to try to hide this kind of news in the noise. Terrorists will not destroy us as a country, but those like Trump might just manage it.
Couple that with Trump's stated goal of eliminating the EPA entirely
Can you provide a quote for that?
Q: Would you cut departments?
TRUMP: Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations.
Q: Who's going to protect the environment?
TRUMP: We'll be fine with the environment. We can leave a little bit, but you can't destroy businesses.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 Coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Oct 18, 2015
The conservative Harper government sent government censors to monitor what scientists said at conferences. I would definitely expect the much-more-extremist conservative government we have here now to go further. And Trump knows the power of twitter and social media. The roadblock to taking action on climate change isn't a lack of peer-reviewed journals or conferences. The issue is getting the public to realize they're definitely in danger. Trump is likely looking into keeping that from happening.
Slashdot changed the headline to reflect the new statement made by the USDA's deputy administrator. A statement which is, frankly, backpedaling. When the original order was "Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents." the submitted headline was accurate, albeit overly specific.
Oh I think Trump's one-upped Orwell's worst nightmares: he didn't just lock down the information, he made it so a lot of people actively distrust it. Instead of having to muzzle journalists and take control of news agencies, all he has to do is provide alternative facts and they'll lap it all up. It's far more powerful and much harder to solve.
That, and save billions. For example, the EPA air rules cost $11.3 billion, saved $55–146 billion annually, including 6,800 to 17,000 lives. From 1990 to 2020, that's an expected $65 billion spent to save $2 trillion.
The White House's Office of Management and Budget found that the annual benefits of major federal rules over a decade ranged between $193 billion to $800 billion, with costs of only $57 billion to $84 billion (EPA air regulations were the greatest source of these benefits). Google cache link, because Trump deleted the original.
You mean "part of the article". Because it goes on to say:
Per usual, Trump supporter misrepresents an article. Film at 11.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yup, This is how it started in Russia. Many people seem confused as to why would they deny something as obvious as the size of the inauguration crowds for example that's easily proven false? Well, it has 3 important effects on american public discourse and media:
1. Establishing a norm with the press: they will be told things that are obviously wrong and they will have no opportunity to ask questions. That way, they will be grateful if they get anything more at any press conference.
2. Increasing the separation between Trump's base (1/3 of the population) from everybody else (the remaining 2/3). By being told something that is obviously wrong - that there is no evidence for and all evidence against, that anybody with eyes can see is wrong - they are forced to pick whether they are going to believe Trump or their lying eyes. The gamble here - likely to pay off - is that they will believe Trump. This means that they will regard media outlets that report the truth as "fake news" (because otherwise they'd be forced to confront their cognitive dissonance.)
3. Creating a sense of uncertainty about whether facts are knowable, among a certain chunk of the population (which is a taking a page from the Kremlin, for whom this is their preferred disinformation tactic). A third of the population will say "clearly the White House is lying," a third will say "if Trump says it, it must be true," and the remaining third will say "gosh, I guess this is unknowable." The idea isn't to convince these people of untrue things, it's to fatigue them, so that they will stay out of the political process entirely, regarding the truth as just too difficult to determine.
This is laying important groundwork for the months ahead. If Trump's White House is willing to lie about something as obviously, unquestionably fake as the crowds at the inauguration, just imagine what else they'll lie about. In particular, things that the public cannot possibly verify the truth of. This allows them to eventually say anything to the public, and this should be worrisome to Americans regardless of who you voted because this is how totalitarian states get started.
He's setting up his Pravda and being quite upfront about it.
He's still making the claim that 3 million 'fake voters' voted for Hillary to lose him the popular vote. There's no evidence for this, none whatsoever, anywhere. Yet the defense given reads like this::
So to him. He only knows. Truth is what he believes it to be. Where have I read this before?
-1984
I'm not american, but all I can say to Americans is: don't fall for this. Don't let the man divide you even further against yourself and monopolize the truth. You've seen how well that has gone in Russia, a
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead