No Science Zone

[drrich2]

I can see why Ryan is concerned. From a linked article he provided:

"Michael Young, the USDA’s deputy administrator, wrote Tuesday that the gag order applies only to policy-related statements in press releases and interviews. He told the Washington Post that food safety announcements and peer-reviewed research papers are allowed.

The gag orders followed the weekend retweet by the National Park Service of pictures comparing President Trump’s inauguration unfavorably to President Barack Obama’s in 2009. The tweets were removed followed by a Park Service apology."

That, and some earlier content, suggests to me the Trump Administration basically decided the EPA should keep a low profile for awhile while the Administration got time to check into things & figure out what's what from their perspective. I would imagine the EPA prefers Democrats in power, so it stands to reason a substantial portion of their staff would disapprove of the Trump Administration, and since Trump may favor more 'build it at home' manufacturing in the U.S. and look for ways to ease regulation and make it more cost effective, the EPA may be at odds with him on some things.

Now, if the NPS tweeted something antagonizing Trump, that bit of provocation may have been unwise.

Richard.

P.S.: Climate change, to what extent, what the impacts are going to be, what the various contributing causes are, and what should/can be done about it is a big issue. Multifactorial. I suspect many people's views are at least somewhat nuanced on the subject.

 

[Storker]

I suspect many people's views are at least somewhat nuanced on the subject.

I "suspect" that the views of "many" of those who actually know stuff about climatology - like climate scientists - aren't particularly "nuanced". Just as most medical doctors aren't particularly "nuanced" about the link between smoking and lung cancer.

 

[tilikum]

There is very little nuance on climate change beliefs. It falls strictly along political party lines.

 

[drrich2]

My point about nuance is more to consider people's individual beliefs about...

1.) How much warming there's been relative to natural fluctuations? I see from a NASA page it's believed the rate has increased greatly in recent times due to green house gas production. People vary in how much change they think is 'nature being nature' and how much is human-induced.

2.) How much impact and when? Will we see problems inching forward until we decide 'Nope; can't let the Florida Keys sink, gonna have to back off,' or is it going to be one of those things where a domino effect rains great calamity down upon us before we react?

3.) What's to be done about it, and how much? A lot of production comes from developed nations. How many of you are willing to scale back to a pre-industrial agrarian-based or hunter-gatherer lifestyle? I used to hear about 'carbon credits,' which sounded like a way for governments to tax business and exert more control over our lives. Attitudes about Big Brother vary.

4.) So let's say you don't want bleached coral reefs and flooded coastal cities, but you also don't want to run around in a loin cloth tossing spears at deer? I don't see humanity giving up fossil fuel burning any time soon, and per one NASA page: "Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it." It also says: "Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is: what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come? Recycling and driving more fuel-efficient cars are examples of important behavioral change that will help, but they will not be enough. Because climate change is a truly global, complex problem with economic, social, political and moral ramifications, the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next."

So, what adaptations are acceptable? Do we in the United States make our own decisions, or let the United Nations dictate what we will do? While 'clean energy' and 'alternative forms of energy' get positive press, how economically/practical are they? Are you going to outlaw every car except hybrids? How viable is wind energy, solar energy, making fuel from corn, etc...?

There's room for a lot of nuance in all that. It doesn't all come down to climate change deniers vs. scientists (99% of whom would be in full agreement with each other...not!).

Richard.

P.S.: Mainstream Physicians aren't particularly nuanced that smoking increases risk of lung cancer, emphysema and other bad things, but they are in a range of health management issues - how much to 'push' exercise & healthy diet, limit salt intake, avoid risk factors, etc... I believe there are plenty of gun-owning cheeseburger eating french fry-salting chubby Physicians out there.

 

[JohnN]

My point about nuance is more to consider people's individual beliefs about...

1.) How much warming there's been relative to natural fluctuations? I see from a NASA page it's believed the rate has increased greatly in recent times due to green house gas production. People vary in how much change they think is 'nature being nature' and how much is human-induced.

2.) How much impact and when? Will we see problems inching forward until we decide 'Nope; can't let the Florida Keys sink, gonna have to back off,' or is it going to be one of those things where a domino effect rains great calamity down upon us before we react?

