Slashdot Mirror
EPA Website Removes Climate Science Site From Public View After Two Decades (washingtonpost.com)
Last week there were reports that the EPA climate change website was set to be taken down, though later the EPA denied that. On Friday evening, however, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its website would be "undergoing changes" to better represent the new direction the agency is taking, triggering the removal of several agency websites containing detailed climate data and scientific information (paywalled; alternative source). From a report on The Washington Post: One of the websites that appeared to be gone had been cited to challenge statements made by the EPA's new administrator, Scott Pruitt. Another provided detailed information on the previous administration's Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions. The changes came less than 24 hours before thousands of protesters were set to march in Washington and around the country in support of political action to push back against the Trump administration's rollbacks of former president Barack Obama's climate policies.
Aaaaaand the site is going down. Which is the new direction the agency is taking.
Did Facebook block the EPA's, so-called, fact sheets for disinformation?
Would they?
Or are we all suddenly gung ho for government propaganda now?
Trump is the Antichrist and worships Satan!
Unless the swings we are seeing in the cycle of El Niño and La Niña are not really occurring Dear Donald is about to be the president who will be in office at the start of the greatest climate caused disaster in recorded history. The past 10 years have seen unprecedented drought on the the West Coast now we are about to see a cyclical change that could very well make a huge portion of the Gulf coast and the Redneck Riviera uninhabitable. There are area of the low lying Gulf coast that could easily be flooded multiple time by hurricane storm surges.
Watch out we are in for a kick in the ass from mother nature and the financial and human cost could make the dust bowl of dirty thirties look like good times. But then again I am sure somehow Obama and Hillary will be blamed for what is about to occur. Removing science from the equation and allowing politics to dictate what information is available is par for the course for that jackass and bunch of morons left of the Republican "blow you Jack, I'm alright" assholes currently running the show. If Lincoln was a dictator then what these assholes are about is far worse, at least real Republicans do not endorse or engage in scientific censorship and in so doing marginalize sectors of the populace.
The US is at best 2 pay periods away from complete anarchy and if an area as full of rednecks as the Gulf coast suddenly becomes a disaster caused everyman for himself war zone no one will not be able to stop the ensuing chaos.
EPA was putting out misleading data showing rising CO2 levels. CO2 is falling, if the trend continues we'll have a shortage of CO2. EPA was claiming global warming was linked to the rise of CO2, but the earth is cooling. EPA was saying the CO2 rise can't be natural alone, man contributes to it, but its totally natural because humans are Gods creations so any change is all natural.
Trump is merely fixing the problem caused by so called 'climate science' from so called 'scientists', none of which went to Trump U, all of which are really part of Crooked Clintons conspiracy to make the Donald look bad.
The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's what he said only a week ago:
"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection."
"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.
What better way to advance scientific research and allow for honest inquiry and robust debate than to wipe from the record, the very research one claims to support.
P.S. He had no problem claiming climate change as the reason he needed to build a sea wall around his Irish golf course:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."
Would a kind American please make the freedom if information request for this data, so it can be mirrored and hosted for the global scietific community? If we aren't going to have more data, let's at least preserve what is available now.
Those pesky liberals *want* you to think CO2 is rising, they *want* you to believe the earth if getting hotter, they even dare to suggest it's man-made!
But this is all a theory. Respect my alternative facts!
Fact, it's getting colder, due to the lack of CO2 caused by too many trees eating all our CO2!
There's more ice than ever before! Look at all that ice off Newfoundland, more icebergs than ever before! How is that possible if it isn't colder? Fact!
President elected by biggest majority ever, Donald J Trump, will make America great again!
we're lucky this got announced early, so there have been efforts to save this data:
Github repo
list of mirrors
another one
more
even more
A list of people directed to disclose the datasets they have been refusing FOIA on under the Obama administration.
The datasets are public and downloadable. The FOIA thing was when Lamar Smith went on a witch hunt and demanded the emails of all scientists at the agency. Smith machine gunned NOAA with a flood of FOIA requests, which can be effectively used in denial of service attacks on government agencies. http://harvardpolitics.com/cul...
The dinosaurs are doing fine and dandy, they just downsized, Permian-Triassic extinction event never happened. Do a search on Breitbart for "Permian-Triassic extinction event" and you won't find any coverage of it because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Facts people!
CO2 is crashing dangerously low (if you take out that tiny increase since the industrial revolution which is just noise, FACT!).
Any claimed increase is personally due to the Donald , saving us from depleted CO2 reserves! FACT!
What you or I believe is irrelevent. The facts are the facts and nature will take its course regardless of what anyone believes.
The folks who have the expertise in climate science have the data and every one of THEIR predictions have com true. See, climate scientists discovered the link between fossil fuel burning and increasing temps back in the 1980s. Aside from tweets to rates, their predictions are spot on.
But, the fossil fuel industry - mostly coal - terrified of losing business, lobbied and ran advertisements and had pundits distribute misinformation to confuse the public.
And we have "skeptic's" - folks who know nothing about the issue other than the nonsense they see on TV or read on some website written by a pundit - global warming creates a LOT of web traffic ($$$$).
