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.
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.
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
If Trump is the Antichrist, he worships the Antichrist, not Satan.
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!
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
as the northern artic passages open up think how much the sea level will rise. a mere 6 feet floods, New york, Boston, New orleans (again) Washington Dc, Atlanta, etc.
All those liberal will then have to move someplace dry and once conservative areas will suddenly become liberal.
What will conservatives do then? Protect the climate now to prevent the flood of liberals into your area. /s
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
New York will attempt to build a wall around wall street, effectively anyhow. I predict it will fail horribly and we will see skyscrapers falling over due to the effects of seawater in 3..2..1.. (well, not yet. it's not quite time.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
Simple. Look at how much fossil fuels we've burned in the last century, and calculate how much CO2 that would have produced. Then measure the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice how the first number is 2 times bigger than the second.
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.
You can also look at the isotopic ratios. The atmosphere is getting older. Carbon dating things from this century in 10000 years will be complicated
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 hear that Keene, NH, is nice in the summer and that they welcome newcomers with different ideas there.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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
You mean like the same fully-funded government agencies that said Iraq had WMDs?
Or the same fully-funded agencies (NSA) that can't be trusted when they say they will no longer read emails with foreign targets?
Or are you referring to the self-same EPA that claimed Michigan's water supply was completely safe?
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
The level of downvoting in this thread is outragous!
So he did nothing?
Read more carefully:
he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.
Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.
If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it was exactly how he said he was going to do it, and I certainly wouldn't have said that he has lied about everything he has done if he had nothing.
Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria
Lied about stopping Chemical weapons being used in Syria, lied about his wasteful airstrike on an airport that was back in operation almost immediately, and certainly did not fulfill his promises on it. In reality, the Syrian Civil War is still a humanitarian crisis, and the use of Chemical weapons, no matter how deplorable they are, is only a small fraction of the tragedy.
And of course, Trump claimed he would solve the problem, which he hasn't, making his failure a lie. That he had previously denounced such missile strikes as he ordered as theater only harms your defense of him.
Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)
Not directly attributed to anything he did, so...huh Thanks for showing the braggadocio though...the trend was already up and really, trying to assert it is real money gained by middle class? Ah, lies.
Unemployment claims at a 17 year low
A fuller perspective shows the lie.
Unemployment claims have been dropping steadily. Attributing it to Trump is like claiming that he put out a fire that was already mostly extinguished. Of course, he also claimed the same employment numbers were lies before relying on them for his own benefit, so there's another broken word of his. You really can't win with this, either Trump takes responsibility and admits that the complaints he made about unemployment statistics were false, or Trump has still left 90 million Americans without a job.
Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source
Or you could at that some more. That isn't even getting into his already demonstrated lie about a Wall, his executive order, and his false sanctuary cities claims. Not to mention the toddlers and senior citizens added to his dangerous criminal list.
His handling of that has been yet another cavalcade of deceits, failure, and incompetence.
Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good
Well, there's a lie. Your hyperbole betrays you. All it took is one.
There are others. 45 in the Senate alone.
Thats quite a bit for 3 months.
That's quite a bit of lies for 5 Sentences. No wonder Trump is your hero
If you still claim he did nothing, then y
I could reduce unemployment claims to zero overnight, it's easy. Just make everyone ineligible for unemployment and POOF, no more claims.
This is why unemployment claims are a terrible measure of actual unemployment level, because it ignores everyone who doesn't (or can't) file a claim.
If the number of claims drops, does it mean less people are unemployed, or does it just mean less people are trying to claim it?
As far as the S&P goes, Trump has no control over that, and it's only a sign that corporations are seeing a far more corporate-friendly government. It also benefits the upper class far more than the middle class (the majority of capital gains are claimed by people with incomes above 200k/year)
I will give him credit for the reduction in immigration, but it's questionable if that is actually a good thing. Remember, EVERY person in America (other than the native americans) is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. If they had done something like this 150 years ago, most of us probably wouldn't exist. To say "I hate immigrants" is no different than saying "I hate my great grandparents".
Carbon dating is at best unreliable and at worst, little better than looking at tarot cards. America can't afford to keep relying on these so called "scientific" theories and instead needs to deal with facts. Fact is, carbon dating isn't reliable. FACT.
So dutch architects will probably in high demand :)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually the numbers match quite nicely. ...
The only sink is the ocean
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The ocean and plants. Both take up about 25% of the extra CO2, and the rest stays in the atmosphere.
Now that's funny. I'd give you points if I had them
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
Plants are a zero sum game.
They release the same amount of CO2 when they rot as they consumed when they grew.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Long term, yes. But short term they've been acting as a sink.
Source: http://www.earth-syst-sci-data...
page 1152 has an easy to read graphic.
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."
New York will attempt to build a wall around wall street, effectively anyhow. I predict it will fail horribly and we will see skyscrapers falling over due to the effects of seawater in 3..2..1.. (well, not yet. it's not quite time.)
The larger skyscrapers in New York have concrete-encased steel foundation pillars that reach right down to bedrock. Whether the soil around them is dry or wet, they won't subside. The smaller ones have pillars that reach only partway to bedrock, though still very very deep. Well below sea level, so if they were going to be affected by the water table, it would have already happened. Only the small buildings in New York are at risk, including all those nice, expensive brownstones.
Atlanta? Uh oh. Now THAT'S flooding...
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.
Atlanta? Uh oh. Now THAT'S flooding...
You have never heard of the Lost City of Atlanta? (...)
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.
Maybe- if all other factors are removed like different carbon compounds being created from the rotting plants or animals and bugs doing what nature does and it ends up as different carbon compounds or trees not actually rotting and instead being used in buildings and such which is actually buried in a land fill (read sequestered) instead of pushed to the side of the road to rot when they are torn down and replaced. But hey, we don't need to worry about all that other stuff as long as the point can be made.
I think as CO2 concentration goes up this will cause more vigorous growth of plants, hence a net increase in sequestered CO2, so then plants acts as a sink.
If CO2 goes down, plant life will act as a source.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
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.
hmm. I thought part of the debate was, in particular, the extrapolation of data into areas where no thermometers exist that have been adjusted and tweaked to reach the magic data point. Or how about those thermometers that are being used to adjust data that are now located deep in urban heat islands? Or the ones being used to adjust data that have no records of calibration or maintenance records? Or the reliance on ship and buoy thermometers that are proven to be unreliable but sourced in to hit the "hottest year ever" data point? Or perhaps the satellite thermometers the left wants to ignore because that data does not match the political objetives?
Hitler had a lot of science too. He also did not allow dissenting opinion of his scientific consensus. He also pushed unsupported hypothesis as fact. He also purified his offices and purged anyone who did not adhere to his position and millions died. That is the team you are on there hero. The Nazi's Socialist Party Scientific Method lives!
If you can not accurately describe the global warming scientific criticism, you are just another partisan ideologue.
Growing plants are a sink.
That is a no brainer.
No need to post links.
Rotting plants emmit the exact same amount of CO2 they ate before. That is a no brainer, too.
So, what you wanted to say is beyond me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If your "criticism" of global warming science requires you to invoke Hitler, it's probably not me that's the partisan ideologue here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Trump is the Antichrist and worships Satan!
Nope, he only worships himself. Are you calling him Satan?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
If you raise the CO2 concentrations, total mass of plants will increase because of more vigorous growth. So there will be more CO2 stored in plant materials than before the increase in atmospheric CO2. There's your net sink.
Never mind the rotting, there's increased vegetation volume, or mass, or how you want to measure it, and that binds more CO2.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.