3.) What's to be done about it, and how much? A lot of production comes from developed nations. How many of you are willing to scale back to a pre-industrial agrarian-based or hunter-gatherer lifestyle? I used to hear about 'carbon credits,' which sounded like a way for governments to tax business and exert more control over our lives. Attitudes about Big Brother vary.

4.) So let's say you don't want bleached coral reefs and flooded coastal cities, but you also don't want to run around in a loin cloth tossing spears at deer? I don't see humanity giving up fossil fuel burning any time soon, and per one NASA page: "Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries. That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide – the predominant heat-trapping gas – lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it." It also says: "Responding to climate change will involve a two-tier approach: 1) “mitigation” – reducing the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and 2) “adaptation” – learning to live with, and adapt to, the climate change that has already been set in motion. The key question is: what will our emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants be in the years to come? Recycling and driving more fuel-efficient cars are examples of important behavioral change that will help, but they will not be enough. Because climate change is a truly global, complex problem with economic, social, political and moral ramifications, the solution will require both a globally-coordinated response (such as international policies and agreements between countries, a push to cleaner forms of energy) and local efforts on the city- and regional-level (for example, public transport upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, sustainable city planning, etc.). It’s up to us what happens next."

So, what adaptations are acceptable? Do we in the United States make our own decisions, or let the United Nations dictate what we will do? While 'clean energy' and 'alternative forms of energy' get positive press, how economically/practical are they? Are you going to outlaw every car except hybrids? How viable is wind energy, solar energy, making fuel from corn, etc...?

There's room for a lot of nuance in all that. It doesn't all come down to climate change deniers vs. scientists (99% of whom would be in full agreement with each other...not!).

Richard.

P.S.: Mainstream Physicians aren't particularly nuanced that smoking increases risk of lung cancer, emphysema and other bad things, but they are in a range of health management issues - how much to 'push' exercise & healthy diet, limit salt intake, avoid risk factors, etc... I believe there are plenty of gun-owning cheeseburger eating french fry-salting chubby Physicians out there.

Absolutely Richard, dealing with climate change is hard. That's probably why the current administration resorts to sound bites and a full-scale retreat from funding the science to continue to research it. Remember the dis-HONEST act?

Damn, I'm happy that Medicine is easy. If something is hard, it shouldn't even be attempted

 

[drrich2]

Because it is hard, I think it's reasonable to demand to see the data backing conclusions, which is what the scientific community generally expects. We see that in Medicine; someone publishes a study suggesting X med. has Y beneficial effect. Some may challenge the research methodology or conclusions, or another study may provide evidence refuting the findings. There's not a lot of 'Trust us, we know what's best.'

Richard.

 

[JohnN]

Because it is hard, I think it's reasonable to demand to see the data backing conclusions, which is what the scientific community generally expects. We see that in Medicine; someone publishes a study suggesting X med. has Y beneficial effect. Some may challenge the research methodology or conclusions, or another study may provide evidence refuting the findings. There's not a lot of 'Trust us, we know what's best.'

Richard.

And you continue to have a myopic vision of the dis-HONEST bill. So to use your example, someone publishes a long term (lets say 10 year) study suggesting X has Y effect. The dis-HONEST act would require that study to be reproducible before it could be used. Want to explain how that is in the public's best interest?

 

[drrich2]

Two issues there; research that is going to drive far-reaching, long-lasting public policy and involves data-driven scientific research probably ought to be reproducible. Results won't perfectly coincide, but ought to be reasonably consistent. Sometimes new research overturns or modifies old conclusions.

Reproducible doesn't necessarily mean every single study will be done twice. The manner in which this will all play out remains to be seen. There are still 2 major parties, not counting independents, not a monarchy. There will be a number of voices brought to bear on what happens.

Richard.

 

[tilikum]

And the republicans are largely anti environment.

 

[drrich2]

Republicans are often viewed as anti-environment, Democrats as anti-business, and yet somehow we're going to need a working economy that employs people on a habitable planet. Each side challenges the other and is skeptical of it.

Richard.