Considering that half the people in the USA think there is even doubt has shown how effective the fossil fuel industry's propaganda is.
The fossil fuel industry has won.
It has become politicized, because strong business interests are resisting acceptance of scientific consensus. This is nothing unusual. Business will always dispute facts that can lead to regulation costing them money. They will even claim that their cynical twisting of the facts is mandatory, because they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value.
Climate change is complicated, and no serious scientist will claim they know exactly where it is leading. What is universal among climate scientists is that human induced climate change has and is occurring. There are tentative conclusions about some of its effects, and warnings that failing to act to reduce human induced climate change risks truly catastrophic consequences. If the worst happens, it may not be for 100 years, but the earlier action is taken, the lower the cost of remediation is likely to be. The commonly held view is that it is irresponsible, and totally unfair to future generations, to dodge taking prudent steps because it will cost some businesses money.
As much as people love to blame companies, they're not alone in this. Activists have politicized the issue too. Being the petulant children that they (quite literally) are they're so convinced they know everything and that everyone else is wrong, that they have radicalized the whole debate to a point where opposing views are (a little less literally) the devil. Coupled with the whole recent "science is infallible" religious movement the whole issue has become a clusterfuck devoid of facts and full of us-vs-them.
I know right! Unless it's on Alex Jones, Rence, or Time Cube Guy's website, it's just more of those liberal fact based hit pieces!
>That's not science when even believers begin to doubt the data.
Yes, that is exactly science. Doubting your own premises, your data sources, and your conclusions -- all of this combines into the building of the large experimental knowledge base that was being developed before many of us were born. If there were only "believers", there beliefs would be political or religious or some other form of bullshit. Remove yourself from belief, doubt your own conclusions, and develop tests to further understand where your conclusions went wrong. Science!
We need no pseudo-scientific government propaganda.
Right on! Now it's time for proper full-blown anti-scientific government propaganda
So he did nothing?
Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria
Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)
Unemployment claims at a 17 year low
Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source
Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good
Thats quite a bit for 3 months. If you still claim he did nothing, then you are convincing me that a rock sitting in the Oval Office is that much more effective and helpful to the US than Obama was? I'm convinced!
Not only is it too political, the result doesn't matter much. Pollution and scarcity alone dictate that we should move away from fossil fuels. Climate science isn't a necessary part of the argument for abundant clean energy; it is either a distraction, or used as a justification for subsidizing expensive and ineffective renewables. Sacrificing large sums on the green altar for minimal gains is hardly the best use capital.
The problem will naturally disappear once we develop a source of abundant clean energy that is unconditionally cheaper than burning fossil hydrocarbons, and have the ability to deliver it at scale. The only existing technology that fits that bill is mass manufactured advanced nuclear. The science isn't in question, it is only a matter of commercialization and political will. As difficult as that may be, it is easier than circumventing the laws of physics.
Personally I am not convinced either way because the climate data has become so political.
Being political just means the politicians on one side decided they didn't like the conclusions so it became a political controversy.
You have people who were all in and suddenly come out saying its all a ruse and data has been cooked to fit the political agenda.
I haven't seen any of that, at least not outside a very small fringe.
As for scientists as a whole being politicized, what else are they supposed to do? The scientists have been under a sustained political attack for over a decade, how can they defend themselves without becoming politicized.
That's not science when even believers begin to doubt the data. The problem is that political agendas don't follow data, they follow what they fabricate as the truth. What we need is more science and less trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
What we need is for the denialists to start sincerely looking at evidence and engaging with science instead of trying to blow up every hint of inconsistency.
Science is built around admitting the limits of your own analysis and acknowledging the possibility of being wrong. This puts scientists in an impossible bind, admit the error bounds in your conclusions and the denialists claim you're saying nothing, and AGW isn't happening at all. Downplay the error bounds and reality will occasionally exceed those bounds, and then denialsts say you were wrong and can't be trusted.
The right conclusion is to tell denialists to STFU until they grow up and start taking the task of public discourse seriously.
I stole this Sig
After all, who needs data when you have ideology?
I stole this Sig
They are not arguing about whether climate change is real or not or what we should do about it. They're trying to bury the facts so we can't make an educated decision about it. These people are behaving like enemies as they execute a major money and power grab. They are not advocates and the voters are too blinded by rage to figure this all out.
The level of downvoting in this thread is outragous!
Praise Gaia!
Do you need Personal Loan? Business Cash Loan Unsecured Loan Fast and Simple Loan Quick Application Process Approvals within 24 Hours No Hidden Fees Loan Funding in less than 1 Week Get unsecured working capital Contact Us At : musaddiqloanlending@gmail.com
The church of Climatology needs to follow the same rules of separation of church and state as all the others.
The whole scientific method is based in fallabilityâ. The process only works when scientists acknowledge there are no capital "F" facts.
First thing, messing with EPA in this way is extremely wrong. Climate data is not a liberal conspiracy.
Secondly, something that I find interesting is the frequent lack of personal responsibility. E.g., light truck sales (including SUVs) are at a high. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html . Yes, there are the few that actually need large vehicles, but they are few and far between. For those rare occasions, one can rent a large vehicle very economically.
Also, how many businesses try to minimize waste? E.g., Slashdot is full of IT professionals that could advocate for sane IT power usage policies (like most workstations can go to sleep after 30 minutes of inactivity). Another kicker to me is why does the public stand freezing AC temperatures in restaurants, stores, and their workplace?
The point is that there there is much personally and locally that can be done. It does not excuse our federal government from showing leadership. While there are many reasonably responsible people, there are many ways that one can personally reduce consumption and waste. Many (like improving household insulation in older houses) actually save money too.
People tend to be herd animals and frequently want to do the right thing--particularly if it saves money or is not difficult; it does not take everyone to do something for many more to think, consider, and hopefully do.
Hey, maybe we can have a day that is dedicated to open dialogue in science and not try to divert it to one side or the other? Wouldn't that be cool if that could actually happen? OH LOOK! A LBGT person not getting 100% of everyone's attention! Lets go worry about that now!
The right conclusion is to isolate and exclude from the discussion those who slap an 'ist' suffix on the name they call their opponents.
A wise old man once said "isms are schisms."
Sometimes you're not paranoid, they really are fscking with you(r data). Slashdot, 12 Dec 2016, Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change
Luke, help me take this mask off
Last time I checked, Berkley is a University in one city. They don't represent "Liberls" as much as the toothless wonders in West Virginia represent "Conservatives."
Thermometers are just tools of libtard propaganda. I mean, how can I possibly have a so-called "fever" if my feet are cold? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers that show thermometers aren't a hoax? And I don't mean in libtard fake "scientific" journals like Nature, but in legitimate journals like this one:
http://www.coresci.org/jcts/
Trump needs to outlaw thermometers, is what.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Climate data is not a liberal conspiracy.
But that's not what was removed.
What was removed was unverified and "adjusted" climate/weather data.
Those are not the same things.
The reliability and accuracy of climate data on the EPA website is somewhere just below that of the reliability and accuracy of the economic losses claimed by the movie studios and recording labels due to copyright infringement.
Just make a new Website and explain why you had to do it. (For truthful information.). It won't stop the denier’s from being idiotic. But you will have the facts handy.
The specific heat of the earth atmosphere is 1.0. The specific heat of CO2 is 0.8. CO2 absorbs heat faster than atmospheric air, but also releases it faster. This would suggest, via science, that CO2 is not the problem.
Ok then, to avoid triggering your allergy: The right conclusion is to tell wilfully ignorant people to STFU until they grow up and start taking the task of public discourse seriously.
The advantage of this phrasing is also that it covers not only people that are wilfully ignorant of climate change, but also of other important issues such as vaccination.
As much as people love to blame companies, they're not alone in this. Activists have politicized the issue too. Being the petulant children that they (quite literally) are they're so convinced they know everything and that everyone else is wrong, that they have radicalized the whole debate to a point where opposing views are (a little less literally) the devil.
Absolutely. The denialist movement was bankrolled by big business, but the activist deniers are responsible for their own lies as well.
Coupled with the whole recent "science is infallible" religious movement the whole issue has become a clusterfuck devoid of facts and full of us-vs-them.
Absolutely. The denialist movement is completely divorced from any basis in science - ask any of them to prove their assertions, and you won't see them for the dust of their retreat.
The church of Climatology needs to follow the same rules of separation of church and state as all the others.
So impeach the head of the Church of Trump.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Trumps white house will soon announce a new science initiative, called "NewScience". it will fundamentally simplify and reorganize scientific thinking, using new language. it will gradually replace "OldScience", so that is why they are taking down all the OldScience information. i have an advance copy of their "NewScience Dictionary". the terms "climate change", "evolution", "ecology", "pollution", "malthusian", "overpopulation", "gene transfer", "antibiotic resistance", and "perennial agriculture" have been replaced by a single term, "CrimeScience". Additionally, a new set of rules in mathematics will allow for 2+2=5 to sometimes be true.
There is no consensus. That is a myth drawn by Cook. He took a list of papers written about how man has caused global warming and found that 97% of the papers said that humans had some significant effect. How much is significant? Remember that we're speaking about scientists. Significant tends to mean measurable, not devastating, a majority, or glaring. Just measurable. So he took a biased source, asked a question whose results he misrepresented as meaning much more than they really did, and presented that for the world to hyperventilate about.
And it is political. When top climate scientists(CATO's Patrick Michaels, MIT's Richard Lindzen) start complaining about losing grants because they disagree with AGW, you'll start to see that the papers written are written by the people who havethe money to do the research, and the money doesn't go to anyone who isn't onboard the AGW train. When you defund legitimate scientists because they disagree with you, you aren't being scientific, you are protecting your beilief or promoting an agenda.
Now comes the harder task of rebuilding the public's trust in science.
... so why is access being taken away? Report the results and let the peer review process vet the information. A political choice to filter information is wholly undesirable in a democracy.